Tuesday, June 19, 2018

A New "Space Force"? One Of The Dumbest Ideas Since Reagan's "Star Wars" - But NOT Dotard's

Image result for Space force cartoons

So now our Space Boy, traitor tyrant - who loves to rip kids from parents - is all frothy at the mouth over a "Space Force"...  Before anyone loses his or her equilibrium let's reference this isn't Captain Bonespur's  original idea - but hatched some years ago by my feckless Colorado congress critter, Doug Lamborn 
Doug Lamborn (R).
 Lamborn is easily the most craven, useless POS to ever grab power in our state.   Some  may recall that back in 2014 this walking turd wanted to slice Medicaid and food stamps for poor kids in order to feather the nest of the Pentagon and for expansion of already extensive military bases etc. near Colorado Springs.  Most recently, the miscreant mutt was almost eliminated from the GOP primary because of flouting Colorado law. To wit, a candidate may get his name on a primary ballot if he manages to get at least 1,000 signatures from likely voters- but these must be residents.

Problem was that Lame brain used a lot of out- of -state folks to garner signatures.  A legal case was brought, lawsuit filed, and the Colorado Supreme Court agreed, kicking him off the ballot. However, the slimy little douche took his case to federal court (which we know is stacked with Trumpie appointees) and argued that the residency rule for signature gatherers in Colorado was unconstitutional and "violated" his free speech. The federal judge (Philip Brimmer) agreed and tossed the case out so we're saddled with this shit head again.

Why the hostility? Because Lamborn is a  punk and a pawn of the military industrial complex and values his own re-election over any concerns of citizens in his district. I have written him no less than six times over different issues the past 4 years and received not one reply. Being "too busy" doesn't cut it because the little ratfucker doesn't do any work anyway. At least nothing anyone can see, other than pandering to his special interests to keep paying his freight.

Anyway, the whole Space Force idea was originally Lamborn's, hatched in order to grab more money in campaign contributions-  from defense contractors who only saw huge dollar signs,  with $$$$ pouring in at taxpayer's expense.

For reference, the knuckle dragger GOP House previously approved the creation of a "Space Corps"inside the Air Force. Trump's alleged novel brain fart yesterday at a meeting of the National Space Council  (WSJ, 'Trump Calls For A Space Force', today, p. A3) is merely a regurgitation of Lamborn's - though he also called it a "Space Corps".  At the time reported  (Denver Post, May 14) he insisted "I don't care what we call it, or what it looks like as long s we make space the priority in the Department of Defense that it deserves to be".

What's really behind this bull crap? Well, the old term - which I still prefer - is "pork barrel spending". In other words, the little scum ball just sees an opportunity for more defense spending — especially for his home state’s economy  and specifically here in the Springs.  In other words, like most current defense projects - it is all a matter of herding jobs and money to the state.

So we are on the same plane of reality here, let's note this another one of those "bad ideas" exposed by Matt Miller in his book The Tyranny of Bad Ideas.  I.e. god awful, already proven disasters like trickle down tax cuts that keep coming back like bad pennies....or zombies.  In this case, no matter what Dotard claims about  being "a matter of national security', this is simply Reagan's Star Wars boondoggle in a new guise.

Recall Star Wars, or the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), was never proven workable or even remotely feasible.  It depended upon incorporating space-based interceptors as well as powerful lasers mounted on satellites to take down Soviet ICBMs.   The  most devastating exposure of the missile defense con appeared in the May, 1987 issue of Physics Today and was entitled "APS Directed Energy Weapons Study (Executive Summary)".   Versions of it  subsequently appeared in other journals, including the Reviews Of Modern Physics, e.g.


The study basically took apart the SDI  piece by piece  with no fewer than 26 major  deficiencies identified on everything from the weaknesses of the proposed lasers to shoot down the incoming missiles (too weak by several orders of magnitude) to the problem of identifying the targets "at sub-micro-radian resolution"  in the boost phase  to "lack of precision tracking via active sensor systems" and the ease with which any missile  interceptor design can easily be thwarted, say by use of dispersal of million of reflecting, metallic decoys. 

There is absolutely NO assurance, zero,  that anything different will be achieved with this Space Force codswallop. Indeed as reported (WSJ. ibid.):  "The move by Trump was  despite strong objections by senior civilian and uniformed military leaders."   

The piece also went on to note "the step apparently took even some of Mr. Trump's staunchest congressional supporters by surprise."   This, of course, is simply another reason to clean house and expunge all these GOP rats by November. The best way to do that? Let the Dems' political ad makers incorporate the just released audio of the crying kids (at the assorted border detention centers) into each ad released in the fall - so voters don't forget the perfidy going on now.   

In the meantime, those of us who can, need to  keep exposing this "Space Force'" jive  for the bollocks it is.   As well as dangerous bollocks, given even the militarization of space as a febrile ideation is not something we want to entertain.  Especially from the likes of Doug Lamborn and Captain Bonespurs!

Drone Makers: "What's A Little Risk For A Jumbo Jet Getting A Drone Into An Engine?"

To read the evident caterwauling of the drone makers and their delirious aficionados ('Drone Makers Fight Back Against Rules,  WSJ,  June 12, p. B5) one would think there's absolutely no big deal in terms of the risk the little mechanical beasties pose to planes.  Indeed, it now appears, the drone maker lobbies have even gotten to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to carry their  PR 'water' for them.  This is in a new report which takes the FAA to task  for its "near zero tolerance for risk involving airlines".  That is, with potential for collision with small drones flying at low altitudes near airports.   (The report insists most small drones fly away from airports, but the existing stats refute that).

A  Denver Post, piece: 'Drone Close Calls'(June 25th, 2014,  p. 17A)   referenced dozens of perilous close calls, e.g.(p. 22A):

"The close calls were the latest in a rash of dangerous encounters between civilian aircraft and drones flown in contravention of FAA rules intended to safeguard U.S. airspace.."

The accumulating incidents (which btw,  have continued)  so spooked one commercial pilot (Greg Cromer) that he actually wrote a letter to the FAA opposing the whole insane idea of opening U.S. airspace to these pestiferous interlopers, writing (ibid.):

 "I can see no way to prevent a collision with something that could be as small as a bird or a plane or kitchen appliance."

Even then, Michael Kratsios - the  then White House deputy chief technology adviser- bloviated to a federal- industry drone conference:

"The U.S. cannot allow the promise of tomorrow to be hamstrung by the bureaucracy of the past"

Oh, righto, the "promise" of catastrophic new commercial jet crashes. Forgetting or ignoring that part of that "bureaucracy" - ensconced in the FAA - has also been to ensure the safety of the flying public.

So now the 'chickens' of disputed risk are coming back to roost with ever increasing pressure for the FAA to give in, and then - when the first big drone- airliner collision results in hundreds killed- there will be the usual bullshit response, "Well, we never knew that could occur!"

But as with the case of mass shooting massacres (like in Vegas and Parkland) - which often surpass terror attacks in death tolls, we seem to pick and choose which modes of loss of life are acceptable (say for the sake of profits) and which aren't.  In the case of mass shootings using AR-15s or a possible drone-airline collision,  it is the profits of gun and drone makers that need protection. In the case of the standard 'Muslim radical" attack that takes lives, we're all hands on deck and man the barricades and everything else.  After all, it's just a brown guy (usually) with a bomb or rifle that needs taking down, so ...no big loss. Right?

The recent report is also at odds with an earlier report released June 5, 2014  by the National Academy of Sciences, which concluded that "there were serious unanswered questions” about how to safely integrate civilian drones into the national airspace, calling it a “critical, crosscutting challenge." 

In addition, a NASA report from the same year notes:  "the NASA database confirms that dangerous brushes between drones and passenger aircraft are more common than the FAA acknowledges." According to the database, there were 50 incidents from 2005- 2014.  That number of incidents has quadrupled since, including potential disasters.   Meanwhile, drone sightings alone by pilots have increased ten times over since 2005. 

All of this shows the risks are real and not to be minimized by greedy lobbyists,  cockeyed hobbyists, poltroons, or bought- out agencies.    Nevertheless, the ongoing efforts in many venues is to do just that including one hub of  academic minimizers at a site called 'The Conversation' who blabbed:

"The FAA has raised the alarm about drones in the airspace, and now receives over 100 reports of unmanned aircraft flying near other manned aircraft or airports per month. However, as the Academy of Model Aeronautics has noted, many of these sightings do not reflect any danger to passengers. Analyzing 921 reported incidents, a study at Bard College found that in only 158 of them did a drone come within 200 feet of a manned aircraft. In only 28 incidents did pilots even decide to take evasive action."

Well, excuse me, Ivory tower Sparkies - but within 200' qualifies as a near collision!   And "only 28 instances of evasive action" could have been 28 collisions had such action not been taken!  Also it is foolish to compare a bird strike to a drone colliding with an engine. A bird is mostly feathers and with no hard, mechanical parts. While such strikes can indeed be nasty - as Capt. Sully Sullenberger learned, they need not be deadly like a hard metal contraption sucked into a jet engine would be!

This same sort of inane, deranged thinking - driven by greed and expedient myopia- was reflected in a remark by George Ligler, chairman of the committee that drafted the latest document (ibid.):

"We do not ground airplanes because birds fly in the airspace although birds can and do bring down aircraft"

True, but again,  birds are natural creatures to this world not invented monstrosities that can be set alight with an infernal capacity for deliberate nuisance effect and calamity! Also, the level of catastrophic incident would be much much greater if a metallic drone flies into a jet engine, fragmenting its lethal blades. Birds are one thing and part of the natural order, but as I pointed out before, millions of mechanical, man-made drones should not be allowed to fly ANYWHERE  near a commercial airspace- until ironclad regs are in place to control them. 

And those regulations ought to demand that drones and drone operators obey the same rules as commercial aircraft. Yes, it is indeed a steep demand - but it is consistent with the peril and calamity of a drone-commercial aircraft collision. The precautionary principle itself demands drone operators prove their craft are safe - before they can fly at altitudes that imperil commercial craft.

Let the drone makers, Wall Street and others bark, whine and yap about too slow a pace for  "accelerating" the flying of millions more drones, the FAA needs to sustain a backbone, stand firm and tell them 'NO!'

Monday, June 18, 2018

Response To Tom McLeish's Counter Arguments In Physics Today

Following my letter appearing in the June issue of Physics Today, Religionist Tom McLeish was allowed an extensive response to all the published letters - numbering six. Here I focus on his response to my letter and I rebut each of his counter arguments in turn:

McLeish writes (p. 14):

"Although religious tradition naturally requires discourse about personal and corporate encounters with divinity in order to make sense of history and experience, it is far less concerned with the supernatural than with life, hope and justice here on Earth."

Of course this is too clever by half and is yet another permutation of the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy. Antony Flew, in his Thinking about Thinking, first made people aware of the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy.

As he put it:

"Here we have Angus, a Glaswegian (inhabitant of Glasgow), who puts sugar on his porridge, and who is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge”.

Then the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:

(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.

(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

(3) Therefore: Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.


(4) Therefore: Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

Thus the 'No true Scotsman fallacy' is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position.  In this case, McLeish bids us not to look at or address the 'elephant' (actually wooly Mammoth) in the 'mind space' of religiosity - i.e. the supernatural - but to look instead at religion's emphasis on "hope, life and justice"..   In other words, the supernaturalist- bound entity I had addressed was not the "true" religious tradition but a specious one. 

Indeed, if McLeish's claim was in any way sound, the rational skeptic could simply retort: "Then if you're just invested in life, hope and justice why not dispense with the  redundant window dressing of supernatural hokum and embrace humanism?"  Of course they can't do that because the supernatural - including a supernatural divinity - is an integral part of their whole tradition.   So rather than robustly defend the supernatural as a physicist - which McLeish knows he can't - he punts and resorts to a deflecting fallacy.

McLeish again:

"So it is not right to declare a parting of the ways at the start."

Really? Then WHEN exactly are we enjoined to do so?   If there are indeed two orders or putative orders, one scientific and submitting to some form of objective inquiry, and the other (supernatural)  not, then when does one part ways? It would seem to me for clarity sake alone and to avoid obfuscation one clearly delineates the separate orders at the outset -  so there can be no ambiguity. Obviously, McLeish doesn't wish to do this because it would effectively mean 'game, set, match' and he goes home without a rejoinder.

He continues:

"Nor is it appropriate to complain that experience and exploration of God is devoid of rationality.  Stahl's presentation of two alternatives and fundamentally competing worldviews derives not from a knowledge of history or theology but ultimately from the Draper and White polemics, whose alternative history introduced that perspective. (For a more nuanced reading of history see: F. Harrison 'The Territories Of Science and Religion)."

Actually, I  have never heard of Draper or White far less their "polemics". I come at McLeish's claims from the position of reason alone, as well as from my extensive university (Loyola - run by Jesuits) exposure to comparative religion, theology, metaphysics, biblical exegesis and textual analysis.   I have also blogged on these and related matters before, for those interested, e.g.



 No one is asserting btw, that rationality cannot be enlisted in religious explorations, say of "divinity", but we would be remiss if we didn't also acknowledge how easily such rationality can be perverted toward deformed ends.

Thus, Pope Innocent VIII summoned excellent theological reasons for issuing a Bull allowing for the wholesale pursuit and torture of witches, warlocks, familiars and others in the form of incubi or succubi.  Much of this was formalized in the Malleus Maleficarum of Heinrich Kramer (Dean of Cologne University) and Jacob Sprenger (Dominican Inquisitor General of Germany). On account of this well-reasoned Bull, tens of thousands were subjected to vile tortures, including finally being crushed in the Iron Maiden or barbecued on large, heated griddles.   

Then there is the hyper rational Xtian moralist C.S.  Lewis . Recall Lewis’ rational justification for Inquisitional tortures is mind-boggling in itself  and effectively renders whatever morality he espouses as useless, and indeed dangerous!  In this case, in his book Mere Christianity, he pardons the witch burners for making a “mistake of fact”, i.e. in believing women described as witches were evil incarnate.  To quote one critic[1]:

If Lewis is willing to accept that witches do not exist, and that, while believing in them, it was right to put them to death, what other "ungodly" transgressions can we forgive as mere "mistakes of fact”?

Interestingly, Lewis’  "rational" pseudo-morality could easily have been incorporated into the Third Reich’s justifications for genocide. I mean, the Nazis really believed the Jews were “vermin” – as so much of their propaganda portrayed- so by Lewis’ standards they’d be excused for making a “mistake of fact”.  Lewis might well reply here that the Nazis really knew better than that so their actions were inexcusable. But how do we know there were also not more percipient Inquisitors who also knew better than to believe more than a quarter million women burned as witches did not really embody evil or have pacts with “Satan”? It amounts to mere question begging.

McLeish continues:

"Stahl's letter also manages to capture the misinformed philosophy of most late modern confusions, especially neo-atheist ones, about the nature of deity."

Actually, in my book, Beyond Atheism, Beyond God, I had been highly critical of the "neo atheists" (Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins et al)  - not that McLeish would have read it any more than I'd have read his referenced text, 'Atheist Delusions' by David Bentley Hart.   Regarding the latter, one reviewer's take on it is especially noteworthy, e.g.:

"Atheist Delusions is a misleading title: this book is really, as the author says in his introduction, a historical essay, only tangentially related to these delusions. It is not, or only as the argument demands, concerned with philosophy, metaphysics or theology."

So why does McLeish commend it as capturing a "misinformed philosophy"? Who knows? Again, it may most likely be merely a 'hail Mary' tossed out so he can muster some kind of weak retort, even if irrelevant.  And before McLeish gets too high on his high horse about "atheist delusions" one wonders if he is at all familiar with the work 'Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief' wherein the authors (Andrew Newberg and Eugene D’Aquili) trace the God concept directly to an area of the brain- the OAA or orientation association area. 

The authors’ investigation of how the brain’s OAA translates an image into a religious reality is also described in detail[2].This is in connection with a person given an image of Christ and asked to focus on it. Within minutes, neurological measurements, i.e. from PET and SPECT scans[3], showed electrical discharges spiraling down from the right attention area (right OAA) to the limbic system and hypothalamus “triggering the arousal section of the structure”. The authors’ test results and measurements revealed the activation of both the left and right association regions as their subjects focused on an image of Christ. As assorted cortical thresholds were crossed, a maximal stimulation (given by spikes in the SPECT scans) produced a neural “flood” that generated feedback to the attention association area.

To make a long story short, the visual attention area of the OAA was seen to begin to deprive the right orientation area (responsible for balance)  of the OAA of all neural input not originating with the contemplation of Jesus. In order to compensate, and thereby preserve the neuro-spatial matrix (in which the self could still exist) the right orientation area had to default to the attention area focusing on “Jesus”.  As the authors describe the situation: [4]:

It has no choice but to create a spatial matrix out of nothing but the attention area’s single-minded contemplation of Jesus

Newberg and D’Aquili note that as the process of re-cerebralization continues, all irrelevant neural inputs are stripped away until the only reality left is Jesus. That reality (actually a pseudo-reality confected by the right attention area) thereby takes over the entire mind. Or, in the words of the authors, “it is perceived by the mind as the whole depth and breadth of reality.”   This is a profound insight, and fully explains why it is essentially impossible to wean believers away from their objects of worship or devotion based on logic and reason alone. What has happened, in other words, is the subject’s whole existence and identity has become bound up with the focus of his brain’s OAA-  or more specifically – the right attention area’s focus which channels nearly all neural inputs to that region.More to the point here, is that such a brain is singly directed to craft its own version of rationality to support its ideations.Hence, we simply cannot trust the rational expressions of believers, or those like McLeish who defend religious accommodation. Their brains are likely hijacked in the service of the OAA.

McLeish's next move is to invoke Aquinas:

"Everything has a cause", says Stahl, quoting Paulos….He omits the reminder that the argument of no infinite causal recursions was used by Aquinas who ran it in reverse as an argument for theism."

I was aware of Aquinas' trick - of course- but there are limits of space for letter writers in PT. I did address it in my book, Beyond Atheism, Beyond God. 

As I noted, asserting "God is a first cause" is actually and technically unprovable within an axiomatic system based on cause
.  This follows from Kurt  Gödel's  1st and 2nd Incompleteness theorems.  Say C ->  Z is equivalent to saying "C1 is the first cause of all Z". But consider:  if C ->  Z is really provable-in-the-system of axioms, we’d have a contradiction. If it were provable in-the-system, then it would not be unprovable-in-the-system.  Hence,  asserting: " C -> Z is unprovable-in-the-system" would be false. Again, it can't be provable in the system since C1 is an element from a presumed causal set. So, the statement “C ->  Z is unprovable-in-the-system” is not provable-in-the-system (Z), but unprovable-in-the-system (Z). Technically, one would require a meta-set such that Z' = Z + k', e.g. including k’ as the uncaused element, i.e. with Z purged of it. However, it can be shown that invoking such a meta-set leads to an infinite regression.

This shows why, before one interjects first causes (or invokes Aquinas' trick), he had first better be sure Kurt Gödel isn't looking over his shoulder!  Of course, Gödel's Incompleteness theorems didn't exist at the time of Tommy Aquinas so he couldn't have known his arguments were basically hollow mush. Alas, Kurt Gödel and his Incompleteness Theorem(s) isn’t the only daunting challenge to the naïve God-thinker. 

Quantum acausality will also have a role in tempering the naïve believer’s simple causality propositions and claims See e.g.


An excellent way out of the causal morass is to consider necessary and sufficient conditions.  Say if a religious rationalist is proposing support for his divinity -then he must show the necessary and sufficient conditions for it to exist.  Robert Baum, in his textbook, LOGIC, p. 469-70, correctly observes that n-s conditions are practical replacements (in logic) for causes. In other words, instead of saying or asserting "x caused y", one stipulates that a, b are necessary conditions for x to exist at all, and c, d are sufficient conditions for y to have been the sole effect of cause x.
A necessary condition is one which, if absent, the entity cannot exist. A sufficient condition is one which, if present, the entity must exist. For example, a sufficient condition for the existence of a hydrogen emission nebula in space would be proximity of the nebula to a radiating star. The necessary condition is the nebula exists in the first place. Baum’s reasoning is clear (ibid.): because “cause” (generic) can be interpreted as proximate or remote, or even as the “goal or aim of an action” and is therefore too open-ended, ambiguous and construed in too many different ways. 

 Thus, “cause” is too embedded in most people’s minds with only one of several meanings, leaving most causality discussions unproductive and confused. If my “cause” and your ‘cause” in a given argument diverge, then we will not get very far. Also, if we confront a disjunctive plurality of causes, we may be at moot dead ends using a naïve causal paradigm.
McLeish's final parry is against the notion that religious traditions harbor any superstition, by appeal to the venerable Bede, e. g.

As  for "superstition",  8th century English Christian scholar Bede advocated the study of science as a God-given faculty to counter superstition!

Note the exclamatory emphasis here, as if, to suggest:  'How can Stahl have the temerity to even suggest this?'  But according to Frederick Harrison , in his book Medieval Man:

"Yet even Bede believed that storms could be raised by witches. He records that the ship in which Germanus, Bishop of Auxerre, and Lupus, Bishop of Troyes, were voyaging home was driven out of its course by demons, who, however, dispersed when the two holy men bade them, in the Name of the Trinity, depart. Then the storm ceased."

Witches raising storms? Demons driving ships off course?  Sorry, McLeish, but if a person - even in the 8th century (we make NO allowances because of era lived) embraces or invokes demons and witches, then they ARE purveyors of superstition.  Incredibly, McLeish via his absurd and irrelevant   arguments and citations, would have us interject even more of supernaturalism and superstition into our science.  But thankfully most physicists are dedicated physicalists so this misplaced agenda is not likely to get very far. And I am confident most physicists will not sacrifice their principles to being bought out by the Templeton Foundation.

[1] Inniss: The Secular Humanist Newsletter, (Spring, 1998), 1

[2] Newberg and D’Aquili., pp.  121-22.
[3] PET = positron emission tomography, SPECT = single photon image tomography.
[4] Ibid.

Outraged By The Border Separations Of Children From Parents? Blame Trump's Top "Nazi" - Stephen Miller

The Nazi responsible for the child separation actions: Stephen Miller, the reincarnation of Joseph Goebbels.

"Inside I saw only people in cages. There were some cages of mothers with children, and others with fathers and children. Many other cages had children alone in them."  - David Begnaud, CBS this morning, after being allowed inside the McAllen station in TX

The Traitor (contrary to George Will's soft soaping of the term on Real Time Friday night) and his top Nazi Stephen Miller, are behind the child separation policy being played out at the border.  Kids torn from their parents, because the parents have been de facto criminalized just for attempting to cross - even in a legal fashion.  According to the lead story in the Sunday NY Times, though Trump aide John Kelly tried to back away from this loathsome "zero tolerance" crap after initial blowback, "Trump's senior policy advisor Stephen Miller never gave up on the idea."

Hence, Miller advised Trump - when facing an uptick in illegal border crossings last month, to go with a policy that brands ALL border crossers - kids and adults- as criminals. This would then allow the separation of the kids from the parents and each dispatched to separate detention facilities. For the kids, we've seen the horrific images and scenes play out as they're ripped from parents' arms and sent off, terrified - in some cases to tent cities, and in others to prisons 1,000 miles away.

The scenes reminded me of how the Nazi S.S. split up families soon after they arrived by train to Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen, as portrayed in the docudrama 'War and Remembrance' - and which noted historians (e.g. Gerhard Weinberg)  commenting on the series at the time, insisted held true to history.

As for Herr Miller, we already know he is the spitting image of Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, e.g.


And is also the one who advocates Goebbels' use of the big lie, i.e.
"Make the lie big but keep it simple. Keep saying it and eventually they will believe it."

Clearly Traitor Trump has followed  Goebbels-Miller's dictum to perfection.  By Saturday Trump had repeated for the fifteenth time his false assertion that Democrats were responsible for his administration’s policy of separating migrant families apprehended at the border.

Thereby, this odious toad had adhered to a weekslong refusal to publicly accept responsibility for a widely condemned practice that has become a symbol of his crackdown on illegal immigration. Spluttering in a morning post on Twitter.

“Democrats can fix their forced family breakup at the Border by working with Republicans on new legislation, for a change!”
This B.S. came the day after his administration said that it had taken nearly 2,000 children away from their parents in a six-week period ending last month, as part of a new “zero tolerance” policy that refers for criminal prosecution all immigrants apprehended crossing the border without authorization.

The Dotard Cabal - like the entrenched Nazis they are-  steadfastly defended the practice this week, saying the president was merely enforcing the law. Worse,  in recent speeches around the country,  AG Jeff Sessions, has argued that a strict approach is a vital tool for deterrence.   The fool has even tried to defend it using a passage from St. Paul's letter to the Romans - which coincidentally - had also been used to justify slavery as "law" in the old Confederacy.  (Why am I not surprised bigot Sessions is using it now?)

Another permutation of the big lie from Trump:

"I hate the children being taken away.  The Democrats have to change their law — that’s their law.”

In fact,  this verminous, ambulatory human pustule loves it, because it's red meat for his forlorn deplorables....errrr, base. The fact here is that there is no law that requires families to be separated at the border. There is a law against “improper entry” at the border, as well as a consent decree known as the Flores settlement that limits to 20 days the amount of time that migrant children may be held in immigration detention, which a federal judge ruled in 2016 also applies to families. A 2008 anti-trafficking statute — signed into law by a Republican president, George W. Bush — also requires that certain unaccompanied alien minors be transferred out of immigration detention in 72 hours. None of those laws or precedents mean that children must be taken away from their parents.

Another liar is the head of Homeland Security,  Kirstjen Nielsen,  who popped off in a grand denial:

"We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period."

Hmmm....Really?  So how is it your DHS reported there were 1,995 minors separated from their parents between April 19 and May 31? Do you even READ your own department's  reports? If not,  from whom  did you take your PR lessons? Goebbels? Or Miller?

OberSturmfuhrer Miller admitted:

The loopholes, both legal and judicial, are now wholly owned and belong to Democrats, because they alone oppose their changing.,]. No one in our government is willing to take moral lectures from people who support and perpetuate policies that grievously harm innocent Americans,”

Spoken like the white Nationalist Nativist  Nazi this SOB is. With the nerve to squawk about hurting innocent Americans when tens of thousands of jobs are going begging because there aren't enough people (i.e. native Americans)  to do them,.

It is clear to this observer that Stephen Miller, AKA Goebbels Jr., is behind this vile policy and people need to direct their venom at both him and Trump. Sadly, it appears even the border patrol officers carrying out this policy are brainwashed. Such as Manuel Padilla, Jr. interviewed by Gayle King this morning on CBS. Padilla claiming the migrants "violated the law" and hence must go through a judicial process and have the children separated. Again, this is no "law" ever established under any precedent.  It was the CHOICE of the Trump Nazi cabal to criminalize any and all attempting to enter the country as a basis for zero tolerance, which also required them to tear the children away.

See also: