Native Americans had open immigration

And look at where it got them...

 

So, you're telling me there's full employment of US Citizens?

 

Also, mix economic groups so that low income workers live in areas, or have easy access, to places where the jobs are.

Here’s When You Can Actually Lose U.S. Citizenship: Denaturalization Explained

OK, this person makes it very clear about how this process works. I mentioned Danelo Cavalcante in the previous post. He was a murderer who came to the US illegally.

And he killed someone in the US.

To be quite honest, if someone doesn't want to follow the law to become a citizen, then they shouldn't be in the country.

Unless, you want some serious criminals, like Cavalcante, living here.

The US has enough problems it doesn't need to import more.

Canadian Prime Minister talks about immigration

 I have to admit that I think the left should be more inclined toward strong immigration laws, unless of course they want to bankrupt the nation. Or have taxation problems like California.

International law only guarantees a right of entry and exit into a nation for citizens. It's a privilege for everyone else. And it's a good idea to have some sort of background check for citizenship.

Unless you want things like the manhunt for Danelo Cavalcante to become a frequent event. That cost Pennsylvania taxpayers between $3.4 million and $3.5 million. Which only went mostly for overtime and was in addition to normal operating costs and didn't include the help from outside agencies. 

Sure, it's fun to laugh at Trump and others who talk about unlawfully present criminal aliens, but it's a different thing when you have to actually deal with the problem.

Emma Lazarus's poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty is not an official policy. In fact, that belief is something I am sure Fox News hosts would have a field day with.

It's nice listening to other voices like the Canadian PM. And knowing what it takes to live and work in Canada (my cousin did it), I would like to see the US protecting its citizens and not the unlawfully present and paying foreigners less than citizens when there isn't full employment for US citizens. 

How US Agriculture Built the ICE Crisis

People need to realise that getting unlawfully present people to do the work is not the answer to immigration. Would people on the left support slavery?

Supreme Court Can’t Hear Case Because Majority Had To Be Recused

People are upset about the mention of "court packing", but the founders didn't put judicial review into the Constitution. Toss in that the Supreme Court didn't have ethics rules until 2023!

And when they did adopt ethics rules (from NPR):

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday adopted its first-ever ethics code, bowing to pressure from Congress and the public. All nine justices signed onto the new code, which was instantly criticized for lack of an enforcement mechanism.

In an unsigned statement, the justices said though there has been no formal code, they have long abided by certain standards.

"The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules," they wrote. "To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct."

Public trust in the court has fallen amid revelations that Justice Clarence Thomas received gifts and travel from Harlan Crow, a Republican donor. Justice Samuel Alito has also been criticized for failing to disclose a fishing trip with Paul Singer, a big Republican donor with cases before the Supreme Court.

This gets better

With the release of the code Monday, the court is trying to be somewhat specific about what justices can and cannot do. But, there is a lot they can do and no enforcement mechanism as to what they are supposed not to do.

For example, the code is quite specific about financial transactions: Justices can make a real estate transaction, as long as it's not before the court. But the code simply reaffirms the commitment to the disclosure provisions that are in the existing code for all federal judges.

The code is also specific about recusal if family members, such as spouses, children or grandchildren, have a case before the court or is a lawyer before the court.

But the code also makes exceptions for justices that may not apply to lower court judges. For instance, a justice doesn't have to recuse if his or her relative files a friend of the court brief because the court receives so many of these briefs, sometimes over 100 in a single case, and it has loosened the rules on these briefs being filed.

In recent months, critics have raised concerns about Justice Thomas' wife, Virginia Thomas, and her activities to promote political causes that end up before the court. The code says that if a spouse or child living with the justice has a substantial interest in the outcome of a case — financial or any other interest — the justice is supposed to recuse. That would have meant, for example, that Justice Thomas would have to recuse in cases in which his wife has played a major role. Last year, Thomas did not recuse, and was the sole dissenter, in a case about whether former President Trump's White House records had to be turned over to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, despite Ginni Thomas' texts to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows urging him to take steps to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

 I'm sorry, but I have not had respect for the US Supreme Court for a long time. Serious ethics rules would be a start.

Trump has found Gödel's Loophole in the US Constitution which allows the US to become a dictatorship.

Kurt Gödel was an Austrian-American logician, mathematician, and analytic philosopher. He was born in Austria and emmigrated to the United States

When Gödel was studying to take his American citizenship test in 1947, he came across what he called an "inner contradiction" in the U.S. Constitution. At the time, he was at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, where he was good friends with Albert Einstein and Oskar Morgenstern. Gödel told Morgenstern about the flaw in the constitution, which, he said, would allow the U.S. to legally become a fascist state. Morgenstern tried to convince Gödel that this was very unlikely, but Gödel remained very concerned about it. He was an Austrian by birth and, having lived through the 1933 coup d'état and escaped from Nazi Germany after the Anschluss, had reason to be concerned about living in a fascist dictatorship. Morgenstern had secret discussions with Gödel about his concerns and told Einstein about them.

Since the exact nature of Gödel's Loophole has never been published, what it is, precisely, is not known. In his 2012 paper "Gödel's Loophole" F. E. Guerra-Pujol speculates that the problem involves Article V, which describes the process by which the Constitution can be amended. The loophole is that Article V's procedures can be applied to Article V itself. It can therefore be altered in a "downward" direction, making it easier to alter the article again in the future. So even if, as is now the case, amending the Constitution is difficult to bring about, once Article V is downwardly amended, the next attempt to do so will be easier, and the one after that easier still.  Other writers have speculated that Gödel may have had other aspects of the Constitution in mind as well, including the abuse of gerrymandering, prorogation of Congress, the Electoral College, and the presidential pardon.

In any case, the Gödel story is at least plausible. He spent a great deal of time thinking about systems of rules (axiom systems in mathematics), and looking for their limits and what such systems can say about themselves.

It should come as no surprise that when encouraged to look at the US constitution (which is, after all, just a set of rules), Gödel was enthusiastic and his thoughts turned immediately to what the system said about itself – and its limitations. It should also come as no surprise then that when he looked, he found some.

So, maybe the loophole isn't what is written in the US Constitution, but is something which has come about through tradition?  Although, I have come to realise the US Constitution is basically poorly written bumpf. A piece of shit written by a committee. Which is why he couldn't put his finger on one thing. Since as the speculation has pointed out, there are more than enough problems with it.

But Donald Trump pushed the envelope with his attack on birthright citizenship. Which is something I agree about and there is a simple solution which requires an amendment to the Constitution that at least one parent needs to have some legal connection to the United States (Ireland uses this). But instead of following tradition and protocol, Trump has chosen to use the nuclear option.

He's challenging the Supreme Court and its power.

So much for checks and balances.

So, I am going to quote myself on the biggest problem, which is one which custom has allowed to stand.

In fact, those decisions (Supreme Court decisions on the Second Amendment) should be laughed at. And any academic or practising lawyer who is shit for brains enough to give them the slightest credence should be barred from the practise of law since they ignore a fundamental basis of US Constitutional law.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

It's one of the first cases any constitutional law class covers, which is why anyone who gives Heller and McDonald a shred of legitimacy should be barred from the practise of law. Why? First off.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and some government actions that contravene the U.S. Constitution.

Judicial review for constitutionality is not a power granted by the US Constitution: it comes from this case.

More importantly it centred around a clause in the US Constitution (hint, hint, for those shit for brains who want to call themselves "Constitutional Scholars").

My question when Heller came down was how does the system handle an out of control Judiciary? The obvious answer is that it defers to tradition. On the other hand, Trump is pointing out that the emperor is naked. Does the Supreme Court, or the Judiciary, have any real power to enforce its decisions? 

So, maybe the reason Gödel didn't tell anyone what this loophole happened to be was because it is that the entire constitution is a house of cards. Gödel could see this since English wasn't his first language and he was a logician. The loophole isn't something which is written into the constitution, it is something which was attributed to the constitution.

And as I have pointed out, proper legal method requires that something needs to be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution for it to be constitutional. Gödel's loophole is the deference given to concepts which are not explicitly written into the Constitution. Assumptions made by the founders which can be exploited by those with malicious intent. And the fact that language changes meaning.

The Second Amendment was the perfect example of this.

So, two people whose mother tongue is not English can agree on this. It's not what is written, it is what ISN'T written. Or is subject to misinterpretation.

Scalia was very wrong when he said: "Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

That is precisely what he needed to do before he set in motion the destruction of the United States.

And the "scholars", politicians, and lawyers who allowed this should resign their positions for someone who is competent.

The US is too soft on unlawfully present people

 The less politically correct term is illegal immigrant, but the issue is their immigration status. One of the reasons for the laxness is that it is not a crime to be unlawfully present in the US, which it is in most other countries.

Anyway, this video is someone trying to get into Canada to work without proper authorisation.

I support stronger immigration controls since there definitely needs to be some sort of background check performed on people who want to come here. But it shouldn't be difficult for those who want to do it legally.

If no person is illegal...

Does this mean that you believe that slaves should legal?

After all, slaves are people.

But the issue isn't the person, but their status. Whether it is a slave or an unlawfully present person.

Yes, the person isn't "illegal", but their presence in the country is not legal. 

The right to enter one’s country, to stay in a country which one has legally entered, and to leave any country including one’s own, have been perceived as basic since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948. When individuals claim human rights relating to freedom of movement, they are referring to the same facts and situations that states are concerned with when they assert jurisdiction over their own nationals and over resident aliens. The international law of jurisdiction is the means by which states allocate competence, between themselves, for the prescription and application of authority over events inside and outside their national boundaries.

The only people who have a right to come and go freely into a country are the citizens of that country. It's discretionary otherwise.

And people who haven't complied with the law are not lawfully present in the country.

I don't think it's the best idea to allow people who are not willing to comply with immigration laws to become citizens.

Let's stop playing games with Immigration and get serious about it.

No background check--No...

Permission to remain in the United States. While I support being able to move to other countries and live in them, I understand the reasons why there are requirements for non-citizens to go through a process for long term residency, or even have a visa for a tourist visit.

I bet that surprised you.  

On the other hand, it shouldn't since international law only gives a free right to enter and exit a nation of the citizens of that nation. It's a privilege for anyone else. Although that can be interesting in other countries since I should technically qualify for Polish citizenship. I probably could have gotten it had I applied after the Iron Curtain dropped, but Brexit created a real run on people applying for EU Citizenship using extenuated circumstances. Toss in the War in Ukraine for good measure. I could get into citizenship by ancestry, but I do not have a heritage in either Ireland or Italy (post unification). Germany sucks for that one since, unlike Italy, it only passes through the father (I guess it really is the Fatherland...).

Anyway, we are seeing poor enforcement of the laws on the books and the effects of crappy laws with crappy enforcement.

Sort of like another issue.

Can't stop thinking about reparations

Let's start with:

A 2016 Marist poll found 58% of black Americans were in favour of reparations, while 81% of white Americans opposed the idea. A 2018 Data for Progress survey also found reparations to be unpopular among the general public, and especially so among white Americans.

Being opposed to a cash payout reparations tends to push the number up even higher.

Bayard Rustin, who organised the March on Washington and was a friend of Martin Luther King Jr, called reparations a "ridiculous idea".Mr Rustin told the New York Times in 1969, "If my great-grandfather picked cotton for 50 years, then he may deserve some money, but he's dead and gone and nobody owes me anything".He later expanded on the views, writing that a payout would demean "the integrity of blacks" and exploit white guilt.

The issue here being time at least five generations of US blacks have been free (i.e. were slaves). Sure we can talk about the discrimination in the South, but what do you do with a Kay Coles James or a Madam C.J. Walker? The name Pat McGrath came up during this search.

You don't need a white person to debate this issue since I know that blacks have opinions on the topics, but Ta-Nehisi Coates found a great topic to grab some attention. Unfortunately most of the talk is divided by race. It would be nice if some conservative blacks weighed in on the topic.

Coates mentioned debt, which is one thing which started me thinking about this topic. The Western Countries wrote off Africa's debt back in 2005, but the countries are now worse than they were BEFORE the write offs. While the reasons are different, the bottom line is the same:

Unless something is changed the debt will return worse than before. 

In other words, people can throw as much money as they want at a problem, but fuck all will happen unless the underlying causes are addressed.

On problem with the US is the myth of abundance, in particular and abundance of land so that rich people can move out of the cities. That means the cities are left to decay (I blame most of Detroit, Flint, and Saginaw's problems on the industry the built those cities: the automobile).

Mr. Coates needs to integrate himself since there are poor whites living in those places. Of familiarise himself with Fred Hampton who understood the issue 50 years ago.

I wouldn't say that whites are better off economically by looking at a graph. I am no where near a Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, or other 1% than Ta-Nehisi Coates is to Pat McGrath. And Pat McGrath still doesn't raise the income of poor blacks. On the other hand, those people skew the numbers when you look at averages. The average white person in Appalachia is in no way affluent.


There's a lesson in here somewhere, but I think that reparations will fail when it comes down to it.  it's something that sounds intriguing, but is doomed to failure if anyone tries to implement it.

A guess on why Slavery, Indentured Servitude, and Transportation aren't properly discussed in the US

It makes people uncomfortable to think that someone's ancestors didn't come to the US willingly. Slavery, indentured servitude, and transportation run against the narrative of people coming here for the "American Dream". Unless you mean the American Dream of someone else who receives cheap labour.

The US is far too in love with its national myth of opportunity and unlimited resources. The narrative runs that people come to the United States because they can work hard and enjoy the benefits. The reality has been that people work hard and someone else gets the benefits.

Tell someone who wants to know your ancestors immigration story that they came over in chains as a slave and they get all uncomfortable.

And Transportation is something no one is willing to talk about, but I would scream out my convict heritage like an Aussie boasts about being an ancestor of the first fleet if I found out one was in my family tree. But people also get really uncomfortable when they find out that a lot of pre-Independence immigrants were felons.

Bottom line is that unwilling immigrants aren't what people want to hear about.

Slavery, Indentured Servitude, Transportation, and reparations

There is a reason why the topics of slavery, indentured servitude, and transportation are neglected: because one of the United States' many myths is the myth of the immigrant coming because of the American promise. People arriving against their will goes against that myth. Someone boasts how their ancestors came for the opportunities found in the US has to deal with the fact that segments of the population arrived against their will.

Slave ships and auctions are the antithesis of Ellis Island, which is probably another myth as well.

But slavery, or people as commercial objects, is an integral part of US immigration law. The US has jus soli because of slavery and Dred Scott. The Fourteenth Amendment was a result of slavery. It haunts immigration policy because anyone born in the US is automatically a citizen: no matter whether their parents were lawfully present in the country.

There is the indignation by some people about children being placed in "cages", yet those are the holding cells used by the police in the US.  Now, how would those people feel about people who arrived in this country chained together?

I am not going to get into a debate about people who are lawfully present or not, but treating migrant workers as property for the benefit of others leads to terrible consequences. Sure, there should be a process to allow workers into the country if there happens to be a lack of workers: but is there no unemployment in the US?

Bottom line, the US has a love of exploiting workers, which is a big part of the discussion. And that fact is highly uncomfortable.

See also:

• Why Schools Fail To Teach Slavery's 'Hard History'
• Indentured Servants: Stafford Hall
• Mary Sarah Bilder, Struggle over Immigration: Indentured Servants, Slaves, and Articles of Commerce, The, 61 Mo. L. Rev. (1996) Available at: http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol61/iss4/1 
• America Cannot Bear to Bring Back Indentured Servitude

American English: Racist?

One thing that makes a nation is a common heritage and culture, which is often shown by a common language. After all, communicating is what language is all about. And people can't communicate if they are speaking different languages. Quite a few countries require prospective immigrants to demonstrate proficiency with their language: Canada and France come to mind.

Map of US official language status by state before 2016. Blue: English declared the official language; light-blue: 2 official languages, including English; gray: no official language specified

While English is not an actual official language, there are some who consider it the de facto national language. It is the sole, but unofficial, language of the federal government. the United States federal government has recognized no official language, even though nearly all federal, state and local government business is conducted in English

There have been attempts to make English the official language of the US with the first major one being in 1923 with a bill drafted by Congressman Washington J. McCormick. The U.S. House of Representatives passed English as the official language in 1996, but the Senate did not act on the measure before the conclusion of the 104th Congress. English is the official language of 32 states as of 2019.

Proponents of this movement include US Senator S.I. Hayakawa and Mauro E. Mujica, who is a naturalized citizen, Mujica was born in Antofagasta, Chile, and moved to the United States in 1964. Is someone who speaks multiple languages who berates someone for speaking Spanish really racist or just pointing out that it's rude to speak another language (e.g, Aaron Schlossberg).  Could he have made his point in another way.

Contrary to what is often believed, most of the world's population is bilingual or multilingual. Monolingualism is characteristic only of a minority of the world's peoples. On the other hand, it makes more sense to speak the common language instead of another language (Disclosure: I speak English, French, and German)

Would it take the US making English the official language to end this debate, especially since currently it seems that people who are "Trump supporters" are being accused of the being the crowd who support speaking English.

On the other hand, having a common language would be a factor in a national identity.

Windrush the Musical

I've written about Big Life before, but now that Windrush is in the news I have to talk about it in the hope someone sees this and decides to produce it.You can hear the play here at the BBC. The script is available it's ISBN 978-1840024418.

I never saw this on stage, but there is an archived version of the radio production of the musical. It combines Shakespeare's Love's Labours Lost with the story of the Windrush immigrants, which is now something in the news. I heard that this was a popular musical, yet it didn't have the long run of something by Cameron Mackintosh or Andrew Lloyd Weber. Maybe because it's about Windrush.

It opened in 2004 at the Theatre Royal Stratford East and then moved to West End's Apollo Theatre in 2005.
Anyway, I hope someone sees this copy of the script (the book is a copy of the script) and decides to publicise this play. It is a play which should have had more exposure. I think it really needs the exposure now that Windrush is in the news.

What about the parents?

DACA is Deferred Action for CHILDHOOD Arrivals, which makes me wonder what about the parents?

Seriously.

First off, the parents of these kids are the ones responsible for the kids' lack of proper immigration status, but more importantly what is the status of the parents?  I think it might be safe to assume that the parents are also unlawfully present in the US.

Let's toss in that these caring parents have chosen a path which could lead to the children being deported and barred for anywhere from five, ten, or 20 years, and in some cases, ever being able to return to the U.S. at all. Not to mention that is could mean NEVER becoming a US citizen.

Why isn't that being discussed?

So, we are supposed to feel sorry for these poor children who came here unlawfully because mommy and daddy weren't willing to obey the rules.  The kiddies are being snatched from a nation where they don't have a legal right to be (immigration is a privilege, not a right).

And families are being broken apart.

What?????

But if the parents are being deported, shouldn't the children as well?

Anyway, I would rather have someone like Abdi Iftin or a few hundred thousand Rohinga Muslims who are willing to follow the rules enter the country than allow someone who should be barred from citizenship according to US law to be fast tracked into citizenship,

So long, and thanks for all the money.

OK, I knew that one of the anti-DACA talking points was BS: that unlawfully present people do not pay taxes.

They do using something called an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN). The ITIN is a tax processing number issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to ensure that people, including unauthorized immigrants, pay taxes even if they do not have a Social Security number and regardless of their immigration status.

The ITIN doesn't grant any sort of immigration status, but many immigrants have them. 

The ITIN is a nine-digit number that always begins with the number 9 and has a 7 or 8 in the fourth digit, for example 9XX-7X-XXXX. It seems to be it would be obvious if someone is trying to work without proper authorisation to the immigration authorities doing a record check.

A lot of countries levy a fine against people who are unlawfully present.  Any funds paid should be considered a penalty for failing to properly comply with immigration status.

So long, and thanks for all the money.

 See also:
 The Facts About the Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN)

More DACA Bullshit.

As I said in my last post, I am not anti-Immigrant and I believe in free movement, but one needs to follow the rules. I don't give a shit where the unlawfully present immigrant comes from--they are not present with legal authorisation, they should expect the consequences.

Next. The rule of law means that the law applies to EVERYBODY EQUALLY.  Somebody breaks the law, they should expect the consequences.

Secondly, unless you are a citizen: entering and exiting a nation is not a right, it is a privilege.

The admission of aliens to this country is not a right, but a privilege, which is granted only upon such terms as the United States prescribes.  338 U. S. 542.

I don't get where the fuck people who are not US nationals (or the nationals of any other country) think they somehow they have a right to be in a country where they are not citizens.  The BREXIT thing is showing that the right to free movement can be lost by non-citizens who had a right to free movement.

So, I really don't get people who are unlawfully present somehow believing they have an entitlement to remain in a nation.  Pretty much all the nations in the world will deport: some impose criminal penalties before deportation.

And don't get me into the Palestinian situation (short form: I think people should STFU about supporting US illegals until they step up to the plate and support Palestinian right of return).

So, unless you are a citizen of a country--don't expect to have a right to reside in that country.

The US has been pretty nice to its unlawfully present aliens, but it looks as if the undocumented are now getting a nasty surprise. 

The dream was actually a nightmare.

I don't get DACA and its supporters.

OK, lets start with the silly "people can't be illegal" argument.

It's not the people who are "illegal"--it's their lack of proper immigration status (i.e., tourist, resident alien, or what I am going to call "citizen candidate") that is illegal.

Sorry, I am all for immigration and free movement, but fuck you if you aren't going to live by the rules.  You took your chances, you live with the consequences.

Some illegals pay people smugglers as much if not way more than they would pay a good immigration lawyer. Really fuck them. And I say that for a lot of reasons. The people smugglers are serious criminals.

There are more than enough people out there who are willing to follow the rules, no matter how difficult, to immigrate that I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who want to bypass the system.  As I said above, You took your chances, you live with the consequences.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) doesn't grant any real immigration status, it just defers the deportation status.  These people could be, and now are, being threatened with, or possibly, deported.

The worst part about DACA is that children are being used as pawn in the debate. One trick in propaganda is to use emotions. And what tugs on your heartstrings more than some poor little kiddie whose parents brought him to another country in violation of the law, but has somehow assimilated enough so that returning to their native land would be a "hardship".

They have gone on to:

"Did you know this about DACA recipients: 95% are working, in college or have joined our military, 48% got a job with better working conditions, 90% got a driver’s license or state ID and 12% were even able to buy a first home."

"Joined our military"--that sends bells ringing in my head since the US Military is SUPPOSED to check immigration status--and DACA recipients AREN'T US CITIZENS, they aren't even on a path to citizenship!

I know of at least one case where a woman "self-deported" because she couldn't get federal college funds.

Something stinks about all the pro-DACA reporting, but I can't really put my finger on it.  I think Breitbart did, but unfortunately they are considered unreliable.  I would need some sort of unbiased verification of that story to really cite to it.  My personal inclination is to think Breitbart is onto something.

The problem is that this seems to be a big smoke screen to me for a lot of other things related to immigration policy.  The usual hard questions where the debate is being done in the dark because people are being lied to.

See also
Open Borders: Human Smuggling Fees.
DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) - Immigration Equality
Raised in America, now back in Mexico: 'The country I loved kicked me out'
Billionaires Petition for Cheaper Workers, DACA Amnesty - Breitbart

Trump's Latest Actions that Makes Us Less Safe

There are so many ways in which not-my-president Rump is failing in his duties to the nation and to the Constitution, that it is hard to pick one, or to track the most recent.

As an aside, but interesting context to viewing the Rump Circus that is currently caricaturing actual governance, I have been reading an old Tom Clancy piece of fiction, Red Rabbit, from 2002.  Clancy has as a leitmotiv for his recurring hero, Jack Ryan, the line "wars are started by frightened men".  One could easily tweak that to read unreasonably fearful men, since it is my long held contention that conned-servatives are poor assessors of objective risk, and that they fear the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

A pair of bad actions that deserve our attention is both Rump's commitment to turn the United States into a Christian Theocracy, voiced at the recent Prayer Breakfast, which was also attended by former President Obama, and his alienation of yet another ally in his recent call to the Prime Minister of Australia. 

Both actions can reasonably be expected to make us less safe and to further agitate and empower our enemies.

As noted by Vox, which I find to be an excellent independent news source with consistent high quality analysis, Australia, like the UK and Canada, has been one of our staunchest allies, over more than 100 years.  Rump appears to have antagonized and offended PM Turnbull.

From Vox;

On his 13th day in office, President Donald Trump threatened to break an international agreement. On Twitter.

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump

Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!

7:55 PM - 1 Feb 2017

• 36,530 36,530 Retweets
• 143,101

The tweet appeared to confirm a report from the Washington Post that the president, in his call with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull Sunday, had berated Turnbull about an agreement made with the Obama administration — in which hundreds of refugees being held offshore in Australian detention centers are being screened for admission to the US.
The executive order Trump signed on Friday banned nearly all refugee admissions to the US for four months — but with a loophole to allow refugees to be resettled per a “preexisting international agreement.” White House press secretary Sean Spicer and the US Embassy in Australia have both explicitly promised, since the executive order was signed, that the Trump administration would honor the deal. “The president, in accordance with that deal, to honor what had been agreed upon by the United States government … will go forward,” Spicer told journalists Tuesday.
That may be news to Trump.

The president and his press secretary also appear to differ on the scope of the deal; Spicer said the US would take 1,250 refugees, which appears to refer to the number currently in offshore detention centers (not all of whom are guaranteed to pass through screening); Trump’s call with Turnbull referred to 2,000, which could be a reference to the fact that the US is also screening hundreds of refugees receiving medical care in Australia (or could just be wrong).

Taken together, it’s clear that the best-case scenario is that the new president dislikes a deal he also doesn’t understand. The worst-case scenario is that he will break it.

It is not rocket science to recognize that breaking a deal with one of our closest allies is bad. It is not rocket science that the temporary President - I can't believe he will last a full term - should not be making calls like this to a foreign leader, EITHER an ally or otherwise.  This idiot, this buffoon, clearly has no idea what he is doing or the harm that it can cause. Antagonizing our allies does not make us safer, anywhere, ever.

And it is not rocket science to recognize that promoting what is clearly Christianity influenced government to the exclusion of other faiths or no faith, as Rump did at the recent prayer breakfast, is an invitation to a further religious war with Muslim extremists, as well as alienating to our Muslim allies in Africa and Asia.

Rump personifies the insanity that we saw previously with popsie candidate Sarah Palin, the notion that people do not need to know anything to serve in any branch of government at the highest levels.

They are wrong, and now we get to see how dead wrong, as in what the death count will eventually be, because make no mistake, people will die because of this faulty poor excuse for thinking, and for this failed ideology.

Those who voted for Rump will have a great deal to answer for in the near and middle future.  The blame for this, the guilt for this is squarely theirs and theirs alone.