If only Obama had held up Muslim-dominated countries immigration instead. It would have been OK

Jewish press

Protester To Daily Signal: Obama's Temporary Iraqi Ban In 2011 Was Fine Because I Love Him

Interviewer: In 2011 President Obama banned people from Iraq—did that not concern you?

Protester: No because I loved President Obama. pic.twitter.com/q2ehPVUCwh

              — The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) January 30, 2017
So did Obama.

Is It a ‘Muslim Ban’?  . . . "Yet the only reason there is an EO is the threat posed by sharia-supremacism, which we inexactly refer to as “radical Islam.” You can’t have radical Islam without Islam. Therefore, the people the EO seeks to exclude are, of necessity, Muslims — not all Muslims, of course, but a significant subset of them nonetheless." . . .

Trump's orders on immigrants bring hypocritical and hysterical uproar

"Did Lady Liberty cry over the Americans mangled and killed over the years by Muslim immigrants (San Bernardino massacre, Boston Marathon bombings and other murders)?"

Ed Lasky  . . . "Lady Liberty is shedding a tear, Democrats declare.  Absurd comparisons are made between this temporary order and Roosevelt’s exclusion of Jews facing genocide. This is not a permanent ban and is geared towards tightening vetting procedures that Barack Obama’s own security officials, FBI head James Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, had declared, during his presidency, were weak and exposed Americans to peril. The outcry also ignored the fact that immigrant refugees into Europe have led to increased violence and murder and that ISIS has repeatedly boasted of its plans to infiltrate into America its killers via refugee resettlement programs." . . .

California Shouldn’t Secede from the U.S.; It should divide in two.

One's first reaction to this is often "good riddance".

John Fund at National Review  "Liberals used to hate secession, the notion that states could leave the Union as they did before the Civil War because they didn’t agree with the policies of the federal government. But with Donald Trump’s election, many California liberals suddenly have warm words for a budding ballot initiative that has just begun collecting signatures in order to place secession, or “Calexit,” on the ballot. At the height of the tea-party movement, Texas governor Rick Perry merely hinted at the thought that Texas might react to President Obama’s executive overreach by reclaiming its one-time status as an independent republic. " . . .

Now we read about a “virtual secession". 
. . . "Let the sprawling, diverse state divide up into two or more states to ease tensions between farmers and coastal types, defuse the war of ideology between Left and Right, and allow more policy experimentation."
. . . 
"Of course, it’s unlikely that California will ever be divided. It’s even more unlikely that it would cut its ties to the rest of the nation and become a separate country. But the debate on both ideas is healthy. To what extent should we let arbitrary political boundaries established many decades ago curb our imagination and prevent us from creative solutions to our problems?" . . .

Hoping to escape the oppression of left-wing California would be the citizens of the State of Jefferson  "The State of Jefferson just got one step closer to becoming a reality. On Tuesday California Secretary of State Debra Bowen announced that the secession proposal known as “Six Californians” could move forward and petitions be circulated for signatures.

"For Northern California to split from the rest of the state, State of Jefferson supporters would have to garner at least 800,000 valid signatures and be placed upon the ballot for vote. Even if the Six Californians movement wins on election day, supporters still face an uphill secession battle." . . .

You can buy your own Jefferson flag!

Oh, one more thing:  We will have a real World Series if California secedes  . . . "Second, California may find out that all of those military bases, and the jobs that they create, will start packing east the minute California leaves the rest of us*.

. . . 

"So it won't happen.  California will remain a state, and that is a good thing for them and the rest of us.

"However, one good thing about California being a foreign country is that an L.A. Dodgers vs Texas Rangers final would literally be a World Series.  The winner will finally be the actual world champ."

* And the launch sites at Vandenberg Air Force Base?

How to Live Under an Unqualified President

Haven't we been doing that for the past eight years? TD

John Piper

. . . "The linking of the Christian church with the ruling political regime is not essential to the life and fruitfulness of Christian faith. On the contrary, such linking has more often proven to corrupt the essential spirit of Christ, who typically uses the weak things of the world to shame the strong (1 Corinthians 1:27), and whose life-saving weapons do not consist in media monopolies, commanding wealth, or civil laws.

"Followers of Christ are not Americans first. Our first allegiance is to Jesus, and then to the God-inspired word of Scripture, the Bible. This is our charter, not the U.S. Constitution." . . .

PJ Media commentary on the Piper column  . . . "Finally, America's founders emphasized that virtues make a republican form of government possible. It is important for an American leader to exemplify those virtues — and Trump's character certainly does not.

But this is no excuse for Christians to protest and wave "Not My President" signs, Piper added. Far from it. Even though Trump is morally unqualified for the presidency, he is still president, and Christians should respect his authority and pray for his good.

. . . "Some Trump supporters have conceded the president's bad moral character, but argued that it doesn't make a difference for public leadership. They've said they weren't looking for a choirboy. But John Piper laid out concrete reasons why morality matters for leadership." . . .

A Free Media, Unfettered by Integrity

Liberal Daily Beast blames ‘white supremacists’ for Quebec mosque shooting, then retracts  

"Notice that the name on the tweet is “Reuter,” not “Reuters.”  How careless does one have to be to not notice this obvious evidence of a fake news operation? "

The Beast even names names and publishes photos of those -they hoped- were the perpetrators. But....

. . . "In the eagerness to confirm a narrative that would indirectly blame President Trump for an outbreak of anti-Islam violence in the wake of his seven-country entry pause, evidently, no one at The Daily Beast noticed.  Actually investigating whether this was true, or whether Reuters has reported it anywhere else, was a bridge too far for the Beasts who publish daily “news” (including fake news). " . . .

Wait!...What?...Local media reports identify two Quebec mosque shooters, one with first name ‘Mohamed’  "Given the volume of fake news flying around about the Quebec mosque shooters, one must be cautious until the Canadian authorities speak out on the record.  Nonetheless, given the reports blaming “white supremacists” and President Trump for the shooting, it is worthwhile considering what local outlets in Quebec and the U.K. Daily Mail are reporting.

"From the Montreal Gazette:

According to Radio-Canada and LCN, the two suspects in Sunday’s terror attacks in Quebec City are Alexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed Khadir.

"The Daily Mail:

Two students including one of 'Moroccan origin' have been arrested for the slaughter of six people at a Quebec mosque on Sunday which came a day after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau condemned Donald Trump's Muslim travel ban. 

Witnesses said one shooter yelled “Allahu akbar!”

 The media's Trump fail . . . "Even the media’s corporate overlords seem strangely indifferent to the market forces that come from insulting half their potential customers and seeing their product approval drop to the level of exploding cell phones." . . .

Why Hollywood as We Know It Already Over...

Vanity Fair via Drudge

"With theater attendance at a two-decade low and profits dwindling, the kind of disruption that hit music, publishing, and other industries is already reshaping the entertainment business."

"A few months ago, the vision of Hollywood’s economic future came into terrifyingly full and rare clarity. I was standing on the set of a relatively small production, in Burbank, just north of Los Angeles, talking to a screenwriter about how inefficient the film-and-TV business appeared to have become. Before us, after all, stood some 200 members of the crew, who were milling about in various capacities, checking on lighting or setting up tents, but mainly futzing with their smartphones, passing time, or nibbling on snacks from the craft-service tents. When I commented to the screenwriter that such a scene might give a Silicon Valley venture capitalist a stroke on account of the apparent unused labor and excessive cost involved in staging such a production—which itself was statistically uncertain of success—he merely laughed and rolled his eyes. “You have no idea,” he told me." . . .