Tuesday, February 21, 2017



Hannibal Crossing The Alps On An Elephant, painting by Nicolas Poussin

In 218 BC Hannibal Barca (247 -183 BC), better known as just "Hannibal, led an invading army into what we now call Italy. He won every battle but lost the war at Zama in 202 BC after his most important ally was bought off at the last moment. The United States hasn't lost a battalion ( about 500 troops) sized engagement since 1953 but we really haven't won any wars either. South Vietnam ultimately fell to North Vietnam. There is only a truce on the Korean Peninsula in place since the 1950s.  Iraq 1 led to Iraq 2 and it still isn't over.We are still in Afghanistan ISIS still maintains serious territorial integrity within Syria and reaches out constantly to inspire violence within our own borders. If our Generals down to our Sergeants know how to win battles, why can't we ever seem to win a war? Why is that in the end, after much expenditure of lives and treasures the changes sought by the US don't happen? According to Arrias on Politics: Why Don't We Win? as presented in the Socotra Daily  the key is exactly that "We'. We the people and government seem to have no will to impose our will on the enemies we choose. Our armed forces roll over regimes, and /or defeat armies but then we don't impose our will on the populace or new regime. Strategy, tactics, men, weapons and materials win battles, but the "winner" in a war is the side which imposes its will on the other. This is all explained beautifully in Arrias on PoliticsWhy Don't We Win? in the Socotra Daily  . Take a look at this thought provoking post. Another reason why we suggest the Socotra Daily  for daily reading.

 I'm the Great Namazu and I approved this message

Wednesday, February 15, 2017


Sponsored by Helios Ruehls, Inc. 3d-printer The 3D printer has a superficial resemblance to the "replicator" of Star Trek fame. This technology is a big departure from most previous forms of manufacture which involved reductive processes and left slag heaps of waste materials. Basically the 3D printer produces 3 dimensional solid objects from powdered materials in an additive process. No material is wasted. Unused powders remain in the printers reservoir and can be used to produce other items. Despite the sense of amazement that the public generally exhibits relative to the 3D printer, it is a "primitive" contraption compared to the idea of the "replicator". As envisioned the replicator constructs solid 3 dimensional objects complete with moving parts from atoms, molecules, subatomic particles, and light simply present in an earth like environment. The leap between the most advanced 3D printers of today and the "replicator" of tomorrow probably crosses, as do so many future technological wonders, an optical physics barrier. Advanced physics theory indicates that matter can be made from light.  When might we see the breakthrough in optical physics based technology that could usher in the replicator? Possibly we are closer than most people imagine. Enter the humble hohlraum.

The Hohlraum

 Hohlraum is a German word for a hollow area or cavity. In radiation thermodynamics it refers to a cavity with walls in radiative equilibrium with the radiant energy within the cavity. Such a theoretical idealized cavity can be approximated by making a small perforation in the wall of a hollow container of any opaque material. The radiation that escapes through the perforation should be a reasonable approximation of the blackbody radiation at the temperature of the interior of the container. Back in 1934 Physicists Gregory Breit and  John A. Wheeler of New York State University published their theory .  Their theory was simply a logical demonstration of Einstein's theory of relativity, which states that the mass of an object is also a measure of stored energy. Thus if one could make two photons collide, the collision should produce two positron electron pairs, which would literally convert light into matter. This theory was known as the Breit-Wheeler Process and for a long time in the period before the first particle collider it remained just a theory.

The cylindrical hohlraum at the National Ignition Facility.
Recently (December  2016) Theoretical physicists at Imperial College London accidentally came across a method that should demonstrate the Breit-Wheeler Process.  The Imperial College physicists published a study in the January 2017 issue of Nature Photonics that describes how, while researching issues in fusion energy, they realized that by firing high -energy lasers into a tiny gold lined hohlraum they created a photon-photon collider that absorbs laser radiation and symmetrically re-radiates it as X-rays, spinning off detectable matter particles off of the high -energy photons.

In the above described study, the team describes how, while researching problems related to fusion energy, they realized that by firing high-energy lasers into a tiny gold lined hohlraum that absorbs laser radiation and symmetrically re-radiates it as x-rays—scientists could create a "photon-photon collider." Such a collider would spin matter particles off of high-energy photons. According to Physics publications that we have been monitoring this demonstration of theory could occur within the year or early next year.

 If successful the demonstration of the Breit-Wheeler process wouldn't be the first time that the ability of light to be converted into matter was practically demonstrated. In 1997 Stanford's ,linear collider used a different process that required a large quantity of photons interacting under the influence of a high powered electron beam and electric field. The beam and field provided the energy required to collide the photons and produce matter particles.  The Imperial College experiment using a Hohlraum simply uses the energy of two colliding photons, if successful and it doubtlessly will be, this experiment will mark the first time light has been converted into matter in a total vacuum,making the results much more observable. Moreover, this experiment uses the Hohlraum, which doubtlessly will be a component in future "replicators".

 The Hohlraum experiment should be completed within a year, the main hurdle to be overcome is arranging the use of one of only ten labs that contain the needed equipment. The experiment will involve both short-pulse laser capabilities and most probably a hohlraum or hohlraum like device to generate a large quantity of x-rays. Don't expect work on the replicator to start immediately after the experiment. This is science biz. The experimental results will undergo a formal peer review which will consider the results ultimate importance to science. In terms of science divorced from practical applications it should pass muster. Successfully conducted the experiment proves vital aspects of theory crucial to understanding gamma ray bursts and the Big Bang, the first few minutes of the formation of the universe.

 Application of the proven aspects of optical physics that could result in the "replicator" will be years, probably decades if not many decades due to the way finances follow in science. Remember that TV signals were sent and received in the lab in the 1920s but the first commercial broadcasts didn't materialize until the 1950s. But the "replicator" will evolve. Modern technology makes it possible to conduct at will the Breit -Wheeler process for the first time. But there must be parallel and complementary developments to make a replicator. One of those developments is the continuing increase in the powers of the laser. As lasers become more powerful we will be able to produce more and different particles than just the positron-electron pairs expected in this experiment. It is starting to look like the replicator is something of an inevitable scientific advance.  A number of science commentators view the pending experiment as ultimately an inevitable scientific advance.

 Inevitable or not, the road from 3D printer to the "replicator" via the Hohlraum is not going to be short or direct.  Transformational technologies require massive funding to go from proof of concept to perfection. Such massive funding usually doesn't appear until a real need for the transformational technology appears such as a military need, or the research and development has progressed at a glacial but steady pace that investors can see the technology as "on the verge" of marketability. The technology also has to show the potential of overwhelming the resistance in the market. Transformational technologies are usually disruptive to prior technologies, somebody's ox gets gored. Those oxs have a tendency to go down fighting. But transformational technologies keep coming often creeping up on the market at a glacial pace then rushing in and taking  the territory. How long to the replicator? At the soonest about as long as the first appearance of the "flip phone" "communicator" on the original Star Trek and the first cell phone sales, roughly 20 years for that one. Go ahead and buy that 3 D printer, you've got time to wear it out or amortize it before the next big thing arrives. What comes after the "replicator"....with the "replicator" you're talking making matter from light...now you're way beyond my pay grade

Wednesday, February 8, 2017


LEGAL CORRESPONDENT, THE LATE LOUIS BRANDEIS, FORMER ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT FROM 1916 to 1939. "If Giant Catfish former demigods can publish so can ghosts" 
 Rarely seen outside of our Admiralty Law Section our ghostly senior legal commentator has asked for some space to discuss a legal concern of more broader interest of late.

 Anyone who has been following the court battles over the President's so called "Travel Ban" has to notice the readiness with which certain West Coast Federal Courts almost unquestioningly decided to grant standing to the two plaintiff States.  Time works changes and brings into existence new conditions and purposes. However, the constitution's separation of powers should be sacrosanct. The plaintiff States in the exemplar litigation, on the face of their arguments, have no place in court other than their inherent right as States to sue the Federal Government, and that their only venue would be the  Federal  Court system. These States have no real cause of action in the judicial forums.  Over time subtler and far reaching means of discernment of the true, authentic and ordinary evolve. 

 Unfortunately the art of argument for argument's sake also evolves.  Protection of our borders is a function of the executive branch of the Federal Government, It is not now, never has been, nor should it ever be a function of the judiciary. The standards of proof of a judiciary system have no place in tactical and strategic decisions that affect public safety that so often must be made on less than full and certain information. Border protection clearly is an executive function and naturally so. When the issue is the placement of restrictions upon aliens or even classes of aliens seeking to enter the nation who may present a danger to public safety, it is the executive branch that rightly by virtue of logic, and authorization by statute, and conformance with the US Constitution  may impose "restrictions" on any such aliens at any time. This conforms to logic, actions to exclude enemies must be timely and tactical, not the result of judicial deliberations. This conforms to the Constitution's separation of powers, and conforms to statutes [ specifically see 8 USC 1182 (f) ]. Moreover in such instances the actions of the President are directed towards aliens located beyond our borders. The act of entry as so often noted in admiralty law is not a right but a privilege granted by a sovereign state. By the Constitution, logic, and statutory authority the agent for the sovereign United States in controlling entry is the President of the United States. No judge, no state official has the right, duty, and obligation to execute this executive power. The States in entering the tribunal in this exemplar case claim to be representing  in part aliens seeking lawful entry. No state within the American federation has the right, duty , or obligation to act as attorneys in fact for aliens not within the state's borders. The case under consideration should have been dismissed upon the opening statements as the plaintiffs have no real standing. 

 The restriction placed upon certain aliens by the President in the instant case consisted of a 90 day delay in the acceptance of visa applications or the processing of visas from six specific nations known to harbor significant numbers of terrorists seeking entry into the United States. The express purpose of the restriction described in the instant Executive Order was to allow time for the development and implementation of improved vetting procedures relative to such visa applications. Considering that the relevant statute grants the President the authority to impose any restrictions he deems necessary on "any alien or class of aliens" this action appears more than reasonable, prudent, and just. No one who examines the issue without prejudice will find any legal, constitutional , moral, or ethical problem with the action per se. Indeed the President could have issued a restriction of indefinite duration barring any and all travelers from the enumerated nations and it would have been perfectly legal. The plaintiff States in the instant case use the word "ban"to describe the current executive ordered temporary restrictions to further their argument that somehow "religious freedom" as protected under the US Constitution is somehow being invoked. The purpose of the US Constitution is not to protect the freedoms of aliens exterior to our borders. Refusal to allow entry of religious groups that advocate breaches of the peace as part of their basic doctrine is not a denial of their religious freedom, they are free to practice their religion elsewhere. However, the President of the United States has a right, duty, and obligation to protect the people of the United States from dangers entering from without. 

 The case under examination has precipitated a constitutional crisis. The crisis is a conspiracy by certain political interests, who have unusual influence inside two states of the United states colluding with certain federal judges to unlawfully usurp the executive power of the President of the United States under the feigned cover of judicial fiat. A conspiracy against the constitution is an impeachable offense by a Federal judge. But the people in whose hands power finally resides should know that impeachment is not the only way to remove an unrepentant, miscreant from the bench. Having disposed of the litigation at hand as utterly without legal merit and exposing it as a conspiracy against the executive and the people who placed the executive power in the hands of the President we need to move on to how to prevent this from happening repeatedly.  The way to prevent such an undesirable culture of corruption within the judiciary is for the people to know how to remove judges who show these tendencies.


 Most people assume that impeachment is the only means of removing a federal judge. This  probably erroneous belief is based in large part on the Constitution's grant of "good behavior" tenure to Federal judges. People have assumed that "good behavior" is defined as behavior that does not cross the threshold into an "impeachable offense". This isn't necessarily so. A review of history especially of English practice, early state constitutions, and writings of the founding fathers reveals judges have long been removable upon a judicial finding of misbehavior far short of an "impeachable offense". Judicial "misbehavior" traditionally may include incompetence. When judges believe that they may exercise the executive authority as it suits their political tastes, voiding the acts of the elected executive without the most clear constitutional grounds, that is manifest incompetence.  Saikrishna Prakash, Herzog Professor of law , University of San Diego  and Steven D.Smith, Warren Distinguished  Professor of LAw , University of  San Diego  have written extensively on this subject. They note: 

"....good-behavior tenure and impeachment had only the most tenuous of relationships. Good-behavior tenure was forfeitable upon a judicial finding of misbehavior. There would have to be a trial, the hearing of witnesses, and the introduction of evidence, with misbehavior proved by the party seeking to oust the tenured individual. Contrary to what many might suppose, judges were not the only ones who could be granted good-behavior tenure. Anything that might be held—land, licenses, employment, etc.—could be granted during good behavior, and private parties could grant good-behavior tenure to other private individuals. Impeachment, by contrast, referred to a criminal procedure conducted in the legislature that could lead to an array of criminal sanctions. In England and in the colonies, impeachment was never seen as a means of judging whether someone with good-behavior tenure had forfeited her tenure by reason of misbehavior. Whether a landholder, employee, or government officer with good-behavior tenure had misbehaved would be determined in the ordinary courts of law. Moreover, the vast majority of state constitutions did not equate good-behavior tenure with impeachment either. To the contrary, many distinguished them explicitly. Taken together, these propositions devastate the conventional conflation of good-behavior tenure with impeachment. More importantly, they indicate that the original Constitution did not render impeachment the only possible means of removing federal judges with good-behavior tenure. Given the long tradition of adjudicating misbehavior in the ordinary courts, Congress may enact necessary and proper legislation permitting the removal of federal judges upon a finding of misbehavior in the ordinary courts of law. authors. "

 So it would seem that the first step in policing an out of control Federal judiciary would be a demand by the people upon their Congress to pass a statute formally establishing adjudication of "good behavior" in ordinary courts or a special tribunal for such purposes. The second step would be the establishment of judicial watchdog groups to monitor judicial behavior and coordinate efforts at filing formal violation of good behavior complaints. The public may be assured that the tenured judges of the nation will fight tooth and nail to avoid such scrutiny. But a strong political movement to implement such measures will shake up judicial culture and complacency. Once such a law is passe expect the federal judiciary to find it "unconstitutional". The people should appeal any such finding to the Supreme Court and if that court rules against a formal delinkage between "good behavior tenure" and "impeachment" the political agitation for a legislative mandate for such a delinkage should immediately restart. The persistence of such political efforts at judiciary reform would encourage many justices to reexamine their prejudices, political activism from the bench, and look more frequently to the actual letter of the law. 

 As most of you know I'm dead and have been dead for some time. I met the Great Namazu on the steps of the US Supreme Court building which I was haunting and he convinced me to take up pen again to write opinion on the law for the American Admiralty Books blog. I do notice that as a dead justice my opinion is far less regarded than when I sat on the bench. The people of the United States shouldn't think that things will change for the better because I think they ought to and have published an opinion. Neither will things change just because you elected a unique personage as President. Democracy is hard work. If you want to reform the judiciary that is so clearly abusing the public , the public must respond. Start the movement to make it easier to remove overstepping Federal judges. The President can't do that for you. If you want the President to exercise the executive functions and the Judges to exercise the judicial functions you have to close the lid on legislation from the bench. That means some legal scholarship and political action. I can't give you the complete blueprint for action in this limited format. But below are some excellent references to help you get started. Be noisy when you start, just getting off to a strong start may cure some of these judges of overreach. 


 Hanging out near Heaven's gate one day I observed a dead lawyer approach St. Peter. Pete was very sorry to inform the barrister that lawyers simply weren't allowed past the gate. Just as Pete had spoken a tall and distinguished looking grey headed man in judicial robes and carrying a gavel strode right past Pete and into heaven proper like he owned it. The disappointed barrister asked Pete why someone who was so obviously a federal judge was let in if lawyers were barred entry. St. Peter replied "Oh, that's not a Federal Judge, that's just God, he thinks he's a Federal Judge". 

Plese living people, put a stop to the American judicial attitude , assert your power. 


U.S. CONST. art. III, § 1 (“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour . . . .”).

 U.S. CONST. art. I, § 2, cl. 5; id. art. I, § 3, cls. 6-7; id. art. II, § 4. 3. See id. art. I, § 3, cl. 7 (declaring that judgment cannot extend beyond removal and disqualification); id. art. II, § 4 (stating that officers convicted shall be removed).

U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 18 (providing that Congress may “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”).


Judiciary Act of 1789 § 14 (The All-Writs Act), 1 Stat. 73, 81-82 (“And be it further enacted, That all the before-mentioned courts of the United States, shall have power to issue writs of scire facias, habeas corpus, and all other writs not specially provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law.”).

. 28 U.S.C. § 354(a)(3)(A) (Supp. 2006) (“Under no circumstances may the judicial council order removal from office of any [Article III] judge appointed to hold office during good behavior.”).


  Suzanna Sherry, Judicial Independence: Playing Politics with the Constitution, 14 GA. ST. U. L. REV. 795, 798 (1998) (implying that good-behavior tenure means that there are good textualist reasons to limit impeachment to extreme cases of judicial misconduct).

  Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Separation of Powers: Judicial Independence, 35 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 108, 117 (1970) (sample counter argument holding that impeachment was intended to be the exclusive means of removal because it is the only mechanism mentioned); Merrill E. Otis, A Proposed Tribunal: Is It Constitutional?, 7 U. KAN. CITY L. REV. 3, 38-41 (1938) (same)

 Prakash, supra note 17, at 1035-42 (describing how almost all Representatives thought that the Constitution permitted the removal of executive officers by means other than impeachment). 


THOMAS JEFFERSON, Proposed Constitution for Virginia (June 1783),

THE FEDERALIST NO. 80 (Alexander Hamilton), (Opining that the experience of Great Britain provides an excellent example of the institution of good behavior) 



N. Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 59 (1982) (Brennan, J., plurality opinion) (“The ‘good Behaviour’ Clause guarantees that Art. III judges shall enjoy life tenure, subject only to removal by impeachment.”); see also United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 16 (1955); Redish, supra note 5, at 698-99 (arguing that good behavior is a reference to impeachment).


United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 150, 160 (1833) (holding that the scope of the pardon power would be determined by reference to English law, as the pardon power was borrowed from England).



Tuesday, February 7, 2017




Islam is considered a world religion, but in fact, of the nearly 3 billion Muslims on Earth only something less than 200,000,000 practice a form that is compatible with the separation of church and state. Such Muslims are persecuted by the majority. Even as the majorities pursue their own 1400 year old inter -religious war. Except for the few Muslims who honor separation of mosque and state and believe that "compulsion has no place in religion ", Islam is basically a political philosophy of world conquest meant to force mankind into a system of theocratic government. Both sides of the Shiite / Sunni divide agree on that much. What they can't agree on is who is the proper successor to Mohammed; the polygamist, pedophile, mass murdering, war lord they regard as "the perfect man", Both sides of the divide prescribe death for apostasy, that is to anyone who tries to leave the religion, and confiscatory taxes and ritual annual humiliation to those "people of the book" (Christians and Jews) that they don't kill outright. All those who don't qualify as "people of the book" must immediately convert to Islam on demand or be killed. They are not offered the option of becoming tax cash cows. Some of the tiny minority of Muslims who don't intend to rule the world over the dead bodies of the rest of us include the Kurds. About the Kurds the Sunni and Shiite say, "compared to infidels the Kurds are Muslim". Now, perhaps if you hadn't thought about it, you understand why the Kurds fight so hard for freedom from domination by other "Muslims".

Most of the Muslims presently demanding visas into the United States are not Kurds, nor from any of the largely less blood thirsty Sufi branches. Most of those seeking entry are in fact from the warring Shiite and Sunni branches. Certainly not all intend to personally commit murder and mayhem but the overwhelming majority don't seek to integrate into the larger American society either. Most will join mosques, and contribute to Islamic "charities" that in turn will funnel at least 8% of collections into Jihadist organizations. Most will buy and consume Halal food products where again at least 8% of revenues find their way into Jihadist coffers. Millions of American dollars are channeled directly to our enemies annually from a large portion of the American Muslim community, most of whom wouldn't hurt a fly, but wouldn't stand up to their Imam either. Islam, most branches, most Islamic people, constitute a clear and present danger to the continued existence of the United States under the constitution. In 1952 the government of the United States recognized that such situations could occur and took action.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 revised United States then existing laws relating to immigration, and naturalization. The Act which became Public Law 414 described and established the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of aliens into the United States. It has been court tested and never found to have a constitutional problem. It has not been rescinded and replaced by any other law, all leftist politically correct and globalist leaning commentary and criticism to the contrary.

In Chapter 2 Section 212 of the Act is a prohibition of entry into the US if the alien applying for entry belongs to an organization seeking the over throw of the government of the United States by "force, violence, or other unconstitutional means". The Koran, Sharia, and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam and contain scriptural passages advocating the persecution and murder of all peoples who will not submit to the demands of Islam including the the imposition of Sharia Law. The politically correct unrepentant and idiotic misfit political operatives of the left now say that Islam has an exception because it is a "religion". This leftist concept is illogical, Just as freedom of speech has limits where it directly interferes with public safety ( think of the famous example of yelling "fire" in a theater not on fire ) so does freedom of religion. Freedom of religion can not extend to exterminating every other religion because your religion "compels you" to do so. The law of the land is clear, an alien can not be a member of "any organization" that advocates the overthrow of the US government by any unconstitutional or violent means. Calling a system of conquest and coercion a "religion" does not exempt it from the the law.

There are other parts of the law. After a Public Law is passed the U.S. has a system of legal codification of statutes that makes them easy to find. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 is now found in Title 8 United States Code. When we look at section 1182 (f) we find that the President of the United States has the right, duty, and obligation to determine if an alien or "any class of aliens" present a danger to the United States and to implement such "restrictions" as necessary to prevent entry into the United States of such persons. There you have it folks. The President's so called "ban on Muslims" is nothing more than a temporary administrative delay in processing visas from nations known to harbor large numbers of Islamic terrorist operatives for 90 days so that  our vetting processes for visa applicants can be improved.

The President's very reasonable and necessary first act towards regaining control of our borders has been described by America's mainstream media as an unreasonable and inhumane act , unconstitutional and illegal. This minimal administrative act is in fact very reasonable, prudent, undeniably legal and constitutional, moral and ethical, and in terms of what the law actually allows is barely a speed bump on immigration reform. The law as written vests in the President the power to exclude any and all Islamic immigration into the United States based on the facts of the ongoing Muslim infiltration of the West as documented in the public pronouncements of both Al Qaeda and ISIS and in the demonstrated behavior of many individuals here and especially in Europe. A total Muslim exclusion would be the "nuclear option" and it is available to the President under the law. Given the horrific reaction by American Muslims and the Left in America I think it is incredible that President Trump has shown such restraint. Frankly, being a giant catfish from Japan I don't have any say so. However, I believe Japan is right in simply banning Islam within their borders. Frankly I'd urge the President to go Nuclear, the left is never going to be reasonable.





Journalist Roy Beck Illustrates The Math Of Open Borders And Why It Can't Work With Gumballs

"We never get ahead of what’s happening in these countries… Don’t you see? Immigration can never be an effective or significant way to deal with the suffering people of the world… they have to be helped where they live…
99.9% of them will never be able to immigrate to a rich country… there is no hope for that… they have to bloom where they’re planted… the only place that 99.9% of these people can be helped is where they live… let’s help them there." Journalist Roy Beck

"According to Census Bureau statistics, some 1.3 million foreign-born individuals legally immigrated to the United States in 2014. That figure doesn’t include the nearly one million immigrants that enter the country illegally each year. Those who support open border immigration have said that we need to take in even more people.
But according to journalist Roy Beck, taking in one million people per year makes almost no difference in the grand scheme of things because for every million we bring into the United States, another 80 million people yearly are born into countries with extreme levels of poverty, violence or war. " Journalist Roy BecK

 Journalist Roy Beck makes an excellent case against open borders and limitless immigration advocated by so many far left miscreants. In a visual demonstration of the mathematical reality of open borders he makes it abundantly clear that even allowing massive amounts of immigration of the world's poor into Western nations will accomplish virtually nothing in terms of eliminating world poverty' The process of greatly expanded immigration will improvish American and other Western nations that are in a position to help the world's poor , WHERE THEY PRESENTLY LIVE. Every American, every Westerner, and particularly every Christian clergyman presently making moral pronouncements about opening our borders and implying that even temporary administrative controls such as President Trump's temporary  visa restrictions are some how immoral needs to see this presentation. The West has an absolute right to secure borders and the right to regulate immigration within their borders. Demanding open borders or indirectly encouraging such by being unintelligently negatively critical of virtually any control including administrative, is tantamount to aiding and abetting the destruction of Western civilization , and denying the poor of the world the only hope they have. That hope is help from a prosperous West to the world's desperately poor where they actually live. All else is folly.  Please click on the link below to view the video of Mr. Beck's demonstration: 

Thursday, February 2, 2017


Ancient image of the Great Namazu having a bad day with the god Kashima, one of the many reasons for his career change to analyst.

Mr. President:
 Please continue and expand "restrictions" on Islamic immigration and unsupervised visitation.  You have the authority under 8 USC 1182 (f) to suspend entry, and / or impose "restrictions" on "any class of aliens" who "would be detrimental to the interest of the United States". Don't let the mainstream media mischaracterize your actions as "bans" or even "enhanced vetting", use the language of the congressionally passed statute that gives you the right, duty, and obligation to impose "restrictions" on alien entry of all sorts into our nation when public safety may be compromised. Your related executive order (hopefully just the first) is very different from many of your predecessor's executive orders. Obama's were intended to get around congressional intentions and constitutional requirements.  8 USC 1182 (f) authorizes you to take restrictive action in favor of public safety, and thus implies not only the right, but the duty and obligation to do so. The constitution applies only to the citizens and actual residents within the borders of the states and territories of the United States . Nothing in 8 USC 1182 (f) even mentions citizens or residents of the United States , there is no way that it could ever be found unconstitutional as a law.  Recognized and even codified international law recognizes the rights of all nations to secure borders. All of the present on going discussions reported in the MSM are totally without legal, moral, or ethical substance. 

 Please continue and expand on your use of your authority, duty, and obligation to keep us safe as described in 8 USC 1182 (f).  Personally I would suggest on rolling out any more such executive orders that the state department simply be ordered without prior public notice and as quietly as possible to cease PROCESSING (vice accepting) visa applications after a certain date EXCEPT visas for red cover (diplomatic) passports and "certain business travel with the express approval of the Secretary of State". Don't allow the resumption of visa processing until such "enhanced vetting processes" as satisfy your best judgement relative to safety are in place . Also we need an exit monitoring system to insure those admitted on visas leave on time.

Thanks for taking on the job. All the military vets, law enforcement professionals, and Christians I know want you to do more of the same. Many of my Cuban friends are acutely aware of which party left them on the beach at the Bay of Pigs and would never vote for a democrat. Many other Hispanic friends openly describe themselves as "Trumpetnista" and want immigration reform not the free for all at our borders that the Democrats have brought us. As a 3,000 year old catfish who has seen a lot of history I fully understand that without border control there is no nation. When the people of a nation start to believe that their government has surrendered their borders they tend to violently rebel. I witnessed this in China at the start of the last century , it was called the Boxer Rebellion. If you keep doing what you started with your first couple of border / immigration control executive orders the United States will not only escape a "Reconquista" or "Islamic imposition", but the people won't have to revolt to gain control of their security.

 Personally I'm just a 3,000 year old mythological giant catfish demigod, a visitor from Japan, but I am a student and witness to history. You certainly don't have to listen to me, but I think I am accurately reflecting the views of your constituents. The bipeds I talk to have no use for most of the American mainstream media. I urge you to listen to them and keep doing what you promised and tell the MSM to go suck eggs.

Thank you very much for letting me vent:

Namazu, Giant Catfish