Monday, July 28, 2014
Sarah Palin Agrees with Peter Brimelow: We Must Impeach the Dictator Calling Himself “Barack Obama”—Before It’s Too Late!
By Nicholas Stix
Clearly, at least one Palin staffer has been consuming VDARE for months.
With ever greater frequency, I’ll read an article on immigration policy at some other Webzine, with another author’s name on it, and think to meself, “Did Peter or one of my VDARE colleagues ghostwriter this?”
Some of you are surely wondering if Gov. Palin is gearing up for a presidential run in 2016. At present, she is certainly the most popular GOP politician by far, and that is because she's showing leadership, she's pretty, and millions of American patriots decided already in 2008, "She's one of us." Personally, I prefer Sen. Jeff Sessions, but I'm learning to like Palin more each day. But if we don't topple the tyrant, there won't be any election.
ISSUE 50•29 • Jul 25, 2014
Permalink—but there’s no article, just the pic and hed.
The friend who sent this writes,
Given its dusky makeup, I don’t follow football. However, it is worth noting that the Sodomites, along with the Congoids, now set the standards.“Homophobic NFL Coach Gets 3-Game Suspension” (DiversityInc).
FSU Professor Dan Markel was Talking on Cell Phone When His Killer Shot Him—but Does This Clarify or Confuse Matters? (ABC)
Now they say he was talking on his cell phone while entering the garage. It might have been "random" after all. They suspect the ex-wife from the "acrimonious" divorce.
A federal judge in the District of Columbia on Saturday overturned the city’s total ban on residents being allowing to carry firearms outside their home in a landmark decision for gun-rights activists.
Misleading first paragraph.
Those in the 'hood have always been able to carry firearms outside their homes.
It just wasn't legal to do so.
But this hasn't stopped the Democrats.
That's why D.C. has such a high murder rate.
Dictator Obama Had Planned a Waco/Ruby Ridge-Style Bloodbath Against White American Patriots in Murrieta, CA; Border Patrol Agents Averted Massacre, by Threatening Mutiny! (Federale)
Vicki Weaver, about one hour before FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi murdered her, on August 21, 1992, at Ruby Ridge, and shot her husband, Randy, in the back. Horiuchi killed Mrs. Weaver, while she was holding her 10-month-old infant in her arms. Horiuchi was charged with manslaughter, but a judge threw out the charges.
By Nicholas Stix
Sunday, July 27, 2014
FOX described him as a “Canadian man.”
Chicago: 13-Year-Old Boy Killed, 6 Others Shot on West Side; No Knifings, Bludgeonings, or Strangulations
The locals call it "Chiraq."
"Why can't we all just get along?"
You can thank George Bush, globalist extraordinaire, for giving "temporary" protected status to these gang-bangers.
The comments are the best.
AP reporter Tom Hays has won the Duranty-Blair Award for Journalistic Infamy, for his 2004 “Boosgate” hoax. Hays is the fifth Duranty-Blair laureate. The previous four were CBS News producer Mary Mapes in 2004; seven reporters and editors at the New Orleans Times-Picayune in 2006; ABC News reporter Brian Ross in 2012; and Peter Berger, of The American Interest, in 2013.
On September 3, 2004, during the presidential campaign pitting Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry (MA) against incumbent Republican President George W. Bush, Bush gave a speech in Madison, Wisconsin. During the speech, President Bush announced that Democratic President Bill Clinton was suffering chest pains, and might need coronary bypass surgery, and led the Christian crowd in prayer. Tom Hays fabricated an incident, in which the crowd of thousands booed President Clinton, so as to make Republicans sound as heartless and sadistic as Hays and his Marxist comrades.
Hays’ bosses at AP supported him, and did not punish him in any way, much less fire him, presumably because they were as rabidly Democrat as he was.
Audience boos as Bush offers best wishes for Clinton's recovery
By Associated Press, 9/3/2004 13:57
WEST ALLIS, Wis. (AP) President Bush (news - web sites) on Friday wished Bill Clinton (news - web sites) "best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery."
"He's is in our thoughts and prayers," Bush said at a campaign rally.
Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wisconsin, booed. Bush did nothing to stop them….
As I wrote at the time,
In fact, however, the crowd had responded with respectful applause.
The false story was immediately caught and reported to conservative talk radio shows and blogs. Less than one hour after the story first went out on the wire, under the byline of AP reporter Tom Hays, it was retracted, corrected, and the original link killed. The new title was "Bush offers best wishes for Clinton's recovery." There was no mention of the changes; however, the later version without the "boos" run by the New York Times-owned Boston Globe still carried the title "audience boos as bush offers best wishes for clintons recovery" in its URL….
At press time, AP corporate communications had not responded to telephone and e-mail requests for comment from this reporter on Sunday night, reporter Tom Hays had not responded to a Sunday night e-mail seeking comment, and no message was posted regarding the false story at the AP Web site.
Knight-Ridder’s Web site also did not refer to the story.
Tom Curley is AP’s president and CEO. (AP Corporate Communications: E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org ; tel.: 212-621-6060.)
I wrote two reports on Hays’ hoax:
“AP Reporter Invents Anti-Clinton ‘Boos’ at Wisconsin Bush Rally”; and
“‘Boos’ Scandal Widens: AP Stonewalls; Knight-Ridder Also Distributed Hoax,”
both of which I reprinted together in 2012 as “Associated Press Reporter Tom Hays’ Classic ‘Boosgate’ Hoax.”
The Boosgate Hoax was one of a string of dirty tricks pulled by Democratic operatives passing themselves off as journalists, and trying to steal the presidential election for Marxist John Kerry. Two other episodes that I covered were CBS News producer Mary Mapes’ Memogate Hoax, in which tried to cost President Bush the election by using fraudulent documents claiming he had been AWOL while a member of the Texas Air National Guard, and the media/DNC plan to steal the election on election night, in a repeat of 2000. (For 2000, see here, here, here, http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2011/12/chip-off-old-block.html>here, here, here and here) 2000. John Kerry himself put a stop to that criminal conspiracy. (So, the old communist ain’t all bad.) The day after the election, Katie Couric and some of her comrades sought to cause another constitutional crisis, by asserting that because the election was so close, President Bush didn’t have a “mandate.” Of course, they never would have made such a ridiculous and seditious claim, had Kerry won such a close election.
During the 2000 post-election siege of the White House, Democrats had made it clear to the nation that for them, “It ain’t over, til the Democrat wins.”
The Duranty-Blair Award recognizes those journalists whose work embodies the spirit of Walter Duranty and Jayson Blair, two of the most notorious journalists in the history of the Fourth Estate. It is no accident that both men worked for the New York Times.
Walter Duranty wrote a series of early 1930s dispatches from the Soviet Union, where he was Times Moscow bureau chief, in which he lied about the Ukrainian Holocaust, in which Stalin deliberately starved millions of Kulaks (peasants) to death, through a man-made famine. Instead of reporting the truth, Duranty reported that the peasants were happy and well-fed, and was rewarded for his lies with a Pulitzer Prize.
Jayson Blair (here, here, and here) was an early 2000s black affirmative action hire who alternately plagiarized reporters at other newspapers, and fabricated articles out of whole cloth, all for stories set hundreds and even thousands of miles away, while he sat in New York City cafés.
Previous Duranty-Blair winners have been producer Mary “Memogate,” aka Rathergate Mapes of CBS News; New Orleans Times-Picayune reporters Brian Thevenot, Gordon Russell, Jeff Duncan and Gwen Filosa; managing editors, news, Peter Kovacs and Dan Shea; and editor Jim Amoss, for their September 26, 2005 attempt to “untell” the story of the savage black violence that befell New Orleans just before and after Hurricane Katrina made landfall on August 29 of that year (1,900-word version; two-part, 3,900-word version (here and here; and 9,900-word version); “ABC News Chief Investigative Correspondent” Brian Ross, who in 2002 had sought, on behalf of the Justice Department/FBI, to railroad innocent weapons scientist Dr. Steven J. Hatfill for the fall, 2002 anthrax murders, and who in 2012 falsely asserted that Aurora, CO movie theater mass murderer, James Holmes, was a member of the TEA Party; and Peter Berger, of The American Interest, in 2013 for his support of, and cover-up of the ongoing genocide against South African whites.
By Nicholas Stix
I just looked for my reports on the attempted railroading by the Bush/Ashcroft DOJ and the media of patriot-scientist Dr. Steven J. Hatfill for the five anthrax letter murders in fall of 2002 through my blog, and came up with only one out of at least 12 articles. (I also gave a talk on a panel with Hatfill, his friend and spokesman, Pat Clawson, and anthrax sleuth/conspiracy theorist, Ken Dillon, at an Accuracy in Media conference in October, 2002, but have yet to post it online, and don’t know where the heck it is.) I was able to come up with nine more articles through the one that came up internally, but that leaves two more I have to find.
I have had several similar such experiences of late. The internal search function within my blog has become worthless for items posted more than three years ago. I have to go to Google to find stuff on my own blog! And sometimes Google fails, as well, for really old material. You have to periodically re-post blog material, at least at Google's blogs.
Much of this stuff was once linked at Wikipedia, but of course the Wikicensors eventually sent it all down the memory hole.
“Calling Agent Frank Black: Anthrax, the Left’s Dr. Strangelove, and TV’s Millennium”;
“Hunting America’s Leading Anthrax Hoaxer: Dr. Strangelove Strikes Again – in Scotland!”;
“Dr. Strangelove Disarms America”;
“The Crucifixion of Dr. Steven J. Hatfill”;
“A High-Tech Lynching: ABC News, the FBI, and the ‘Greendale School’ Myth”;
“FBI Anthrax ‘Person of Interest’ Positively ID’d In Princeton, NJ;
“FBI Terrorizes Hatfill”;
“DOJ Ordered Hatfill Dismissed: Should AG John Ashcroft Be Next?”;
“Scientist with Rhodesian Past Still Center of Media Crosshairs”; and
“The Anthrax Case: Hatfill Tormentor Back in Business.”
Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a tenured, communist activist. The picture on the left, from Hermes Press, is either of the wrong person, or is a good 40 years old, even though they used it during the early 2000s. The picture on the right is from around the time Rosenberg was trying to railroad Dr. Hatfill.
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
I am re-posting this score, without first listening to it at Youtube, following warnings that the track is larded there with commercials. This is increasingly a problem with YT, but so far, the commercials don’t play on blogs. I can only wish that were the case with news videos!
I thank the reader who responded to my July 21 Jerry Goldsmith Memorial Concert five days ago by recommending this score, which he believes rises to the level of the greatest 20th century orchestral composers, in particular, the theme, “Spock’s Arrival.”
Upload and table of contents by David Molinarolo.
Published on Dec 21, 2013
Title: Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Composer: Jerry Goldsmith
Original Copyright: 1979
Release Copyright: 1999 (All Rights Reserved)
1. Ilia's Theme - 0:00
2. Main Title - 3:03
3. Klingon Battle - 4:26
4: Total Logic - 9:54
5: Floating Office - 13:39
6. The Enterprise - 14:43
7. Leaving Drydock - 20:43
8. Spock's Arrival - 24:14
9. The Cloud - 26:15
10. Vejur Flyover - 31:15
11. The Force Field - 36:14
12. Games - 41:18
13: Spock Walk - 45:00
14: Inner Workings - 49:20
15: Vejur Speaks - 53:23
16. The Meld - 56:14
17. A Good Start - 59:23
18. End Title - 1:01:50
Saturday, July 26, 2014
On Top of Obama’s Ongoing Success at Pauperizing Nation, He Will Further Illegal Amnesty with 5,000,000 Illegal Work Authorizations of New Invaders (Drudge)
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix, via Countenance.
The dead kids apparently are Black. No description of the carjackers and the woman they carjacked.
At NBC Philadelphia.
Wichita Horror: Carr Brothers “Exonerated”! Kansas Supreme Court Justices Find Pretext to Thwart Justice for Five Murder Victims; Huffington Post "Disappears" the Victims, and Blocks/Deletes Thousands of Comments
Left: Clockwise from top left: Jason Befort, Heather Miller, Aaron Sandler, Bradley Heyka; right: Ann Walenta. The Carr Brothers murdered them all, as well as gang-raping Miller and another woman who miraculously survived, when the gunshot meant to kill her instead glanced off a steel hairpin. She then lay on snow on a frozen football field, playing dead. As soon as the Carrs drove away, she ran naked through the snow, to knock on doors. When a family let her inside, in spite of her bleeding profusely form her head wound, she insisted that the people wait to listen to her recounting of the Carrs' description and their crimes before going to call 911, because she was afraid she was going to die, and that the could get away with it their crimes. The victim survived and recuperated from her wounds, and later met the only other surviving victim of the Carrs. The two victims fell in love, and married. On a microcosmic level of resurrection following an atrocity, it was analogous to me to Israel arising from the ashes of the Holocaust.
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
Thanks to my partner-in-crime, David in TN, for this article.
“Exonerated” alludes to the promoters of the Central Park Five Hoax, who have maintained that, since the five attackers’ convictions and sentences were “vacated,” that they were therefore “exonerated.” Nothing of the sort was true, but in the world of racial socialism, it ain’t over ‘til the black felon wins. The Carr Brothers' sentences were likewise vacated by the Kansas Supreme Court.
Ten years ago, the Kansas Supreme Court illegally “repealed” the state’s death penalty law; the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the KSC. It then took 10 years for six justices on the KSC to find yet another pathetically flimsy pretext to subvert justice by overturning the Carrs’ death sentence. If the case were so obvious, it would have been 14 years ago. Now, they’re claiming that the killers should have had separate death penalty hearings (they had one joint hearing).
The reason the black-robed thugs didn’t come up with this story 10 or 14 years ago, is because then they were banking on abolishing the death penalty, in toto.
It’s all a game to these mooks. Every 10 or so years, they will move the goalposts yet again, so as to waste the maximum amount of taxpayer money, and in the hopes that the racist monsters die in prison, without justice ever being meted out to them.
In reality, these corrupt, racist judges are against the death penalty for blacks who murdered whites.
Note that, as usual, the wikicensors have kept the entry at The Pretend Encyclopedia clean of any pictures of killers or victims. But that won’t satisfy Racist Black Cut-Throat Fan Club at the Huffington Post, so they posted 13 photographs, including huge ones of the killers, at the top of the story, but completely disappeared their victims, who are neither depicted nor even named.
Kansas Supreme Court Overturns Brothers' Death Sentences in “Wichita Massacre”
July 25, 2014 1:20 p.m. EDT; updated July 25, 2014 3:59 p.m. EDT
CHICAGO, July 25 (Reuters) - The Kansas Supreme Court on Friday overturned death sentences for two brothers convicted in the 2000 execution-style murder of four people on a snowy soccer field in Wichita, ruling that the trial judge erred in refusing to conduct separate penalty phases for the two men.
Jonathan and Reginald Carr were sentenced to death in 2002. Their December 2000 crime spree, known as the Wichita Massacre, included the kidnapping of three men and two women in a home invasion that included rape and sexual humiliation.
The five victims were shot in the head; one survived.
The court affirmed some of the convictions against the two brothers, including murder, but vacated the death penalty for both of them, sending the case back to district court for new sentencing.
"The Eighth Amendment was violated in this capital case when the district judge refused to sever the penalty phase of the proceedings," the court wrote in the ruling.
The Supreme Court said the mitigation cases of the two men were at least partially antagonistic, so they should have been treated separately, and said the joint treatment allowed evidence against both of them that might have been excluded in separate proceedings.
Six judges on the seven-member court joined the majority opinion on overturning the death penalty, while one dissented. (Reporting by Fiona Ortiz; Editing by Leslie Adler)
The Carr Brothers violated seven people. They murdered five; committed attempted murder against a sixth; beat a seventh almost to death; and gang-raped two women. Every one of their victims was white. They had no interest in victimizing non-whites. Why are there 13 pictures here, but not one picture of their white victims, none of whom is named?
That was a rhetorical question.
Nicholas Stix, Uncensored
[This was the last of five comments I sought to to post at HP, but the only one the censors didn’t block.]
A day of celebration for the Left. How perverse.
Your hatred is more perverse.
More like a celebration for justice. As MLK said an injustice for one is an injustice for us all.
Yeah.. We're totally out partying in the streets, man.
[To] Andrew Steele
What hatred has he shown, as opposed to you? When you racial socialists call your opponents haters, you’re engaging in the purest projection.
Nicholas Stix, Uncensored [Blocked by censors.]
[To] Calvin Birmingham
So, you’re saying that MLK supported racist, black mass murderers? If not, what on earth were you saying, with that idiotic platitude? Are you on auto-pilot? I don‘t know about MLK, but one thing I do know is that YOU support racist, black mass murderers.
Nicholas Stix, Uncensored [Blocked by censors.]
A real credit to their gene pool.
Michael James Allison•
It is not their fault they have a extra chromosome...
Savior Jebus Farmer
[To] Michael James Allison hey Mongo looked in the mirror lately?
These two should never get out of prison. The crime they committed is haunting, in the worst possible way. I believe life in prison is the worst punishment particularly if one is looking at a lot of years to go before being old
Stories like this are why I love living in Texas. The state of Texas would have them turned to dust by now.
There's no reason the taxpayers should be forced to keep these monsters alive.
Michael James Allison
Put them in general pop. problem solved...
Too bad the people whos home they invaded werent armed maybe there would be a different ending to the story
Why can't the penalty phase be redone--- just like a retrial/
This is what happens when you let coons run wild
Go burn a cross cretin.
^ This is typical shameful conservative America for you. Christians with a unquenchable thirst for violence and strife against all that are not white Christian and rich.
Did you read what these two did?
Racism is now considered to be child-abuse of the worst kind. That baby, if yours, can be confiscated if the State learns about you. I really hope that baby isn't yours.
Linda McNinch Escue
[To] Shwah Kram Race has nothing to do with it unless you are Racist http://takimag.com/article/the_myth_of_prejudice_gavin_mcinnes
[To] Shwah Kram
Are you saying that a rich, white, Christian poster (actually you know nothing about his religion or income) committed mass murder and gang-rape against non-whites?
Who might that fiend be?
But this story is about racist, mass-murdering, gang-raping blacks who exclusively targeted whites. Do you really think that you can just reverse the story and the morality, as if no one knew who had committed this racist atrocity, or who the victims were?
Nicholas Stix, Uncensored [Blocked by censors.]
[To] Susan Layser
You’re a bald-faced liar.
Nicholas Stix, Uncensored [Blocked by censors.]
August 11, 2006
WEBcommentary, Blogcritics, A Different Drummer, etc.
Maybe we ought to make jurists wear see-through robes. There’s something about the combination of wearing a black robe, sitting high above the rest of us, and being addressed as an institution (“the court”), that tends to go to judge’s heads.
One must always keep in mind, when talking about judges, that they are a class dominated by the grimiest political hacks, most of whom owe their positions to party machines and backroom deals, even as they hold forth about “the (political) independence of the judiciary.” They couch the most corrupt and politically partisan decisions in the language of moralistic sanctimony, as if they were speaking from Mount Olympus, rather than from the sewer.
In Friday’s issue of The Australian, a national newspaper down under, the subhead for an op-ed is, “Courts have to depend on lawyers being honest in order for the courts to function properly writes Ysaiah Ross.”
So much for that idea.
When my sister graduated from liar’s school 12 years ago, I congratulated her on stepping up from being an amateur to a professional liar.
As a graduation gift, I presented her with the foundation of all contracts: A baseball bat. (It was a miniature bat, for symbolism’s sake.)
Which brings me to Australian Judge Marcus Einfeld.
Einfeld, a former Federal Court judge who is also “an Officer of the Order of Australia and was voted a Living National Treasure,” has in recent years made a profession of lecturing public officials on honesty and ethics.
Judge Einfeld is what Harry Truman used to a call a “high hat.” A “high hat” is someone who’s got money and influence, and who publicly lectures everyone else on morality, but in private is the best customer at the local bordello. (Those are my words, not those of the old Missouri dirt farmer and failed haberdasher, but I believe they capture Harry’s sentiment.)
In January, Judge Einfeld’s Lexus was photographed speeding, and incurred a ticket for 77 dollars Australian ($100 U.S.). But Judge Einfeld had no intention of paying the ticket. What’s the point of being a judge, even a retired one, much less a Living National Treasure, if you can’t beat a traffic ticket?
Judge Einfeld insisted to Sydney’s Downing Centre Local Court that he was not the driver at the time; he’d lent his car to a “friend.” But even if the story were true, it would be irrelevant. If you lend your car out to a girlfriend, and she gets a speeding ticket, you pay the ticket, and then take it up with her. The one thing you may not do is say, ‘Your Honor, the ticket isn’t my fault. You see, I lent my car out, and my girlfriend, she went speeding, and she got the ticket, because she’s a lousy driver, and so, I shouldn’t have to pay the ticket.’
Judges and lawyers hear dumb, convoluted stories like that all the time. Hell, they trade ‘em for laughs at dinner parties!
In 1992, I published a wonderful short story, “Morning in Bond Court,” in my since long-defunct magazine, A Different Drummer. The story, which perfectly balances cynicism, wry humor, and poignancy, by retired Cook County cop Paul Pekin, is based on Paul’s experiences on “the job.”
The narrator is a Cook County cop who spends a day taking various small fry back and forth from the jail to the courthouse for bond hearings. One small-timer in court is a “young black man, greasy upright hair. He stands before the bench, hands behind his back. Maybe he thinks he still has the cuffs on….
“The young man with the ugly hair is charged with stealing eighteen packages of spark plugs from an auto supply shop. Even worse, he failed to appear at his last court date, failed to appear at the date before it, failed to …
“‘I can explain all that. They told me courtroom B and I went there and they said it was someplace else …’
“‘You’re saying you went to the wrong courtroom?’
“Only the young man with the ugly hair fails to be amused. He is led away, frowning. Five thousand dollars bond. That’s a lot of spark plugs.
“Next, we get a redheaded guy with no teeth. Charged with battery.
“‘It’s all her fault, your honor. She makes me go with her to her sister’s, it’s about the money they got for the car, and this guy her sister sold it to gets arrested and his old lady wants her purse back, and that’s when it turns out she’s the one with the …’
“‘You seem to hang out with complicated people,’ the judge says.
“Yes sir, I certainly do.”
“‘Well, you hang around with complicated people, you get complicated results.’
“Bond is twelve hundred dollars and the redhead is taken away.”
Judge Marcus Einfeld has complicated friends, and he tells complicated stories.
His first story was that he had lent out his car to a visiting American professor named Teresa Brennan.
Professor Brennan was hunted down, and found to have died in February 2003, almost three years before she had gone speeding in the judge’s car. Now, that’s one complicated girlfriend.
When the little matter of Prof. Brennan’s being dead was brought up to Judge Einfeld, he had a ready answer: No, no, no, not that dead American Prof. Teresa Brennan, it was a different dead American Prof. Teresa Brennan!
The good judge insisted that his dead American Prof. Teresa Brennan was alive long enough to go speeding in his car, but died shortly thereafter. (From grief over the ticket? Out of shame for having besmirched the ethical jurist and Living National Treasure’s driving record? Due to guilt over having dragged the first dead American Prof. Teresa Brennan’s name through the mud?)
In the meantime, in his scorched earth campaign to beat a 77 dollar traffic ticket, Judge Einfeld is now up to four different stories, with no end in sight. After the Judge pays his legal fees, that may ultimately be the most expensive 77 dollar ticket in vehicular history.
Judge Einfeld went into the wrong field; he should have been a ditch digger, because he sure can dig himself a hole.
How many times does a judge, in the course of a year’s cases, see someone who, in trying to evade the long arm of the law, turns a minor infraction into a major felony? You’d think they’d learn from experience, and not want to come across like the spark plug thief with the bad hair or the hot-tempered, toothless redhead.
It doesn’t look as though Judge Einfeld is going to be prosecuted for perjury; such prosecutions are for “the little people” who have to obey the laws, not for jurists and ethics lecturers. However, legal observers in Australia are concerned that the Judge’s travails might tarnish the reputation of the judiciary. I say, the judiciary’s bad name is in no danger from Judge Einfeld.
I think this is one of those rare cases in which the wheels of justice can’t grind slowly enough.
In the meantime, the judge might want to get some help for his necrophilia problem.
The author clearly did no research on Australian law because if he did, he would have been aware that designating another person as a driver is perfectly legal. In fact, the ticket itself has a section that allows a person to do exactly that. It is a well known tactic that allows points to be spread, particularly between husband and wife, lessening the risk of either losing their license due to points. People may not like it or think it is right but it is still completely legal. Nicholas talks as if the judge asked for special compensation or used personal influence in making his argument about another person being the driver when in fact, this is completely untrue.Nicholas said...
Tuesday, August 15, 2006 at 9:31:00 AM EDT
What does Aussie law have to do with this? Oh, yes, now I remember. According to Aussie law, Judge Einfeld was due to lose his license, so he made up a story about a dead woman who, while having been born in Australia, had lived and died in another country.Anonymous said...
How is perjury "completely legal"? You'd better study some Australian law, "anonymous." No wonder you wouldn't sign your name! If such lame posts were the best I could do, I'd go anonymous, too.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006 at 9:40:00 AM EDT
"One must keep in mind, when talking about judges, that they are a class dominated by the grimiest political hacks, most of whom owe their positions to party machines and backroom deals, even as they hold forth about 'the (political) independence of the judiciary.' They couch the most corrupt and politically partisan decisions in the language of moralistic sanctimony, as if they were speaking from Mount Olympus, rather than from the sewer."
We saw another example in Kansas on July 25, 2014.
David In TN
Saturday, July 26, 2014 at 1:42:00 AM EDT
Friday, July 25, 2014
Breaking News: Racist Cut-Throat Black Carr Brothers, Who Perpetrated Wichita Massacre, Murdering Four Whites and Raping Two, to Get New Penalty Phase, in New Ruse to Thwart Justice
I don’t have a link yet, because a friend just called from out West with the news, and I’m on deadline. Some lefty judge must have come up with a pretext.
Dan Markel Murder Update: Cops Seek "Vehicle of Interest"; Ex-Wife's Dopey Lawyer Makes Her Sound Suspicious
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
Aside from one spam hit, the Daily News only permitted one comment:
8 hours ago
The issue is not who did it as that's obvious, the issue is finding the evidence to connect that person to the crime
Cops hunt mystery killer of renowned FSU law professor Dan Markel as car of interest identified
Dan Markel, 41, a Harvard-educated father of two young boys, likely knew his killer when he was shot in the head Friday morning at his Tallahassee, Fla. home, cops said. What appears to be a Toyota Prius was seen in the Betton Hills neighborhood and is of interest to police.
By Sasha Goldstein
Thursday, July 24, 2014, 8:09 P.M.
New York Daily News
The Toronto native was well-regarded for his academic work.
A Harvard-educated, widely published criminal law professor likely knew his killer after cops found no forced entry at the 41-year-old’s Tallahassee home — where Dan Markel was found bleeding from a fatal close-range gunshot wound to the head Friday morning.
Cops on Wednesday released a grainy surveillance video still of a car of interest — what appears to be a light-colored Toyota Prius — that was seen in the area of Markel’s Betton Hills home around the time of his 11 a.m. murder.
“In this day and age, many of our citizens use cameras for home and personal protection. Our hope is one of those cameras could provide us with a piece of vital information to bring this terrible tragedy to a close for all of those involved,” Tallahassee Police Chief Michael DeLeo said in statement.
The Florida State University professor, a Toronto native who graduated from Harvard Law School in 2001, was the intended target in the senseless [sic] crime, which showed no evidence of burglary or robbery, cops said.
The father of two boys, ages 3 and 5, was divorced a year ago from Wendi Adelson, a 35-year-old fellow FSU professor and mother of the children.
The two had a court squabble over the boys’ custody, and police interviewed the woman, who has been cooperating with investigators.
By Nicholas Stix
By Nicholas Stix
Apparently, militant homosexuals are hiding behind the “racism” mask. The warning is in English, I guess, because Clear Channel is broadcasting in English.
And whom would Poles be telling, "Go home"? Gypsies? I suppsioe they should say, "Oh, please, Gypsies, stay and spread disease and crime, and suck the hard-working, Polish taxpayers dry!"
At Gates of Vienna.
A tip ‘o the hate to Countenance.
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Previously: “Tennessee: Racist, Lefty Hack Smears Opposition to Liberal Judges.”
By David in TN
In June 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren saw that Nixon might win the presidency that fall and resigned so that LBJ could appoint a liberal to succeed him. LBJ then picked his crony Associate Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice.
However, Republican and Southern Democrat senators filibustered and Fortas had to withdraw in October 1968. This forced Warren to stay until Nixon was able to appoint Warren Burger as Chief Justice.
Fortas was forced to resign the Court in 1969 because of accepting payoffs. He also had been working with LBJ while a Justice, writing Johnson's 1966 State of the Union address for example.
By David in TN
Markel Died from Shot to the Head
Florida State law professor Dan Markel died from a gunshot wound to the head, Tallahassee Police announced Tuesday.
[Previously, on this crime, at WEJB/NSU:
“Tallahassee: White FSU Law Professor, Dan Markel, Shot and Killed; WTXL Provides No Information on Murder, and No Reader Comments, but Lots of Rules for Comments”;
“Dan Markel 1972-2014: White FSU Law Prof was Murdered in Home Invasion; Media: Tallahassee PD Refused to Give Any Info; Everything Came from Blog, Via Vic’s Friend (Update)”;
“Breaking News: Was Dan Markel Trayvoned? Neighbors Frustrated over TPD Stonewalling; Murdered, White FSU Law Prof’s Tallahassee Neighborhood Had for 3-4 Weeks been Hit by Massive Doses of Diversity Crime, Just Like George Zimmerman’s, in Run-Up to Martin’s Failed Murder Attempt”;
“Dan Markel Murder Update: Tallahassee PD: Killing was Not a Robbery, but a Premeditated Murder by Someone Who Knew Him; TPD Tip Line: 850-891-4462”; and
“Friends and Colleagues of Murdered FSU Law Prof Dan Markel Fear that Justice May be Meted Out to His Killer.”]
By Nicholas Stix
My partner-in-crime, David in TN, who sent me this disguised political advertisement, wrote yesterday,
We have early voting in Tennessee. Yesterday I voted against each of these judges.
The North Dallas Gazette, where this appeared, is a racist black newspaper serving Dallas’ black middle and upper-middle class.
Note that while Charles Grant keeps complaining about the Judges’ Republican opponents not giving the judges’ side of the story, Grant doesn’t, wither. All he does is smear the opponents, while not spending any time showing examples of their probity, say, by giving examples where they ruled against Democrat hobby horses.
The people of Tennessee have the right to vote on whether to retain these three judges in question, but Grant refuses to admit that. Instead, he acts as if the people were obligated to rubber stamp the recommendation of a commission of lawyers. Then why have an election at all?
He keeps howling about “special interests,” but the “special interests” he’s talking about are white folks. He acts as though black supremacism were both constitutional, and the will of the people.
I looked up the justices in question at Judgepedia, which identifies all of them as liberal, Cornelia Clark as quite so, and one, Sharon Lee, as extremely so.
Gary R. Wade
In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan ideology of state supreme court justices in their paper, State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns. A score above 0 indicated a more conservative leaning ideology while scores below 0 are more liberal. Wade received a Campaign finance score (CFscore) of -0.14, indicating a liberal ideological leaning. This is more liberal than the average CF score of -0.02 that justices received in Tennessee. The study is based on data from campaign contributions by judges themselves, the partisan leaning of contributors to the judges or, in the absence of elections, the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study is not a definitive label of a justice, but an academic gauge of various factors.
In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan ideology of state supreme court justices in their paper, State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns. A score above 0 indicated a more conservative leaning ideology while scores below 0 are more liberal. Clark received a Campaign finance score (CFscore) of -0.4, indicating a liberal ideological leaning. This is more liberal than the average CF score of -0.02 that justices received in Tennessee. The study is based on data from campaign contributions by judges themselves, the partisan leaning of contributors to the judges or, in the absence of elections, the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study is not a definitive label of a justice, but an academic gauge of various factors.
See also: Political ideology of State Supreme Court Justices
In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan ideology of state supreme court justices in their paper, State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns. A score above 0 indicated a more conservative leaning ideology while scores below 0 are more liberal. Lee received a Campaign finance score (CFscore) of -0.81, indicating a liberal ideological leaning. This is more liberal than the average CF score of -0.02 that justices received in Tennessee. The study is based on data from campaign contributions by judges themselves, the partisan leaning of contributors to the judges or, in the absence of elections, the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study is not a definitive label of a justice, but an academic gauge of various factors.
Consider also the following, closing passage from the Judgepedia article on Justice Gary R. Wade, which contradicts Charles Grant’s assertions as to the ethical purity of the justices he supports.
Other senate Republicans have also expressed concern that the judicial conduct board is not thoroughly investigating complaints against judges. Tennessee's house majority leader, Gerald McCormick, also supported the senate hearing. McCormick has been critical of the recent efforts by the three justices to coordinate their campaigns to remain on the bench. "They need to be replaced," he told the TN Report. McCormick accused the justices of acting like "partisan Democrats" and criticized what he called their "aggressive" efforts to raise funds "so they can keep their jobs."
Power grab in Tenn. judge elections could have national implications
By NDG Staff [sic]
July 22, 2014
North Dallas Gazette
By Hazel Trice Edney
(TriceEdneyWire.com) – An attempt to unseat three judges in an upcoming Nashville, Tenn. election is nothing less than a “raw power grab” by right wing special interests using big money to buy control of the courts, says the head of a non-partisan organization of lawyers this week.
“It is a raw power grab is what it is. Their campaign against these justices are [sic] based on a series of lies, half-truths, misstatements and material omissions,” says Charles Grant, president of the bi-partisan [Ha!] Nashville Bar Association (NBA), which has endorsed the retention of the judges. “It has huge implications nationally because if they can do it here, they can do it anywhere.”
The situation involves three Tennessee Supreme Court Justices Cornelia A. Clark, Sharon Gail Lee and Gary R. Wade, all up for retention on the court by the vote on Aug. 7. They were originally appointed by Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen.
Opposing the judges are namely Republican Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey and other Republicans backed by wealthy political operatives, some from outside the state, including the billionaire Koch brothers [Boo! Hiss!] of Wichita, Kans., according to widespread media reports. Among Ramsey’s tools is a 30-page Power Point that attempts to scare voters by claiming – in part – that the three judges are soft on the death penalty and “anti-business”.
Grant says the claims in the Power Point are blatantly false and undermines the integrity of the process.
“It is chock full of misstatements, it’s misleading, it has substantial omissions, sometimes it attributes to these judges opinions that were written by the Court of Appeals for example. And when confronted with all of this misleading information that he is putting out to the public about the quality of these justices’ work, he will come right out and say, ‘It’s not my job to tell their side of the story,’” says Grant, the NBA’s first Black [sic] president. “What is it that they hope to accomplish? They hope to control the court. [As opposed to his side controlling it.] That’s what they hope to accomplish. They don’t want independence. They want control.”
[Charles Grant is as phony as a three-dollar bill. He doesn’t for one minute believe in judicial independence. He wants to maintain control, but he’s sneaky about it, while the liberal judges’ opponents are being open.]
In Tennessee media reports, Ramsey has defended his conduct by saying, “I’m telling my side of the story and they’ll get to tell their side of the story. Every campaign tells half of the story…They tell their side of the story and the people decide.”
Adding to the difficulty of clarifying their records is the fact that judges can’t speak out to defend themselves in the same manner as someone running for a political office. Because of codes of conduct, they must appear impartial at all times and avoid public confrontations that could warrant a conflict of interest later. They can’t speak publicly on specific cases. Neither can they ask for financial contributions.
[Liberal judges have the entire MSM to troll for them.]
Voters would need to research deeply [ridic!] to unearth the real facts pertaining to the three judges, Grant says. For example, though Ramsey contends they are soft on the death penalty, they have actually affirmed 90 percent of the death penalty cases before them, Grant says. As for the “anti-business” charge, “It is not the justices’ jobs to be leaning one way or the other. That is not what we want them to do. We want them to decide the cases based on the facts and the law without favor, without prejudice to one side or the other.”
The historic principles that have allowed for major progress in America are also at stake, Grant says.
“If Supreme Court judges had been subject to special interests, we would never have had Brown verses [sic] Board of Education. We would never have had the landmark decision that dismantled segregation and state-enforced discrimination through laws like Jim Crow and racially restrictive covenants and red-lining by banks and all of those things that enforce racism and racial oppression. So we need to have some kind of check on this power to make sure the basic constitutional rights and the bill of rights are protected.”
[But the decisions and laws he’s defending all violated the U.S. Constitution, and especially, The Bill of Rights (e.g., freedom of association!), not to mention most state constitutions.]
In a nutshell, the 40-year-old “merit selection” process by which judges are chosen in Tennessee is quite common in states across the U. S. [That doesn’t make it good, or suggest that the public should blindly follow it.] Candidates are intensely vetted [yeah, right—politically vetted, to make sure no constitutionalists get through] through a bi-partisan nine-member judicial evaluation commission, which then recommends three judges to the governor for any vacancy on the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court.
[Apparently, Grant needs to look up the definition of the word, “recommend.” He has confused it with “mandate.”]
When the eight-year term is up, the judges are re-evaluated by a commission which then makes a public recommendation on whether the judge should be retained. If the commission decides against the retainer, the judge is subject to a popular election. If the commission decides for the retainer; then the judges go on the ballot for the public to review their record and to review the recommendations and to determine whether or not they should be replaced.
[The second popular option is also an election.]
After this rigorous process, Clark, Lee and Wade were all recommended for retainer by the commission of non-partisan lawyers and citizens. Yet, the judges are now under a partisan attack.
[No, they are getting a partisan defense by a racist, political hack who supports rule by lawyers.]
With the rigorous campaign to unseat and replace them, Grant fears the judges’ retention bids could realistically fail because of the potency of the smear campaign and the money that is backing it.
[What’s wrong with rigor? The only smear campaign is the one attacking the Koch Bros., Ron Ramsey, and other Republican opponents of these liberal judges.]
“It is about buying influence. They are going after these justices because these justices do not cow tow to special interests. They do their jobs. They call the balls and strikes as they see them,” Grant says. “When a special interest or group wants to target a judge, it’s kind of easy to identify, to take one of their one hundred opinions or whatever, to misstate the facts or misstate the law or completely mislead.”
Grant and the NBA are not alone in their advocacy for fairness in the process. On July 15, a bi-partisan group of district attorneys came forward to support the three judges saying they have outstanding records and deserve to be retained. Also, Republican Mickey Barker a former chief justice of the Tennessee Supreme Court, has been quoted as calling the anti-retention campaign “frightening” because it would turn the Tennessee Supreme Court into a “partisan branch of government.”
[News flash: The entire judiciary has long been a “partisan branch of government,” and it is the left wing of the Democratic Party, going back at least to FDR’s 1937 “revolution” on the U.S. Supreme Court. Roosevelt threatened to pack the court, by adding up to six leftwing justices, in order to stifle all judicial independence that might resist his New Deal power grabs, that made it that way. In response, the USSC meekly submitted to FDR. Ultimately FDR replaced five justices, including one conservative, who resigned in disgust, which led to the Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, which Grant praises to the skies, arguably the most corruptly partisan ruling in Supreme Court history.]
Trial lawyer Lew Conner, also a Republican, recently held a fund-raiser of his own to assist the judges in their retention bid. “This is about a system being wrongfully attacked, and Ramsey is the attacker,” Conner was quoted in the Tennessee Watchdog.
Grant says the bi-partisan outrage is simply due to the knowledge that a politicized judiciary could lead to a rogue court which could make decisions based on political whims and allegiances instead of the facts of the cases before them.
[Doesn’t it just warm your heart, to hear racist black political hacks sing hosannas to judicial independence? Charles Grant must have been leading the fight against “Barack Obama’s subversion of judicial independence… except that he hasn’t.]
He concludes, “Lawyers don’t want judges beholding [sic] to special interests. None of us do. Lawyers don’t want to walk into court thinking that the scales of justice are already tilted toward one party before we’ve had an opportunity to present our case,” Grant concludes. [What a liar.] “The only way to win is to educate the population. If you want an independent judiciary; you have to understand when it’s under attack by partisan special interests.”
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Friends and Colleagues of Murdered FSU Law Prof Dan Markel Fear that Justice May be Meted Out to His Killer
Law professor Dan Markel, 41, was shot in his Tallahassee, Fla., home on Friday and died Saturday
News / GTA
Toronto-born law professor Dan Markel gunned down at his Florida home
Tallahassee police have no suspects in the murder of the Florida State University professor, a father of two young boys.
By Todd Coyne
Sun Jul 20 2014
Friends of a Toronto-born law professor are at a loss for words for their grief this week, while police remain at a loss for suspects in his murder.
Dan Markel, 41, an accomplished legal scholar at Florida State University and father to two young boys, was mourned by hundreds on Sunday near the Tallahassee home where he was gunned down on Friday morning.
He died of his injuries in hospital on Saturday.
“They’re treating it as a homicide at this point; this is not considered a break-in,” a Tallahassee police spokesperson told the Star on Sunday. “We don’t have any suspects at this time.”
The shooting at Markel’s Betton Hills home rocked the upscale Tallahassee neighbourhood. William Marvin was not home at the time of the attack, but he recalled fondly the conversations he would have with his neighbour two doors down whenever the two crossed paths.
“He was a really good guy,” Marvin said. “I just think it’s a tragedy and I feel sorry for the kids.”
School faculty, friends and family members — including Markel’s parents from Toronto — gathered at the nearby Shomrei Torah synagogue Sunday to read prayers and share memories of Markel.
“He brought lots of joy here on Saturday mornings,” said congregation president Ellen Simon, who presided over the ceremony. “He was very lively and our congregation became more lively because of him.”
In the legal community, Markel had close friends in some of the highest reaches of the academic world. Some who spoke with the Star noted the sad irony between Markel’s crusading work against the death penalty and the punishment that may await the perpetrator of his murder.
“If it turns out he was killed in the course of a robbery or burglary,” said Professor Jonathan Simon at the University of California, Berkeley, “that would be one of your quintessential crimes in America that would get the death penalty in a state like Florida.”
Simon said he was supposed to speak with Markel by phone on Friday morning. When the call never came, he waited and waited until finally he heard the terrible news.
Glenn Cohen, a colleague and professor at Harvard University — where Markel attended undergrad and later law school — remembered him as an “academic matchmaker,” more keen to help others succeed than to help himself.
New York University law professor Rick Hills, Jr., last saw Markel when the Florida resident stayed with him in New York just two weeks ago.
Markel had not told many of his friends yet, but he told Hills that he was happy in a new relationship with a woman after going through a divorce with the mother of his children in the past two years, Hills said.
“He was rebuilding his life after a really, really difficult period,” Hills said. “I was watching him as he was in my apartment Skyping his kids and saying goodnight on his cellphone … he was so happy.”
Markel’s body is expected to be repatriated to Canada while funeral arrangements will be made by his family in Toronto later this week.
With files from Paul Clarke
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
The Volokh Conspiracy
July 20, 2014
The Ninth Circuit has handed down a new decision that I find rather puzzling. The case is Wood v. Ryan, and it involves a preliminary injunction of a planned lethal injection so the inmate can litigate a First Amendment claim seeking information about his execution. I’ll give a quick run-down of the court’s analysis, and then I’ll explain why I find it unpersuasive.
Wood, the condemned, is set to be executed by lethal injection in Arizona next week using a combination of two drugs, Midazolam and Hydromorphone. In this case, Wood seeks the following information about the execution:
the source(s), manufacturer(s), National Drug Codes (“NDCs”), and lot numbers of the drugs the Department intends to use in his execution; (2) non-personally identifying information detailing the qualifications of the personnel the Department will use in his execution; and (3) information and documents explaining how the Department developed its current lethal-injection drug protocol.
Wood claims that the First Amendment provides a right of the public to access such details about an execution. So Wood filed a suit seeking access to this information and requested a preliminary injunction of his execution so he can fully litigate the question and hopefully gain access to the information he is seeking. The district court rejected the claim.
In the new decision, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to preliminarily enjoin the state from executing the inmate so he could pursue his First Amendment claim. The court first holds that there is a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that the First Amendment provides a right of access to the requested information. The court next holds that the remaining preliminary injunction requirements point in favor of the preliminary injunction. First, a denial of First Amendment freedoms is always irreparable injury. Second, the equities point in favor of an injunction because the state doesn’t appear (in the panel’s view) to have a good reason why it is withholding the information. Third, the public interest is in favor of the injunction, as the public has a strong interest in the First Amendment and in debating methods of execution.
Although I find Judge Bybee’s dissent persuasive on the underlying First Amendment question, I was even more puzzled by the majority’s remedial analysis. I’m not an expert in civil remedies, but there’s something that strikes me as quite odd about the court’s remedies discussion.
Here’s my thinking. Usually, when a plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction, the requested relief is an injunction of the unlawful conduct. The plaintiff claims that X is unlawful, so he asks the court to preliminarily enjoin X. The court then applies the requirements for a preliminary injunction established by Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008): The plaintiff “must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” The Winter requirements amount to an assessment of the pros and cons of enjoining the unlawful act — the likelihood the challenged act is unlawful, the costs of allowing the unlawful act to continue, and the like.
This case is odd because the plaintiff is not trying to enjoin the allegedly unlawful act. Instead, the plaintiff is trying to enjoin his execution — something that is not being challenged here as unlawful — so the plaintiff can effectively pursue the underlying First Amendment claim on the public’s behalf. The extra weird part is that when the court considers whether the plaintiff has satisfied the Winter requirements for the preliminary injunction, the court does not evaluate the pros and cons of the court granting the injunction. Instead, the court evaluates the pros and cons of the plaintiff winning his First Amendment claim. It then uses the outcome of that inquiry to then provide the quite different relief of enjoining the execution. It’s an odd juxtaposition: The Winter requirements concern one claim and the remedy is about a different claim.
Of course, I get the practical connection between the two claims. The plaintiff is trying to find out the details of his execution in part so he can challenge the execution using whatever details are disclosed. He can’t challenge the execution after it occurs, so he needs have the execution stopped first so he can find out more information and then challenge the execution again based on what he learns. I get the strategy. But the legal argument doesn’t fit the strategy, it seems to me. The legal argument is based on a general public right of access to which everyone is entitled; as a legal matter, he’s no more entitled than anyone else who seeks the information to bring the underlying First Amendment claim. Given that, the remedy of preliminarily enjoining the execution doesn’t fit the nature of the claim.
Or so it seems to me. As I said, I’m not an expert in civil remedies, so maybe I’m just missing something. If so, I hope readers will fill me. And I should stress that I’m just analyzing the legal argument as a legal argument: Those who are more inclined to analyze this case through the lens of policy or morality of course may have a very different view.
Orin Kerr is the Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor at The George Washington University Law School, where he has taught since 2001. He teaches and writes in the area of criminal procedure and computer crime law. Kerr is a former law clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy at the U.S. Supreme Court. From 1998 to 2001, he was a Trial Attorney in the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section at the U.S. Department of Justice. In 2013, Chief Justice Roberts appointed Kerr to a 3-year term on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. You can follow him on Twitter @orinkerr.
A tip ‘o that hate to Jamie Satterfield.
Would You Let Your Son Play Football?
Onion Poll • Sports • Opinion • ISSUE 50•29 • Jul 21, 2014
Yes. The risk of permanent injury just doesn’t outweigh the opportunity to inflict injury on others.
No way. There just aren’t enough long-term studies yet about the effects of repeatedly concussing your head.
Only if football is something that’s in his blood and you can’t take it out of him, if this whole town lives and dies by football, if football is all there is.
Yes, but only up until middle school or whenever I stop needing to live vicariously through my son.
Absolutely. How else will my son find a sense of belonging in high school as a chiseled, athletic teenager?
Definitely. Kids need outdoor activity and bonding with friends, and I can’t think of anything else that does that but football.
Wait, we can say no to our children?