Saturday, September 22, 2018

No Justice for Two Americans Murdered by Guatemalan Illegal Alien

By Reader-Researcher R.C.

The driver who struck them was 37-year-old Manuel Orrego-Savala, originally from Guatemala, living in the U.S. illegally and driving without a license. He had twice been deported: first in 2007, then again in 2009 after arrests in California.

N.S.: This Yahoo article sucks; it doesn’t even tell you what state the killings took place in. “I-70.” Yahoo is not a local news site for Indiana.

In case readers are wondering why I referred to the killings as murders, rather than cases of vehicular manslaughter: If someone kills another person in the act of committing a felony, that killing is felony murder, even if the killer did not intentionally commit murder. After Manuel Orrego-Savala was deported the first time, his mere presence on American soil was a felony.

At Yahoo.

Tucker Carlson: If GOP Surrenders to Christine Ford’s Demand for Delay in Testifying, Kavanaugh Nomination is Dead in the Water, and Trump Will Never Get that Seat on the U.S. Supreme Court

By Nicholas Stix

In other words, the Communists will have undone the election. And that’s what it was always about.

Friday, September 21, 2018

Jennifer Rubin, “Conservative”

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Rubin is as typical a poster girl as any for contemporary neo-conservatism.

What does she believe in? Absolutely nothing! What is the depth of her knowledge? Not even a fingertip deep.

Meet Lazarus and Cleo: A Brief, Touching Video

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Former Comedian Jay Mohr Has Had a Sex Change Operation!


This pic is from 2014, when Mohr was at most 44. Just imagine what he, er, she must look like now.

By Nicholas Stix

Mohr is now a mangina. He has also had his funny bone surgically removed.

Look at the following twits, which go even beyond the #TawanaFordHoax:

Not even Christine Ford has claimed that Brett Kavanaugh raped her (yet).

Apparently, Jay Mohr sees going hysterically overboard in support of this hoax, as essential to his career survival. Let’s hope Hollywood’s feminazis give him the business, good and hard, anyway.

Thursday, September 20, 2018

“Conservatives”: The Constitution is a Suicide Pact

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

How does one explain “conservative” positions such as the embrace of birthright citizenship?

The simplest is to follow the money. My understanding is that “conservative intellectuals” get a fair percentage of their funding from the open borders lobby.

Of at least equal significance is the baleful influence of one William F. Buckley Jr., even from beyond the grave.

When Buckley founded National Review in 1955, he was a staunch, open segregationist, and equally staunch anti-Communist. He would jettison both orientations, and destroy others who maintained them.

In 1962, Buckley led a conspiracy to destroy Robert Welch, the founder of the John Birch Society, and one of America’s most brilliant, able, and rich domestic anti-Communists. (Unlike Buckley, Welch was adamantly opposed to segregation. The rich part is important, because Welch, who’d made a fortune in the candy business, had to be able to finance his organization. The JBS exists to this day, but thanks to Buckley and his co-conspirators, has wielded no influence on American public affairs since the early 1960s.)

Buckley led a conspiracy to destroy Welch, who had financially helped Buckley found National Review, acting as if he were doing it on behalf of Barry Goldwater and the Republican Party. Humbug! Welch was a rival. Buckley cared only about eliminating rivals to the mantle of godfather of conservatism.

Once Buckley had knocked Welch out of the way, he set about jettisoning most recognizably conservative positions, and replacing them with liberal ones. He accepted civil rights and turned anti-Communism into a matter of foreign affairs.

Why did he do that? Although he was to the manor born, as he shed his enfant terrible guise, Buckley became a weird sort of social climber, who sought to get in the good graces of Manhattan’s Jewish “liberals.” At least, that’s all I can see.

Since Buckley’s death in 2008, his magazine has embraced homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and the Trayvon Martin Hoax.

Other “conservative” publications, such as Commentary and The Federalist, have staked out similar positions.

William F. Buckley: How I Conspired to Kill Off Domestic Anti-Communism

A Republican conspiracy to kill off populist patriots. Hmm, that sounds familiar.

Buckley closes, by insinuating that he made Ronald Reagan’s electoral victories possible. Garbage. Buckley’s only contribution to Reagan was in not conspiring to destroy him, too.

“The wound we Palm Beach plotters delivered to the John Birch Society proved fatal over time. Barry Goldwater did not win the presidency, but he clarified the proper place of anti-Communism on the Right, with bright prospects to follow.”

Thanks to William F. Buckley Jr.’s successful war on domestic anti-Communism, Communism triumphed in America. Thanks to the anti-populist, anti-patriotic tradition he founded, the GOP and America may soon be no more, or will exist in name only.

National Review’s Latest Defense of Birthright Citizenship
Michael Anton
September 18, 2018
The Claremont Review of Books

When did “conservatism” decide that birthright citizenship is the hill to die on for the “right”? I could not say.

That they have so decided is plain from various responses to recent writings by Edward J. Erler, John Eastman, and myself. We maintain (and I learned the argument from Erler and Eastman, groundbreaking scholars on this issue, both of whom have been my teachers) that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does not, and was not intended to, mandate birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.

“Conservatism” is still howling in outrage. How dare we!

Various arguments have been trotted out, all of them “pre-butted” by things we had already written, yet we responded anyway. I sure hope somebody, somewhere got something out of those exchanges, because it’s abundantly clear that mainstream “conservatism” did not. And so here it comes again—in “conservatism’s” alleged “flagship publication,” no less—to insist the United States absolutely, positively must confer birthright citizenship on the children of illegal immigrants.

Before addressing the larger questions raised by this bizarre fixation, it’s worth rehashing (again) at least part of the textual debate. (For those who want to read some of the earlier pieces, which go into all this in much greater detail, I point to this, this, this and this. For those who really want to understand the argument in all its detail, complexity and nuance, I point to Erler’s forthcoming tour de force, which I was privileged to read prior to publication.)

“Pound the weak tooth,” a friend in politics likes to say. That is, if your opponent has one weakness—no matter how minor, trivial or even made up—focus all your fire on that issue to the exclusion of everything else. Indeed, pretend that the rest does not even exist. Define the opponent solely by the weak tooth.

My “conservative” critics have joined their liberal brethren in dismissing my entire argument because I inserted the word “or,” in brackets, into a quotation from Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, from a speech in the 1866 Senate debate on the 14th Amendment. In hindsight, I wish I had not done so. Not because I agree with critics that doing so “changes the meaning significantly” but because it gave critics a weak tooth to pound, to the exclusion of all else.

The latest missive, by Dan McLaughlin, thus accuses me of “placing a heavy weight on the grammatical construction of a political speech rather than a legislative text.” This is incorrect in two fundamental ways.

First, it is not I who place “a heavy weight on the grammatical construction of a political speech” but my critics. It is they who insist that this one quotation from Senator Howard, and only one interpretation thereof, settles the matter. That’s because only that particular quotation is ambiguous enough to be spun as leaving the door open to birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. When one reads through the entire debate on the 14th Amendment—which Erler, Eastman, and I have done, while our critics apparently have not—the context, and therefore the meaning, of that quotation becomes clear. It is simply unsustainable to insist that Senator Howard meant that the 14th Amendment was intended to grant birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

In one earlier rebuttal alone, I cited no fewer than ten other quotations from the debates on the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (whose clauses on citizenship are nearly identical). Ten. So far as I have been able to find, none of those still attacking me has addressed any of those other quotations. Nor do they address the fact—which I explicated quite clearly—that later in the debate, when Senator Howard clarified what he meant by the quotation in question, he makes it plain that he meant exactly what I interpreted him to mean. Instead, my critics—liberal and “conservative”—just keep pounding the weak tooth. Since examining any of the other quotations in the debate undermines their case, they simply ignore them all.

As I noted in an earlier piece:

to sustain the line of attack being used against me, one must insist on three things. First that only the first quote from Senator Howard is authoritative in interpreting the 14th Amendment. Second, that the quote means only what my critics say it means and is open to no other possible interpretation. Third, that all the other quotes cited which clearly state that the framers of the Amendment equated “subject to the jurisdiction” with “not owing allegiance to anybody else” are somehow irrelevant. Even though they were spoken in the same debate—some of them to express agreement with Senator Howard!

No rebuttal to this has yet been attempted, much less accomplished.

The second point—that I place more weight on a speech than on a “legislative text”—is not merely untrue but disingenuous. Surely any “conservative” lawyer who purports to be concerned with Constitutional interpretation knows that Constitutional language is not always clear, or at least does not always clearly answer every contemporary question. The whole premise of “originalism” and “strict constructionism” is that, when and where there are doubts on the proper interpretation of a Constitutional provision, the best and most proper place to look for illumination is to ratification debates. That is, the right approach is to try to understand what the framers and adopters of the clause in question intended it to mean. “Conservatives” used to be in favor of “originalism.” Are they still? If so, why am I being chided for looking to the ratification debate on the 14th Amendment for illumination on that amendment’s meaning?

To repeat an argument already made in earlier writings—but that apparently needs repeating—it is not starkly obvious from the text of the 14th Amendment exactly what every word is intended to mean. Specifically, it is not obvious from the text alone why the jurisdiction clause—“subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (i.e., of the United States)—is there or what it means. If, as our critics insist, it simply means “subject to American law” then it is entirely superfluous. With the exception of foreign diplomats, any person physically in the United States is subject to American law. That emphatically includes illegal immigrants [sic]and their children. If the 14th Amendment was intended to grant citizenship to the latter, then clearly the jurisdiction clause has no purpose. The first sentence of the Amendment could simply have read: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” If it said that, there would be no question that the text confers birthright citizenship on the children of illegal aliens.

But it doesn’t say that. It adds that intervening clause: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” [Emphasis added.]  Why is that clause there? Most defenders of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants [sic]insist that it is there only to exclude the children of foreign diplomats and Indian tribes. I note here the hypocrisy in ruling illegitimate my looking beyond the text of the amendment for illumination of its meaning—for that is exactly what my critics must do to have any hope of sustaining their assertion that the framers of the 14th Amendment meant to exclude from birthright citizenship only the children of foreign diplomats and Indian tribes. Certainly, the text itself does not say that! They, like I, must look for clarification beyond the text, to the ratification debate.

But in their case, the ratification debate offers no solace. Those aforementioned ten other quotations—and many, many others—make abundantly clear that the framers of the amendment meant to exclude the children of all foreigners (barring, perhaps, the children of legal permanent residents). Here is (again) just one quotation, from Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, who says that “subject to the jurisdiction” means: “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” [Emphasis added.] I still do not see how this does not settle the matter.

McLaughlin’s attack then turns on two other points. The first is a twofold misreading of the Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898. He falsely claims that the parents of Wong Kim Ark were “transients” in the United States. Not so; they were legal permanent residents. Thus even if one accepts Wong Kim Ark as constitutionally sound, one is bound to admit only that the children of legal permanent residents are constitutionally entitled to birthright citizenship.

But Wong Kim Ark is not constitutionally sound, as the dissent on that decision by Chief Justice Melville Fuller demonstrates. McLaughlin gloats that the court ruled “that the Fourteenth Amendment had adopted the doctrine of jus soli, by which citizenship was conferred at birth rather than through the citizenship of the parents, and thus its logic extends to all born here regardless of parentage.” This is true insofar as that is what the majority opinion asserts. But Fuller’s dissent makes clear that the majority opinion is incorrect. Jus soli is a doctrine of English common law which holds that all born subject to the British crown are forever subject to the crown. Fuller correctly notes that the American Revolution overturned jus soli for the American nation. Indeed, in the very act of establishing the American nation, the American people renounced subjectship to the British crown. They—we—were no longer bound by allegiance to that crown. Our common bonds of citizenshipnot subjectship—were redefined on the basis of the social compact and it is on this foundation that they still rest. Jus soli stands or falls by the doctrine of indissoluble allegiance. But in Chief Justice Fuller’s ringing words, “from the Declaration of Independence to this day the United States have rejected the doctrine of indissoluble allegiance.”

This is also made clear by the Expatriation Act of 1868, passed the same year that the 14th Amendment was ratified. The act declares that “the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people,” and further provides

that any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.

These are stark repudiations of the doctrine of jus soli. An inherent right of expatriation is fundamentally opposed to indissoluble allegiance. This law, which was supported by many of the same men who drafted the 14th Amendment, was intended explicitly to overturn jus soli and make indisputable that citizenship in America is based on the principle of consent as articulated in the Declaration of Independence. Indissoluble allegiance clearly violates the “consent of the governed,” which is central to the legitimacy of the American regime and to the coherence of American political thought. Consent is granted initially at the establishment of the social compact (in the American case, on July 4th, 1776). Children born to citizens after that initial establishment of the compact consent, upon reaching adulthood, by choosing to remain in the country. They can withdraw their consent by emigrating. There is, in the American system, no perpetual allegiance to the American—or to any—government.

So much for jus soli.

Second, McLaughlin trots out a few other, older quotations—not from the ratification debate on the 14th Amendment—and insists that they illuminate the true meaning of that amendment. This is very weak sauce. I note again the inconsistency that appeals beyond the text of the amendment are disallowed to me but are A-OK for him. Beyond this, even if one could prove—which the quotations cited absolutely do not—that, prior to the 14th Amendment, it was settled American law that the children of illegal immigrants [sic]were entitled to birthright citizenship, it would not change the fact that once the amendment was ratified, the nation was and remains bound by it and not by any prior understanding. The Constitution is amendable for a reason. Once amended, the new clause becomes part of “the supreme law of the land” and we are to be governed by it, and not by ambiguous quotations from years or even decades before.

The only questions, then, are what does the 14th Amendment really mean, and what was it intended to mean? The rest is a sideshow.

One of the more perverse arguments that “conservatives” keep making is that because illegal immigration was not a serious problem in the 1860s, the framers of the 14th Amendment did not and could not possibly have explicitly intended to exclude the children of illegal immigrants [sic]from birthright citizenship. Therefore we today have no choice but to grant birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

This “argument” admits that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend to require birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. And, indeed, one can search high and low in the ratification debate and find no explicit affirmation of such an intention. I made this point in an earlier essay. Another critic admitted that my claim is true, but called it “irrelevant”: “Objecting, as [Anton] does, that the writers of the Fourteenth Amendment never explicitly endorsed citizenship for children of illegal immigrants is also irrelevant.”

To which I replied:

If the framers of the 14th Amendment didn’t specifically intend to include the children of illegal immigrants [sic]and other non-citizens, how and why is it that all subsequent generations of Americans are bound to act as if they had? Why is this non-Constitutional non-provision, written down nowhere, intended by no one, supposed to bind us forever? Is this what “conservative” constitutional interpretation and jurisprudence have come to? If so, how is it any different than liberal jurisprudence?

In other words, this “argument” rests on the implicit assertion that the framers of the 14th Amendment were careless, or insufficiently foresighted, and inadvertently included a loophole, harmless enough in their own time of negligible illegal immigration but enormously consequential in our time of porous borders and extremely high levels of illegal immigration.

Implicit as it may be, this is an extraordinary admission. To the extent that our “conservatives” are not openly for open borders (and quite a few of them are), they mostly shy away from claiming that birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants [sic]is good—that is, good for America and our existing citizenry. On some level, they intuit that automatic birthright citizenship is antithetical to common sense. Or more precisely, they realize that most Americans—and nearly all Republicans and genuine conservatives—think automatic birthright citizenship is antithetical to common sense. So rather than make the futile case that birthright citizenship was intended all along—and that’s a good thing!—they default to “We’re stuck with it; it’s in the Constitution.”

Except, as we have repeatedly seen, it’s not.

Here are three questions for our “conservatives.” Suppose you could go back to 1866 and tell, and then ask, the framers of the 14th Amendment the following:

About a century from now, foreign nationals will begin in large numbers to cross our southern border illegally and remain in the country illegally. In addition, foreigners on student or temporary work visas will not leave when their visas expire but will instead unlawfully remain, intending to stay their whole lives. These practices will intensify in the decades that follow so that, by the year 2018, there will be some 12.5 million illegal immigrants [sic](at least; nobody really knows) living in the United States. Elite opinion will universally insist that the 14th Amendment—which you drafted—requires that our government confer citizenship to the children of these illegal immigrants. And, indeed, the U.S. government has been doing exactly that for decades. This practice is widely known throughout the world and incentivizes people in poorer countries to come to the United States illegally, knowing that their children born here will be made citizens, which will make it all but impossible for parents here illegally ever to be deported. Furthermore, those parents know that their citizen-children can later sponsor them and other members of their families for legal residency. In addition, advances in transportation technology will give rise to a phenomenon known as “birth tourism.” Mothers from relatively rich nations—including nations hostile to the United States—will travel to our country about a month before giving birth and pay large sums to so-called “maternity hotels” to have their babies in the United States. Those children are then automatically granted U.S. citizenship and therefore able, upon reaching adulthood, to bring entire families to settle in the United States.

Is this what you intend the 14th Amendment to do?

So, “original intent conservatives”: what do you think the framers of the 14th Amendment would answer? I think we all know. Why, then, are we to be forever bound by something that they never intended, that makes no sense, and that is doing great harm to our country?

Second question. Suppose birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants [sic]were so unambiguously forbidden by the text of the Constitution that even you could not deny the plain meaning of the language. Suppose the 14th Amendment read thus:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, excluding persons subject to any other foreign state or born to persons subject to any other foreign state, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

If that were the case, would you favor a constitutional amendment overturning this provision and requiring birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants?

Or flip the script. Suppose the 14th Amendment instead read thus:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, excluding only the children of foreign diplomats and of enrolled members of Indian tribes, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

That would—even I would have to agree—amount to an explicit constitutional grant of birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. Given the circumstances of 2018—negligible controls on the southern border, at least 12 million illegal immigrants [sic]in the country, the foreign-born percentage of the population nearing the Ellis Island peak, with all the attendant stresses on our welfare, judicial and school systems—would you support a new amendment that disallowed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants?

To ask is to laugh. Of course they wouldn’t. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine a “conservative” not salivating while reading my second imagined rewrite of the 14th Amendment. If only the actual text were this iron-clad! they swoon. Since it isn’t, they spend an inordinate amount of their finite intellectual capital gaslighting the rest of us with the flimsy insistence that it is.

I noted in a prior article that birthright citizenship is a global anomaly, practiced by only 33 of the world’s 197 countries. In addition, in the last several decades, at least nine countries that once offered some version of automatic birthright citizenship have repealed the practice. No country—not one, as far as I have been able to find—has gone the other way, from barring to allowing automatic birthright citizenship.

Thus, today, 83% of the global population lives in states that do not grant birthright citizenship; only 17% of the world’s people live in a state that does. Majorities are not always right and numbers—even overwhelming numbers—don’t guarantee truth. But the “wisdom of crowds” hypothesis at least suggests that maybe those 83% know something that our “conservatives” do not. The suggestion becomes especially suggestive if birthright citizenship in the American case is nothing more than the unintended consequence of textual imprecision—which, as we have seen, the “conservative” argument for birthright citizenship clearly demands.

Birthright citizenship, Erler has argued, is “a great magnet for illegal immigration.” That is emphatically true in the American case. Our country still has the world’s largest economy, far greater per-capita GDP than all but one country in our hemisphere, and wholly inadequate controls on our southern border. The United States, in addition, is far less afflicted by violent and other crimes than are many other countries to our south. It’s no wonder, then, that millions want to come here and do come here.

We may understand and sympathize with that desire. But sympathy is not a sound basis for policy—at least not by itself. Out of sympathy or compassion for persons displaced by war or other calamities, we take in a limited number of refugees every year. No one argues that doing so strengthens the American economy or polity, except perhaps in some moral sense. It is rather an act of generosity, a freely given gift.

A large, rich nation can afford such generosity—to a point. It cannot afford to allow such generosity to be interpreted to require birthright citizenship to the children of anyone who manages to cross its border illegally.

Yet “conservatives” leap to the defense of birthright citizenship with far more alacrity and ardor than they employ to support the rule of law, border security, the integrity of American citizenship, the interests of the actual American people, or many other genuinely conservative causes. I asked in an earlier piece—and here ask again—is there any practical limit to mass immigration or birthright citizenship that “conservatives” would accept?

How about this: Russia supposedly poses more of a threat today than it did during the height of the Cold War. So can we at least stop the practice of granting birthright citizenship to the children of Russian women who fly to Miami specifically to game our silly system?

I have yet to hear an answer. I suspect that “conservatism” fears that to crack the door just a bit—to allow one limit, no matter how narrow or sensible—is to leave the debate vulnerable to being thrust wide open. Who knows what other limits might follow if we concede this one? This, I note in passing, is identical to the “logic” mustered by the pro-abortion left to oppose laws against infanticide.

The basis of the American regime is the social compact, not jus soli or anything else. The social compact is a voluntary association of citizens. It cannot justly, lawfully be joined against the will of its existing members. A social compact without limits—without borders—is impossible, a self-contradiction: a compact that applies indiscriminately to all is not a compact. The purpose of our particular social compact is to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” [emphasis added]—i.e., not to people who come here uninvited and in violation of our law.

The meaning of “conservative” is “that which conserves.” It is not “that which changes” or “that which fundamentally transforms.” Change can sometimes serve conservative ends—the supreme example being the American Revolution—but knowing when, where, and if that is the case requires both prudence and an underlying understanding of permanent ends that official “conservatism” today sadly lacks.

It is quite clear how birthright citizenship and the mass immigration it attracts drive change. It is far less clear how they are in any way “conservative.” Certainly neither “conserves” the rule of law, of which birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants [sic]makes a mockery. Neither conserves the social compact. Nor does either conserve the interests of existing American citizens, which should always be the primary consideration driving immigration policy. The usual “conservative” arguments—the economy! entitlements! it’s who we are!—are hollow, mendacious, and self-contradictory, and at this point mere slogans.

One thing we can be absolutely sure that automatic birthright citizenship does not conserve is conservatism. America’s cities, counties, and states with the highest levels of illegal immigration are (or are among) the nation’s “bluest” and most liberal, where conservative ideas and political candidates hold no purchase. The correlation is so strong that it would be folly not to admit at least some causation. The “conservative” enthusiasm for illegal immigration thus amounts to a political and philosophic death wish.

One can already hear the “conservative” rejoinder: “We just have to do a better job of explaining our ideas.” They’ve been saying that for fifty years and getting nowhere. Meanwhile, the electoral and political climates continue to move inexorably away from them—us—yet all they can rouse themselves to do is defend to the death automatic birthright citizenship.

At any rate, this rejoinder is revealing. Conservatism of late has, as we have seen, not set for itself as its fundamental task to conserve the existing American nation, its ingenious form of government, its people, communities, traditions, and so on. It has rather taken up the quixotic task of persuading illegal immigrants [sic] and their children of the wisdom of supply side economics, enterprise zones, and school vouchers. Its repeated failure to make any headway at this self-appointed task has not chastened it in the least.

A self-aware conservatism would say to itself:

Our longstanding and current approach doesn’t appear to be working. Maybe there will come a day when we hit upon the precise message that will win over illegal immigrant communities. But until that day, prudence requires we get control of the border. In particular, we’d better get a handle on automatic birthright citizenship before it swamps our conservatism.

But official conservatism has never even glancingly thought that, much less articulated it aloud. Instead our “conservatives” begin from the premise that automatic birthright citizenship is unquestionable, not something to be debated, deliberated, or voted on. It is simply a given, a law of nature, a totem, a god. If conservatism itself must be sacrificed to this god, our “conservatives” are happy and eager to wield the knife.

I for one do not care if this version of “conservatism” commits mass suicide, so long as it confines the damage to itself. In fact, the act is likely to help the genuinely conservative project of conserving the American nation. A “conservatism” that is more insistent than ever that America’s border is merely a line on a map, otherwise without meaning, is in no sense “conservative.” Its ideas will not only not conserve America; they will not conserve conservatism.

Was Lesbianism a Factor in the Rite-Aid Mass Murder in Aberdeen, Maryland? (Photos of Black Killer)

[Previously, at WEJB/NSU: “Breaking News: Black Mass Murderer Who Attacked Aberdeen, Maryland Rite-Aid Identified.”]

By Nicholas Stix



Two views of black mass murderer Snochia Moseley. She will go into the Encyclopedia of Black Mass, Serial, and Spree Murderers just before Winston Moseley, who murdered and raped (presumably in that order--he liked them dead, because they couldn't resist) Kitty Genovese, among others.


Breaking News: Black Mass Murderer Who Attacked Aberdeen, Maryland Rite-Aid Identified

By Grand Rapids Anonymous
Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 5:16:00 P.M.

Black Shoots up Maryland Rite Aid

Snochia Moseley Identified as Aberdeen, Maryland, Shooting Suspect
By Juliana Rose Pignataro
9/20/18 AT 4:28 P.M.

Authorities identified Snochia Moseley as the suspect [sic] in Thursday’s shooting at a Rite Aid distribution center in Aberdeen, Maryland. Harford County Sheriff Jeff Gahler said the 26-year-old died at the hospital from a self-inflicted gunshot wound on Thursday.

Seven people, including the suspect [sic], were shot at the scene.

[N.S.: Translation: The perp shot six people at the scene. The perp cannot have been “shit at the scene”! The Daily Mail claims that Moseley killed three, and wounded four, before shooting herself.]

The suspect [sic] was a temporary employee at the distribution center with an address in Baltimore County. She reported to work as usual on Thursday morning before the shooting began. Authorities said they believed she acted alone and that there was no other danger to the public(wasn't there enough "danger" already?)

Gahler said authorities did not have a motive for what he called a “senseless crime.”

GRA: How about hate crime?

Let's see who she killed.

Video: Want a Break from the Tawana Brawley Hoax, and from Sweating Out Jake deGrom’s Hunt for the Cy Young Award? Let’s Go to the Dogs!

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

See This Photo of America’s Most Notorious Neo-Nazi!


Obama and Brett Kavanaugh Picture

By “W”

Even Lindsey Graham Understands What’s Up, with the Tawana Ford Hoax

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Man Accused of Killing a Mother of Five and Dumping Her Body in Northwest Dallas Arrested Near the Mexican Border


Murder victim Martha Alva had five children

By A Texas Reader

Man suspected in Dallas woman's slaying arrested near Mexican border, police say

The man accused of killing a mother of five and dumping her body in northwest Dallas may have fled to Mexico, police say. Ernesto...


Murder suspect Ernesto Carrillo-Hernandez is reportedly the father of two of Martha Alva’s children; we'll have to see if the autopsy shows she was carrying another child

Another Female Jogger Murdered; The Usual Vic Slaughtered by the Usual Suspect; Murder was “Random Attack”; Raceless Killer’s Shirt Has been Identified! Cue the Feminazis to Denounce White Men 3,2,1…


War crime victim Wendy Martinez was only 35. What’s the next step: Saying the vic died of unknown causes; “suicide”; “accidental death”? Don’t laugh; the NYPD does that all the time.

By Jerry PDX
Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 3:54:00 P.M. EDT

This one just hit the newswires, A young, pretty white woman, 35-year-old Wendy Martinez, has been stabbed to death while out jogging by a diversity murderer. Fox put it up immediately with a grainy video, though no detailed description of suspect. Yes, it's the usual victim and the usual suspect, but nobody will say it aloud. Police in the article are calling it a “random act” ... yeah, sure.

A quick search reveals no coverage by any of the other major national news media outlets. [N.S.: The Washington Post has since covered it, in its local section.]

At Fox News.


The war crime victim, and the raceless, black war criminal. When the police call a crime "a random attack," that's an inadvertent tell that it was a racist hate crime.

DC Police identify 35-yr-old jogger murdered in what investigators believe was a random attack. Wendy Martinez was an avid runner & lived near Logan Circle area. Prayers with her family & friends. This is sickening.

N.S.: D.C. Metro Police Chief Peter] Newsham said the suspect is described as a black man wearing a mustard-colored shirt that went to his thigh area, along with dark-colored sweatpants that were slightly rolled up. The man wore white socks and light-colored sandals, according to Newsham. He fled south on 11th Street NW.

Police said a knife was recovered at the scene.

“[Thirty-four-year-old Jogger Jessica] Dillman — who lives less than a block away — said she too is an avid runner. The block where the woman was stabbed is part of the ‘safe route’ she takes when she doesn’t want to run too far at night, Dillman said.

“‘I’m trying to be safe, and it’s just scary because women aren’t safe,’ she said. ‘It’s scary, it’s scary for all of us.’”

“Dillman, who said she runs with a knife, added that it scares her that a route that she thought was safe is now a homicide site, with the victim a woman who also ran.

When asked whether she would change her safe route, Dillman offered a sobering response.

“‘I don’t think there is a safe route for women,’ she replied.” [“Woman fatally stabbed in D.C.’s popular Logan Circle neighborhood,” by Michael Brice-Saddler and Dana Hedgpeth, Washington Post, September 19 at 1:17 P.M.]

But as Gloria Steinem famously proclaimed, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

When I first accessed the WP article, I was able to read a few comments, before the comments crapped out on me.

Some readers said that the initial report was that three black males were the suspects. The article was updated, with Chief Newsham reporting that there was one suspect, who was a black man.

Senate Judiciary Committee Member: Dr. Tawana Ford “keeps moving the goalposts”

By Nicholas Stix

Recall that during the 1987-1988 Tawana Brawley Hoax, Brawley and her hoax-helpers made ever wilder charges (e.g., IRA involvement) that she expected law enforcement, political leaders, and the media to accept on faith, seeking to destroy the lives of various white men and their families, and committing wire fraud to enrich herself, all while refusing to cooperate with the authorities.

A GOP senator argued Wednesday that the woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempted sexual assault is "moving the goal posts" as Republicans try to speak with her.

"We've done everything we can to try to accommodate Dr. [Christine Blasey] Ford, either her or her lawyers keep moving the goal posts, which is a little frustrating," Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) told Fox News.

The comments from Kennedy, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, echo remarks from other GOP senators and come as Republicans on the panel seek to speak with the Palo Alto University professor about her allegations against Kavanaugh….

Lawyers for Ford on Tuesday night pulled back on any plans for her to testify before the Judiciary Committee early next week, saying the FBI should investigate her claims first. The lawyers also noted that she has received threats and was forced to leave her house in California.

Republicans called the move an attempt to delay past the November midterm elections. The GOP was initially expected to advance Kavanaugh's nomination this Thursday, before Ford's allegations emerged.

The Justice Department has said that the allegations are not in the FBI's jurisdiction, noting that it investigates potential federal crimes or evidence someone may pose a national security risk….

Ford has said she does not remember when or where the alleged assault occurred, beyond that it was at a party in a Maryland suburb of Washington, D.C., in the early 1980s.

Republicans have pushed for Ford to testify at the hearing Monday. Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) also said he is willing to send staff to speak with Ford in California if that would make her more comfortable.

Kennedy told Fox on Wednesday that he still thought Ford might show up Monday.

"I'm not convinced, I know I'm in the minority, that Dr. Ford won't appear Monday," Kennedy said. "She's changed her mind a couple of times in this process, I'm not being critical, she just has."

Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) have said that the committee must move on as quickly as possible.

Corker, who urged the committee to pause the confirmation process to hear from Ford, said Tuesday night, "If we don't hear from both sides on Monday, let's vote."

"You gotta put this in context. The confirmation process is over," Kennedy said. "I'm not being critical, I'm being factual when I say this is an 11th-hour allegation, but we met and said we need to do the right thing here."
At The Hill.

Ann Coulter on the #ChristineBlaseyFord Hoax

By Nicholas Stix

“There’s nothing to investigate.”

“If you let them get away with this, you’ll have CNN running the country, because anyone could make any sort of claim at any time.”

The Christine Blasey Ford Circus Must End Now

By Nicholas Stix

Since #ChristineBlaseyFord refuses to cooperate with the Senate Judiciary Committee, and seeks to hijack the confirmation process, there is no reason to accede to her demands. The Committee should immediately vote on #BrettKavanaugh’s nomination.

Tuesday, September 18, 2018

Yet Another Example of How the #BrettKavanaugh Hoax Follows the M.O. of Campus Rape Hoax Culture and the #MeToo Hoax, in Going around the Law

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

A New Name for the Media

By Nicholas Stix

The little boy who cried wolf three million times.

When is the wolf going to eat him?

Casting Call Announcement

Need 40-50 actresses, 49-53 years old, for roles as women whom #BrettKavanaugh raped during early 1980s. Must be available immediately, 24/7, be able to give heartbreaking, credible-sounding testimony under oath. Send head shots, resume.

Superintendent: “You can't count on a black quarterback!”

By “W”
Tue, Sep 18, 2018 4:02 p.m.

At Diversity Inc.

Politico Gang Member Daniel Lippman Has Just Won His First Duranty-Blair Award for Journalistic Infamy!

.@AndrewRestuccia and I called many of Kavanaugh's 65 female HS acquittances who signed a letter supporting him. After his accuser came out on Sunday, only TWO said they still stood by him. More than two dozen didn't respond, and two declined to comment.

English translation: Not a single one of Kavanaugh's defenders turned on him, after the #ChristineFordHoax was unleashed.

Monday, September 17, 2018

Bad Move: Philly Antifa Tried to Stop a #BlueLivesMatter March

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Funny Video: Trump, Reporters, and Dogs, Oh My!

There’s Much More Evidence that SJW Prof., Christine Blasey Ford, Accusing Brett Kavanaugh is Nuts than that He’s a Sex Criminal



The website posted the above and below photos of Ford, claiming that the top one was from her 1983 school yearbook, and the one below is from her 1984 school yearbook. The top picture looks to me to be of a girl of at most 13 years of age, but the lower picture looks to be of a woman of 35-40 years of age. She's got lines in her throat, for cryin' out loud!

In case you think I'm exaggerating Ford's age in the lower pic, The Boss, a woman of [censored] years of age, always judges women to be older than I do.


By An Old Buddy

[N.S.: I shortened the article below, by cutting out a passage that appeared twice.]

Professor accusing Kavanaugh is radical SJW with some damning student reviews
By Selwyn Duke
September 17, 2018

It's true that Bill Clinton's liberal '90s apologists justified his sexual misconduct with the claim "character doesn't matter." It nonetheless does, and since Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hopes are being influenced by accusations that may speak to his character, it's only fair to examine the character of his accuser. This woman, Palo Alto University psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford, is
a radical social justice warrior with some damning student reviews – including one from a person who wrote, "I am honestly scared of her."

Ford's accusation goes back to her high school days, in approximately 1982, when she would have been 15 and Kavanaugh 17. She claims that Kavanaugh lay on top of her and groped her while heavily intoxicated and that the incident ended when a friend of his, Mark Judge, jumped on both of them, sending them all tumbling (you can read a more thorough account here).

Whatever the truth of the matter, however, certainly true is that Ford is a radical leftist who'd be inclined to zealously oppose a Kavanaugh nomination. For example, Breitbart reports that she not only has attended anti-Trump events, but actually donned a pink "brain brain p---- hat" for a 2017 anti-Trump march.

Just as telling may be her student reviews. Consider the following screen grab of one of her reviews (now scrubbed) from the popular site Rate My Professors:

Given that many people enter psychology to, at least in part, remedy their own problems, that there could be "something wrong with her" wouldn't make Ford unusual.
Some bad reviews were posted just Sunday, after Ford's identity was revealed. They generally have no detail, and it's safe to assume they were posted for political reasons (and Rate My Professors has been removing them).

There are a couple of other older "Awful" reviews, as well as two students rating Ford "Average" and a pair labeling her "Awesome." Yet even one of the latter – after saying that while the professor is not that "personable," he'd "enjoy taking her for another course in the future" – warns, "Stay on her good side though..." Why would this be necessary? An ethical teacher doesn't let personal animus influence the way students are treated.

But perhaps what a woman named Rebecca Diserio posted to Twitter Sunday explains the problem. She wrote, "Both of my sons had her [Ford] at son who just became a Deputy Sheriff (LA County) said 'She's crazy.' Harped & attacked kids who argued for conservative values...both my sons withdrew from her class after two weeks...her bias was way worse than most SJW professors."

So has Kavanaugh gotten on Ford's bad side by expressing conservative ideas? Probably. And even if her allegations are true, I very much doubt she'd have come forward had Kavanaugh stayed on her good side by being a leftist reprobate in the mold of Slick Willie or Chappaquiddick Ted Kennedy. For a good example of such situational sexual mores, note that liberal reporter Nina Burleigh actually said in 1998 about B. Clinton, "I'd be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal."

As for Kavanaugh, unless it's shown that he's like Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy and has exhibited a pattern of sexual wrongdoing, there's nothing to see here. Ford claims that the 36-year-old alleged incident of sexual misconduct took place in a room with only her and the two boys present. So while 65 women who knew Kavanaugh in high school have come forward to vouch for his character as a gentleman, Ford's lone word is the only claim against him. Heck, there are more testimonials as to Ford's alleged insanity than there are regarding Kavanaugh's alleged impropriety.

Tucker Carlson Video on False Sex Crime Charges and the Media

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

I was unable to determine the identity of the woman who victimized Rep. Joe Barton.

Kimberley Strassel Picks Apart Feinstein’s Kavanaugh Letter: “Timing Here Cannot Be Ignored”

By Nicholas Stix

At The Daily Caller.

Sunday, September 16, 2018

Bobby Kennedy and the Civil Rights Movement

By Nicholas Stix with David in TN

Boy, am I ever glad to have David in TN as my friend and partner-in-crime!

The other night, we had a long conversation over the phone about the topic above. David told me about a meeting between then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and civil right activists that Kennedy organized on May 24, 1963, in his father’s luxurious, Manhattan apartment.

But before I talk about what I learned from David, let me tell you the official story that I got from a blog link he sent me, as well as a couple of other places, which all sounded like they were regurgitating the same source.

Kennedy had called for the meeting on 24 hours call, and asked Nation of Islam-sympathizing propagandist James Baldwin to invite not civil rights top dogs like , but activists. Baldwin came with Communist singer-actor Harry Belafonte; pseudo-scientist and Supreme Court perjurer, Kenneth Clark; and mulattoes singer Lena Horne; playwright Lorraine Hansberry (A Raisin in the Sun), et al, 16 in all (11 blacks and five whites).

After serving food, Kennedy opened the session by listing the civil rights accomplishments and projects of his brother’s administration. He hoped for signs of gratitude, but the assembled activists instead read him the riot act, and left in a huff.

Bobby meditated upon what he had heard that day, had an epiphany, and become America’s greatest white civil rights activist.

Well, that’s the official story.

Before I get into the real story, consider this: We’re talking about Bobby Kennedy, the most openly vicious and vindictive of the brothers—Joe Sr’s. sons—at the time, who was the Attorney General of the United States of America. The most powerful whites, Kennedys or no, were not used to being insulted by blacks of any rank, and the civil rights movement was led by the scum of the earth.

Few whites know this today, because the media have covered for the movement for over 50 years. However, it was obvious to whites at the time, cover-up or no, because they had not undergone over 50 years of indoctrination, intimidation, violence and terror. They knew that blacks and their socialist and communist white allies sought to take over the country, and install a totalitarian dictatorship.

Nowadays, when pro-white commenters at sites like American Renaissance say they see signs of an awakening of white consciousness, they are writing from a myopic, contemporary perspective. Very few whites are today as “woke” as the typical 1963 white. proved a most unlikely source for some straight talk, though it is mixed in with a great deal of nonsense. On the “Personal Quotes” section of Lena Horne’s thumbnail biography, it has her telling the attorney general of the United States,
“[to Robert F. Kennedy, on his administration's civil rights record] ‘Mr. Attorney General, you can take all those pious statements and stuff them up your ass.’”
Why don’t the official story blogs say that?

The “Trivia” section of the same page asserts,

“She was branded a ‘Communist sympathizer’ by many right-wing conservatives because of her association with Paul Robeson and her progressive political beliefs (which led her to be blacklisted in the 1950s).”
Horne was identified as a Communist sympathizer because she was a Communist sympathizer, i.e., she was a Communist in all but name. Of course, the anonymous writer fails to mention that Paul Robeson was a card-carrying Communist. Robeson used to travel to the USSR, where as a walking Communist propaganda machine, he’d praise the Reds for their supposedly enlightened treatment of blacks. (What blacks?)

The phrasing smears Horne’s critics, by calling them “right-wing conservatives,” which is a leftwing dog whistle for “fascists,” which was institutionalized by Communists as a synonym for Nazis, which they applied to any and all anti-Communists. (Today, they say, “white supremacists.”)

The page also engages in political myth-making, asserting in the “Mini Bio” section that Horne failed to become a movie star due to “racism,” while in the “Trivia” section, inventing or perpetuating a blacklisting myth (of which there are many), while spreading yet more nonsense in the “Personal Quotes” section.

From the Mini Bio:
“Lena's musical career flourished, but her movie career stagnated. Minor roles in films such as Boogie-Woogie Dream (1944), Words and Music (1948) and Mantan Messes Up (1946) did little to advance her film career, due mainly to the ingrained racist attitudes of the time (even at the height of Lena's musical career, she was often denied rooms at the very hotels in which she performed, because they would not let blacks stay there). After Meet Me in Las Vegas (1956), Lena left films to concentrate on music and the stage.”
Racially segregated hotels were irrelevant to Horne’s movie career, or lack thereof. And the last sentence has the chronology backwards: Prior to Meet Me in Las Vegas (1956), Lena had left films to concentrate on music and the stage. And which was it that thwarted her career as a movie star, “racism” or the “blacklist”?

If “racism” were really to blame for Horne’s lack of success in pictures, then there would have been no black movie stars at the time. But that’s nonsense. Back in the 1930s, Stepin Fetchit was one of the biggest stars in the business. As Woody Strode (1914-1994) constantly pointed out to his militant colleagues, it was Stepin Fetchit who had made a way for them.

After the war, during the same period that Horne supposedly suffered from “racism,” many black performers had success as movie stars and featured performers: James Edwards, Ethel Waters, Dorothy Dandridge, Harry Belafonte, Strode, Brock Peters, Juano Hernandez, Pearl Bailey, and the biggest of them all, Sidney Poitier.

As if her Bio page weren’t ridiculous enough, whoever put together her “Personal Quotes” insinuates that she was indeed, a movie star:

“I never considered myself a movie star. Mostly, I just sang songs in other people's movies.”
Why is that even there? Horne was never anywhere near being a movie star. She must have been replying to an exceedingly stupid question from a media operative, likely from a black outlet.

The MSM was blindly supportive of the so-called civil rights movement, and heavily censored all reports on it and its leading personalities. At the time, the media and related institutions had not yet browbeaten whites out of having any moral sense, and so if whites had learned of how vile the CRM’s leaders were, and if the reality of black behavior had been broadcast as counterpoint to its idealized depiction by the press and movies (e.g., St. Sidney Poitier), whites would have rebelled against it much more than they did (and they rebelled aplenty).

Instead, the media and civil rights activists brought about:

• The destruction of academic and behavioral standards in schools and higher education;
• Pervasive promiscuity;
• Support of racist violence and the rape of white girls and women;
• Constant plagiarism; and
• Vulgar racism

David in TN followed up on our conversation with the following note:
Re our telephone conversion a few nights ago, I told you about a meeting AG Robert Kennedy had with a group of black entertainers/intellectuals organized by James Baldwin in 1963.

They attacked RFK as a group, though some came up afterward and made nice. I found the account I remembered in David Halberstam's 1968 book, The Unfinished Odyssey of Robert Kennedy.

Halberstam, [Jules] Witcover, etc., never got over RFK's 1968 campaign and assassination, which WAS a wholly evil act. The relevant passage by David Halberstam (1934-2007) is on page 143:
"In 1963 Robert Kennedy decided to meet with a group of Negro intellectuals and artists. Just why was never clear, but the impression was strong that he wanted to hear what was on their minds..."

"...The meeting was a disaster. Kennedy totally misjudged the temper of the Negroes who, meeting in a large group with a white man, all went to the more militant position. (Six years [sic] later I asked him what he learned from the meeting. He said, 'Never meet with more than two or three Negroes at a time. Never with eighteen. With eighteen it's hopeless. Everyone has to be more militant. Now I realize what they are saying, and why, and why they were so angry, but what was hard to take at the time were the ones who let me take the roasting and then came over afterward to sympathize.')”
Halberstam continued in an apologetic way. Would you like to have explained it to David Halberstam?
While Halberstam, in spite of being a socialist, wrote things that no one would write today, he still needs a corrective, regarding Bobby and Jack.

At the time of the meeting at Joe Kennedy Sr’s. apartment, the March on Washington was being organized. That’s the one which met in our nation’s capitol on August 28, 1963, where Martin Luther King Jr. gave his most famous speech, “I Have a Dream.”

King was not the lead organizer of the march; A. Philip Randolph was, in name, but King’s man, Bayard Rustin, was the true organizer.

All speakers had to hand in the texts of their speeches in advance to Rustin and his people (and the press), who then passed them along to Bobby Kennedy’s people at Justice. Why the DOJ? That’s a good question that I’ve never seen answered.

The answer is that AG Bobby Kennedy, and his brother, the President, were ultimately in charge of the march.

One speech was particularly radical. It was by future race hoaxer and congressman, John Lewis, then the chairman of the Student Non-Violent Co-Ordinating Committee (SNCC), which ultimately went from opposing violence to supporting ultra-violence.

Lewis’ speech used violent images which contradicted his professed, official position of non-violence.

[N.S.: The following endless, 436-word paragraph is the work of David Garrow—don’t blame me. I’d have broken it up into ten paragraphs.]

“There was much in Lewis’s remarks, which had been drafted with substantial assistance from Tom Kahn, one of [Bayard] Rustin’s top assistants, that was not acceptable to the Kennedys. First, the speech said that SNCC could not support the administration’s civil rights bill because it was ‘too little, too late.’ Second, it seemed like a leftist ideological tract, with passages such as “We are now involved in a serious revolution. This nation is still a place of cheap political leaders who build their careers on immoral compromises and ally themselves with open forms of political, economic and social exploitation.’ Lewis went on to attack the federal indictments in Albany, and to contrast them with the lack of action against attacks on movement workers, and Kennedy’s appointment of ‘racist judges.’ SNCC asked, ‘Which side is the federal government on?’ Third, the advance text contained rhetorical statements certain to outrage many civil rights supporters. ‘The revolution is at hand,’ it declared. ‘we will take matters into our own hands and create a source of power, outside of any national structure that could and would assure us a victory…. If any radical social, political and economic changes are to take place in our society, the people, the masses, must bring them about.’ And, Lewis vowed, in the southland SNCC would bring them about. ‘We will march through the South, through the Heart of Dixie, the way Sherman did. We shall pursue our own “scorched earth” policy and burn Jim Crow to the ground—nonviolently. We shall crack the South into a thousand pieces and put them back together in the image of democracy.’ Robert Kennedy and Burke Marshall agreed that Lewis’s comments should not be allowed a place at this march. They made certain that a number of sponsors and program participants were aware of the text. Both men spoke with Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle, the Catholic prelate of Washington who was scheduled to deliver the invocation. O’Boyle’s reaction was exactly what the Justice Department expected. “When I read it, I said I could not give the invocation or sit on the platform because it would be the equivalent to approving a speech of this kind,” the cardinal recalled. O’Boyle was especially upset about the reference to Sherman’s march, inappropriate rhetoric for a nonviolent movement. [UAW President] Walter Reuther also was greatly displeased when he learned of Lewis’s language. Word of the controversy and O’Boyle’s threatened withdrawal was passed to [Bayard] Rustin, who called a meeting and went to Lewis’s hotel room to ask that he change the offending passages. Lewis refused, despite please voiced at the hastily called late-night strategy session.”
Bobby Kennedy, working through Cardinal O’Boyle, got the meeting to have six blacks and four whites.

Ultimately, Lewis complied, but Bobby Kennedy had a couple of assistants standing by at the Lincoln Memorial, ready to pull the plug, just in case. [David Garrow. Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (New York: Vintage/Random House, 1988).]

The example of the Kennedys secretly running the March on Washington shows the real face of the brothers, with Bobby playing bad cop to John’s good cop, in contrast to the civil rights propaganda that has since cast Bobby as having had some sort of epiphany shortly after the May 24, 1963 meeting, such that he became the servant (slave?) of the movement.

The flip side to that real story is that white leaders, including what passed at the time for “liberals” were not the pathetic manginas they have since degenerated into.

Such a narrative—the official story we have heard for 30-odd years—is completely at odds with human history, politics, the civil rights movement and, above all, the Kennedys. That official story is even at odds with the histories written by the most famous, socialist/communist/whatever chroniclers of the movement. But who reads them?

Was Selma a Civil Rights March, or an Open-Air Orgy?

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

The source for the previous article on Selma, and the one below, is The True Selma Story: Sex and Civil Rights, by Albert C. Persons.

Persons led a heroic life, as a military aviator for Canada in World War II, a commercial pilot in the states after the war, and trained participants in the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion. He also worked as a stringer for Life magazine, and was dispatched by Cong. William Dickinson. to cover the march on Selma.

Persons provided the affidavits that fill up many of the magazine-sized booklet’s 32 pages.

I have yet to read the book itself, as used copies cost $125-200. Instead, I have had to rely on reviews of it by leftists who hate it.

The lengthiest was by a Mary Stanton, from whose 2000 book, From Selma to Sorrow: The Life and Death of Viola Liuzzo, I picked up all of the stuff I wrote above about Albert Persons.

Rather than debunk Persons, Mary Stanton simply mocks him, by putting the word facts in scare quotes, whenever she refers to Persons.

She cites an article from the Tuscaloosa News, which called the stories mere “rumors.” (“Don’t Let the Rumors Get You,” March 28, 1965.)

But that can’t be, anymore than the stories about dead bodies and rapes from New Orleans following Hurricane Sandy were “rumors,” as the New Orleans Times-Picayune called them, in its attempt to “disappear” the atrocities. In both cases, the stories came from people who used their real names, and in the case of Selma, law enforcement officers swore out affidavits. Thus, the stories were either true or fabricated, but were not “rumors.”

And what of the reporters, who said that the only thing they recognized of the Selma stories published under their bylines was their names?

But Mary Stanton must be believed. At the time of her book’s publication, she was the personnel director of New York City’s Marxist Riverside “Church.” Amazon presently identifies her as having a public sector job:

“MARY STANTON is a public administrator for the Town of Mamaroneck in Westchester County, New York. She has taught at the University of Idaho, the College of St. Elizabeth in New Jersey, and Rutgers University. Her work has appeared in Southern Exposure, Alabama Heritage, and the Gulf South Historical Review. Stanton is also the author of From Selma to Sorrow (Georgia) and Freedom Walk.”

An Amazon reader review by Gary F. Taylor calls Persons’ booklet
“an extended, racist, and extremely inflammatory tract that casts seemingly endless aspersions on Dr. Martin Luther King, the civil rights movement, and those who supported it.

“The inside cover is typical of the work. It shows a photo (all photos are black and white) of a crowd of demonstrators, black and white, standing on wet asphalt. The caption reads, in part, ‘On the night of March 10, 1965, these demonstrators, who knew that once they left the area they would not be able to return, urinated en masse in the street on the signal of James Forman, SNCC Executive Director.’”

“The magazine breaks down in to several articles. One describes many religious supporters of the demonstrations as misled and attacks Dr. Martin Luther King as a liar and hypocrite. Protests are described as filled with corruption, clergy impersonations, public sex, prostitution, and drunkenness. So-called Affidavits describe public sex between black and white. Another article viciously smears Bayard Ruskin [sic] and Rev. Ralph Abernathy, ‘How Images Are Created’ attempts to discredit photographs that show police attacks on protestors, and still another article brands Martin Luther King a communist.

“I would describe this publication as the worst piece of propagandistic trash imaginable. It is in the collection of various colleges and universities, and that is where it belongs, in places where people and study it as an example of the racism of its era. But if you encounter it elsewhere … I recommend consigning it to the nearest fireplace.”

Degeneracy on the March

May 1995
American Renaissance

The following excerpts are from sworn affidavits made by witnesses to the events in Selma and Montgomery in March 1965.

V.B. Bates, Deputy Sheriff of Dallas County:

To begin with, I saw white females in from other counties, other states I believe, building up their sexual desires with Negro males. After a few minutes of necking and kissing, the Negro male would lead them off into the Negro housing project. I watched this procedure many times.

Black man, name withheld:

[M]en and women used this room [in the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee headquarters] for sex freely and openly and without interference. On one occasion I saw James Forman, executive director of SNCC, and a red-haired white girl whose name is Rachel, on one of the cots together. They engaged in sexual intercourse, as well as an abnormal sex act . . . Forman and the girl, Rachel, made no effort to hide their actions.

During this same period, March 8, 9, and 10, a large number of young demonstrators of both races and sexes occupied the Jackson Street Baptist Church for approximately forty-eight hours;. . .;On one occasion, I saw a Negro boy and a white girl engaged in sexual intercourse on the floor of the church. At this time, the church was packed and the couple did nothing to hide their actions. While they were engaged in this act of sexual intercourse, other boys and girls stood around and watched, laughing and joking.

Corporal H.M. Brown, Alabama State Troopers:

I observed on many occasions the so called men of the cloth, who were white, fondling the breasts and buttocks of black female demonstrators. On numerous occasions, I saw couples of the opposite sex and color leaving the crowd, fondling each other and going into the houses and alleys along Sylvan Street.

Since 1961, I have observed mobs and demonstrations, but the crowd of demonstrators in Selma, Alabama, was the lowest scum of the earth. This gathering of demonstrators in Selma included the largest crowd of sex degenerates that I have ever observed in one place in my life. They had no morals or scruples and did not appear to care who saw them during their orgies.

Captain Lionel Freeman, Alabama State Troopers:

One Negro who was standing beside a priest and both standing about three feet from a line of troopers, made several attempts to provoke a trooper into hitting him. The Negro waved three dollar bills in the trooper’s face and then dropped them, saying ‘Why don’t you pick them up, I know you need it.’. . . The Negro then said, ‘I’ll sleep with a white woman tonight.’ The priest seemed to think this was real funny.

[S]everal newspapermen who were allowed to go to the rear of the demonstration came back up to the front and told us they observed white and Negro couples in the act of sexual relations. They told us that they had sent the story and pictures home to their papers. One told me that the only thing he recognized about his story when it was printed was his name.

Lieutenant J.L. Fuqua, Alabama State Troopers:

I also saw Negro men feel the breasts and butts of white girls, making no attempt to hide this, but rather appearing like they wanted everyone to see them.

Charles R. McMillan, Selma policeman:

Both Negroes and white demonstrators were bedding down side by side. A young teenage Negro boy and girl were engaged in a sexual intercourse [sic] that was interrupted by a newsman who attempted to take a picture of the act.

Selma citizen:

I, Marion J. Bass, did, on the night of the 23rd of March 1965, see at the camp site of the Selma to Montgomery march, a young white girl and a colored man having sex relations. They were on the ground out in the open and did not try in any way to hide as I walked within six or eight feet of them.

There were many colored girls and white boys laying in the same sleeping bags. I also saw a white girl about 17 years old and four colored boys get into the back of a truck and close the doors . . . They were in the truck about 45 minutes and when they opened the door to get out, the girl was dressing.

Lieutenant R.E. Etheridge, Alabama State Troopers:

The action and movement of the two wrapped in the quilt left no doubt whatever that they were having sexual intercourse. They were within 30 feet of the main body of demonstrators, and in plain view of them. They remained on the ground for about 20 minutes, got up and went toward Brown’s Chapel Church.

On the morning of March 14th, at about 11:00 a.m. I saw a white preacher with a Negro girl in the back seat of an automobile. He had her breasts out of her blouse and was handling them.

I observed white ministers on at least three occasions who were in what appeared to be a very intoxicated condition.

First Lieutenant Samuel Carr, Alabama National Guard:

I hereby further swear and attest that during such time of duty with my National Guard unit, I personally saw one case of sexual intercourse between a young white boy and Negro girl. I further swear and attest that I saw occasions of public urination . . .

Cecil Atkinson, resident of Prattville, Alabama:

Between Selma and the first stop, I observed both men and women relieving themselves in public, all together and making no attempt to conceal themselves at all.

At one point I observed a young beatnik-type man with his collar turned around to resemble a priest. He told me that it was ‘the way to get along.’ Another told me that he had been offered $15 a day, three meals a day, and all the sex he could handle if he would come down and join in the demonstration from up North.

Mrs. Nettie Adams, resident of Montgomery:

There were white and Negro people all over the Ripley Street side of St. Margaret’s Hospital [in Montgomery on March 15] . . .. They were all kissing and hugging. This one particular couple on St. Margaret’s lawn was engaged in sexual relations — a white woman (skinny blond) and a Negro man. After they were through, she wiggled out from beneath him and over to the man lying to the left of them on the lawn and started kissing and caressing his face.

The Holy Name of Selma: A Station of the Cross on the Road to Integration and Racial Equality

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Selma to Montgomery, 30 Years Later

Events that have entered the mythology of racial heroism were not as they are usually described.

By Marian Evans
May 1995
American Renaissance

March 1995 marked the 30th anniversary of the Selma-to-Montgomery voting-rights march. The surviving leaders of the demonstration recently met to commemorate what was one of the most effective efforts of the civil rights era. The atmosphere was one of amity and self-congratulation, in which it was taken for granted that the marchers and their purposes were noble and their opponents were despicable racists. In an act of contrition, Joe Smitherman, who was mayor of Selma 30 years ago, presented the keys to the city to a group of aging civil rights leaders.
Rituals like this firmly establish today’s view of who was right and who was wrong. And yet, does Mr. Smitherman, who saw the now-sanctified event as it really unfolded, not harbor even fleeting reservations about the new America that the civil rights movement created? Perhaps not. George Wallace, former governor of Alabama, recently gave a framed photograph of himself to Rosa Parks, who started the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955. He inscribed it “To a great lady.”
The 1965 demonstrations in Selma and Montgomery were part of a massive campaign to secure voting rights for blacks. In the states of the former Confederacy, it had been only during Reconstruction that blacks had had more or less uncontested voting rights. In Alabama, blacks were first given the vote under a state constitution written in 1867 by Northerners and forced upon the state by the U.S. Congress.

A new constitution, written in 1901, eliminated most blacks from politics, by limiting suffrage to people who could read and understand the U.S. Constitution, and who had been employed during the previous year or who had paid property taxes. The new constitution also required separate schools for black and white children. Since that time, as in most of the South, the vigor with which suffrage restrictions were applied to blacks varied from region to region.

In 1965, black civil rights leaders seemed to be winning every battle they fought. The Supreme Court outlawed school segregation in 1954, and the “sit-in” movement, begun in 1960, successfully integrated many Southern lunch counters, restaurants, hotels and churches. President Eisenhower used federal troops forcibly to integrate public schools in Little Rock, Arkansas, and in 1962 President Kennedy used them to overwhelm resistance to integration at the University of Mississippi. The movement’s greatest success, however, had been the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination in employment and public accommodation.

The national press was warmly sympathetic to black demonstrators and their white supporters. The movement basked in an aura of great moral superiority, and the obvious next step for what seemed to be an unstoppable juggernaut was to secure unrestricted voting rights for Southern blacks.

Martin Luther King, who led this stage of the movement, was by then world famous. Having come to prominence only ten years earlier during the Montgomery bus boycott, he was now a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and a frequent guest at the White House. He chose Dallas County, Alabama as the target for demonstrations because it had been particularly inhospitable to black voters. Although there were more blacks than whites of voting age in the county, 28 white voters were registered for every black. Selma, 50 miles from Montgomery, was the county seat.

A Board of Registrars examined prospective voters, black and white. It had a small office in the Selma courthouse and could handle no more than 50 applicants a day. On January 18th, 1965, King and his close assistant, Ralph Abernathy, led six or seven hundred people to the courthouse and demanded that they be registered. There was already a line of ordinary applicants, and the group was turned away. The demonstrators marched back to their headquarters at Brown’s Chapel Church, and held a press conference, claiming — correctly — that blacks had been denied registration. Overlooked were the facts that blacks had been among those waiting to be tested and that in the days before the demonstration a number of blacks had been duly registered.

Similar nationally-reported exercises took place throughout the months of January and February. King was constantly in and out of town, flying around the country raising money and giving press conferences. He returned to give speeches and lead marches. Meanwhile, more and more northern whites trickled into town.

At the time, Selma had a population of 29,000 people, of whom 15,000 were black. It took only a small crowd to paralyze the town, and at the height of the demonstrations approximately 11,000 outsiders were swarming the streets. Selma’s mayor, Joe Smitherman, complained that for three months he spent three quarters of his time dealing with out-of-town demonstrators. Selma police were swamped with complaints of thievery, and townspeople were soon heartily sick of the visitors, many of whom were drunk and left garbage wherever they went.

Some Northerners came just to have a good time. Many were “beatniks,” who drifted across the country from one demonstration to another. They had no money for hotels which were, in any case, commandeered by the hundreds of journalists covering the demonstrations. Many whites of both sexes found accommodation in black churches and in the George Washington Carver Homes, the black housing project.

Intimate mixing of the races in this fashion was unheard of in the rural South, but even more shocking to the people of Selma was the public sexual behavior of the demonstrators. If the accounts of what can only be described as public debauchery were not given in sworn affidavits by citizens, state troopers, and national guardsmen, they would be difficult to believe (see following story). Residents of Selma could be forgiven for beginning to wonder whether the demonstrations were as much about public interracial copulation as they were about voting rights. Many of the journalists were disgusted by what they saw, and complained that candid accounts of the demonstrators’ behavior were edited out of the stories they filed.

Language as well as behavior was edited. On one occasion, James Forman, secretary of the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), spoke at the Beulah Baptist Church in Montgomery. Addressing a mixed-race group that included many ministers, nuns, and church women, he said: “If the Negro isn’t given his place at the table of democracy . . . it’s time for us to knock the f***ing legs off the table.” Some of the ministers expressed surprise at this language, but Forman offered no apology.

A few minutes later, Ralph Abernathy tried to smooth things over by saying, “I’m sure that God will forgive him, that the television crews will delete it from their films, and newspapermen will not print it.” A beatnik came to Forman’s defense: “What’s wrong with ‘f**k’,” he asked; “It’s a good old American word, and expressive.”

There were demonstrations in Montgomery during this period as well. On March 10, at about 8:00 p.m., approximately 100 people were being harangued on a well-lit street a short distance from the state capitol. One of the black leaders of the group then said in a loud voice, “Everyone stand and relieve yourselves.” Practically the entire crowd, male and female, young and old, black and white, did as they were told, as rivulets ran almost to the next block. Two blacks were arrested for, according to a bystander, “particularly lewd and offensive exposure of their private parts.”

Adding to public revulsion for the demonstrators was the sight of men and women in religious garb drunk in public and fondling each other. The civil rights movement had always draped itself in religion, and King made a point of giving ministers and priests very visible roles. The presence of clerics was so useful that some of the demonstrators dressed as priests or nuns appear to have been impostors.

This may have been the case during a small demonstration in Montgomery on March 16th. A group of 34 men, most dressed as priests, arrived at the capitol late in the evening and insisted on praying on the capitol steps. Finally, at 3:00 a.m. the police let them say the Lord’s Prayer on the bottom step. As they broke up to leave, two photographers came running across the street. One of the men dressed as a priest said to one, “You stupid son-of-a-bitch, after all this time here, you didn’t get a picture of us saying a prayer on the bottom step.” An Alabama state policeman said that many of the “priests” swore like sailors and that he doubted more than half were authentic.

It may have been the disgraceful behavior of false clerics that prompted one of the three killings associated with the Selma demonstrations. On March 8th, a white Unitarian minister from Boston, James Reeb, was brutally clubbed to the ground as he left a restaurant, and died two days later. The night before Reeb died, the demonstration leaders held an all-night, out-door vigil to pray for his recovery. Disgusted journalists noted that a number of young couples at the rear of the crowd fornicated during the services.

About this time, Jimmie Lee Jackson, a black civil rights leader, was shot and wounded in an altercation with police. Activists swept him away, medical treatment was delayed, and the man died. The Chief Deputy Sheriff of Dallas County thought the delay was deliberate. “I believe they wanted him to die,” he said; “They wanted to make a martyr out of him . . .”

The day after Rev. Reeb was clubbed, Selma demonstrators defied a court order and set out to march the 50 miles to Montgomery. As they crossed the Edmund Pettus bridge leading out of town, they were met by a line of state troopers standing shoulder to shoulder. “This march will not continue . . .” boomed the public address system, but there was deadlock for 15 to 20 minutes, while King and his associates knelt to pray, and police pleaded with the demonstrators to go home. When officers finally moved forward with night sticks held horizontally and tried to push the demonstrators back, the resulting mayhem ended in clouds of tear gas. Eighteen officers were injured by flying rocks and bottles.

According to press accounts, the police had “whipped and clubbed” unoffending demonstrators, and television pictures showed crowds of fleeing blacks choking on tear gas. Reeb died the day after the confrontation at the bridge. These two events were a tremendous propaganda advantage for King, and they brought thousands more demonstrators to Selma from the North.

A few days later, President Lyndon Johnson went before Congress and evoked Reeb’s name in a strong call for legislation to ensure voting rights for blacks. He also ordered mobilization of the Alabama national guard to protect a second attempt at a Selma-to-Montgomery march, this one newly sanctioned by a federal judge.

Thus began, on March 21, 1965, the now-famous march. King, Abernathy, and U.N. Undersecretary Ralph Bunche — also a Nobel Peace Prize winner — took the lead down Selma’s Sylvan Street. On the way to the Pettus Bridge, the crowd marched past a record store, where an outside speaker alternately blared “Dixie” and “Bye, Bye, Blackbird.” At the head of the procession a mixed group of young men carried the U.S. flag upside down — the sign of distress. Many demonstrators wore “GROW” buttons, which stood for “Get rid of Wallace.” Nearly two thousand Alabama National Guardsmen, 100 FBI agents, 75 federal marshals, and dozens of state and county police officers guarded the marchers.

Just outside Selma, the Citizens Council of America, an anti-integration group, had set up posters showing King sitting next to known Communist leaders at the Highlander Folk School in Tennessee. The caption read, “Martin Luther King at Communist Training School.”

History books call this a “massive” demonstration and, indeed, some 11,000 people set off on the first leg of the journey. However, the highway to Montgomery narrowed to two lanes shortly after leaving Selma, and permission was granted for only 300 marchers on all but a few miles of roadway. Most of the crowd therefore streamed back to Selma.

Although it is impossible to know even their approximate numbers, some of the demonstrators were shills. A few openly boasted that they were in Selma because they had been offered food, money, and sex. Dora Brown’s unusual financial arrangements came to light when the checks stopped coming. In a sworn affidavit she testified as follows:

I was at Brown’s Chapel Church with the movement along with a blind man and a one-legged man who were both white people. I am one-armed and we were told at the time that we were the ones they needed worst, since we were handicapped it would help the movement. We were told that if we would make the march from Selma to Montgomery we would be paid $100.00 per month plus food and clothes . . . James Gildersleeve would pay us.

I have received three checks from Gildersleeve for $100.00 each but now he has quit paying me.
Gildersleeve was not to blame. Rev. Frederick Reese, president of the Dallas County Voters League, was arrested after other blacks accused him of stealing thousands of dollars in movement funds.

Miss Brown’s unhappy testimony continues: “Gildersleeve told me that he couldn’t pay me since Frederick Reese had gotten all the money. Gildersleeve gave me one pound of lard, some greens, a watermelon and $1.00 in money. He said that is all he could give.”

It is not recorded whether Miss Brown or the one-legged white man were among the select 300 who spent four nights on the road to Montgomery. It is known that the evenings were characterized by the now-usual drunkenness and fornication. On at least one occasion, police officers prevented newspapermen from photographing the revelry. And even among this inner circle, there were frequent complaints about stolen clothes and missing bed rolls.

Most of the marchers slept in the open except for King, who set up housekeeping in a trailer that was moved from camp to camp. There are no reports on how he spent his evenings, but his inclinations are now well known. His companion, Ralph Abernathy, was not a model cleric, either. In 1958, a Mr. Davis was arrested for threatening Abernathy with a hatchet because Abernathy kept trying to have sex with Mrs. Davis. She testified in her husband’s defense that Abernathy had first seduced her when she was a 15-year-old member of his congregation.

As the march went on, the press continued its adulatory, front-page coverage. All around the country, supporters held sympathy marches and worship services.

The night before the last leg of the trek, more than 30,000 people gathered in a field a few miles outside of Montgomery for a free concert. Harry Belafonte, Nina Simone, Sammy Davis, Jr., Billy Eckstein, Mahalia Jackson, the Chad Mitchell Trio, and Frankie Laine serenaded the crowd until nearly one in the morning.

On March 25, the 30,000 were joined by another 5,000 as King and Abernathy led the march into Montgomery, up to the steps of the state capitol. The city was festooned with Confederate flags, one of which fluttered along with the state flag over the capitol building. It was widely — and falsely — reported that not a single United States flag flew in Montgomery that day. The Stars and Stripes waved, as it always did, from a tall flag pole on the capitol grounds.

The leaders of the march asked to see Governor George Wallace, so they could present him with a list of grievances. He refused to meet them. The rest of the day was filled with speeches by Hosea Williams, Roy Wilkins, James Forman, Ralph Bunche and other black leaders. Joan Baez and Peter Paul and Mary were among those who entertained the crowd, which finally broke up around four p.m. The march was over. It took until midnight for sanitation crews to clean up the mountains of trash demonstrators had left behind.

Late that evening, a third killing took place when a white civil rights worker name Viola Liuzzo was shot to death as she was driving between Selma and Montgomery. Both the press and President Johnson were outraged, although accounts of the killing were often incomplete (see story, page 7).

Given the sanitized view of the demonstrations that had been broadcast to the world, Alabama congressman William L. Dickinson undoubtedly met much skepticism on March 30 when he tried to convey a different picture to his colleagues on the floor of Congress:

Drunkenness and sex orgies were the order of the day in Selma, on the road to Montgomery. There were many — not just a few — instances of sexual intercourse in public between Negro and white. News reporters saw this — law enforcement officials saw this . . .

Has anyone stopped to ask what sort of people can leave home, family and job — if they have one — and live indefinitely in a foreign place demonstrating? This is no religious group of sympathizers trying to help the Negro out of a sense of right and morality — this is a bunch of godless riffraff out for kicks and self-gratification that have left every campsite between Selma and Montgomery littered with whiskey bottles, beer cans, and used contraceptives.
The nation was profoundly uninterested. In fact, the Selma-to-Montgomery march was probably one of the most effective events in the entire civil rights movement.
Unlike the “March on Washington” in 1963, in which 200,000 people took part and where King gave his “I Have a Dream” speech, the agitation in Selma and Montgomery led directly to national legislation. The nation was riveted to the march, and President Johnson constantly referred to it in his push for a voting rights bill. The killings of James Reeb and Viola Liuzzo were also a great stimulus to lawmakers.

The legislation passed and was signed into law in August, 1965. In what would appear to be a direct abrogation of the reserved powers specified in the Tenth Amendment, it prohibited all state tests of voter literacy and education. It even authorized federal elections examiners to register voters who had been rejected by state authorities, and to patrol the polls to see that such people voted. The law affected states outside the South, notably New York, which had required that voters be literate in English. New York promptly sued on Tenth Amendment grounds, but the Supreme Court ruled in 1966 against the literacy provisions — to great rejoicing among the state’s Puerto Ricans.

With a total of three deaths, the march was one of the most sanguinary episodes in the civil rights period. However, very few demonstrators were harassed or assaulted. In retrospect, it is surprising that there was not more violence.

As invariably happens in racial matters, a group of whites with little experience of blacks saw fit to give instruction on race relations to people with a great deal of experience. Northerners invaded the South, a deeply conservative society, demanding that Southerners change their way of life. To add insult to arrogance, Northerners then proceeded publicly to violate some of the most deeply felt norms of privacy and decency. The self-control — even passivity — of the citizens of Selma and Montgomery is as astonishing as the degeneracy of the demonstrators. Perhaps even Mayor Smitherman, desperately trying to run a city overrun with disorderly demonstrators, harbored thoughts of homicide.

Now, 30 years later, Selma is a sacred name, one of the stations of the cross on the road to integration and racial equality.