[No picture available.]
By Reader-Researcher R.C.
Sun, Sep 30, 2018 8:27 p.m.
California HS students spell racial slur on lettered T ...
A group of Southern California high school students face disciplinary action after spelling out the n-word with lettered T-shirts at a senior picnic.
www.msn.com
R.C.: Aspiring rappers?
Sunday, September 30, 2018
In Mississippi Senate Race, an African American Democrat Faces a Republican Using a Confederate Symbol
By A Texas Reader
Sun, Sep 30, 2018 10:09 p.m.
In Mississippi Senate race, an African American Democrat ...
YAZOO CITY, Miss. — For the past five months, U.S. Senate candidate Mike Espy has tried to remind Mississippians how he has served them in the past: a son of the Delta with three terms in the U ...
www.washingtonpost.com
I wish I was in Dixie.
Dixie's Land
"Dixie's Land ( I Wish I Was in Dixie )" preformed by 2nd South Carolina String Band www.civilwarband.com --- "Dixie", also known as "I Wish I Was in Dixie", "Dixie's Land", and other titles, is a popular American song. It is one of the most distinctively American musical products of the 19th century, and probably the best-known song to have ...
www.youtube.com
See This Photo and Statement by President Trump’s Currently Most Influential Supporter
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
It’s a funny, old world.
It’s a funny, old world.
this represents good and America becoming whole again. We will no longer outsource to other countries. We build factories here in America and create jobs. We will provide jobs for all who are free from prisons as we abolish the 13th amendment. Message sent with love pic.twitter.com/a15WqI8zgu
— ye (@kanyewest) September 30, 2018
The NFL’s Green Bay Packers Have Seceeded from the United States of America: See Their New National Flag
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
I guess Titletown, USA is no more.
I guess Titletown, USA is no more.
BREAKING: Green Bay Packers unveil a "new" American Flag during their pregame ceremony.
— Amy (@RightHook99) September 30, 2018
ESPN’s Rob Demovsky: “Not sure what country today’s Packers-Bills game is being played in but that’s not my flag.” pic.twitter.com/HGpmgJEHl7
ICE Operation Leads to Arrests of 98 in Texas, Oklahoma…
“Those arrested are from the countries of Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Marshall Islands, Pakistan and Peru. According to ICE, most of the people targeted during the operation “had prior criminal histories that including convictions of alien smuggling…”
By A Texas Reader
Sun, Sep 30, 2018 7:35 p.m.
ICE operation leads to arrests of 98 in Texas, Oklahoma ...
During a 10 day operation, officials with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 98 people in North Texas and Oklahoma.. Of those arrests, 11 were in Dallas and five in Fort Worth.
www.star-telegram.com
ATR: Pakistan?
Is there a dearth of convenience store clerks in Dallas?
Can't be.
The Thompson family of Oak Cliff founded 7- Eleven, the original C-store chain.
By A Texas Reader
Sun, Sep 30, 2018 7:35 p.m.
ICE operation leads to arrests of 98 in Texas, Oklahoma ...
During a 10 day operation, officials with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 98 people in North Texas and Oklahoma.. Of those arrests, 11 were in Dallas and five in Fort Worth.
www.star-telegram.com
ATR: Pakistan?
Is there a dearth of convenience store clerks in Dallas?
Can't be.
The Thompson family of Oak Cliff founded 7- Eleven, the original C-store chain.
Trigger Warning: Disturbing Photo of Arizona Man Found Living Without Spine
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
Arizona Man Found Living Without Spine pic.twitter.com/x4fILQBQbj
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) September 28, 2018
Saturday, September 29, 2018
Southwest Airlines Passenger Removed from Plane to Houston after Calling Flight Attendant N-Word
Sat, Sep 29, 2018 9:27 p.m.
By A Texas Reader
Southwest Airlines passenger removed from plane to Houston after calling flight attendant N-word
Southwest Airlines passenger removed from plane to Houston after yelling racial slurs at flight attendant
abc13.com
N.S.: Would a black passenger be thrown off a plane for calling a white flight attendant a racial epithet?
That was a rhetorical question.
By A Texas Reader
Southwest Airlines passenger removed from plane to Houston after calling flight attendant N-word
Southwest Airlines passenger removed from plane to Houston after yelling racial slurs at flight attendant
abc13.com
N.S.: Would a black passenger be thrown off a plane for calling a white flight attendant a racial epithet?
That was a rhetorical question.
David Wright: The Captain Leaves the Field (Video)
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
You played the game the Wright way. We love and respect you. Forever #OurCaptain! pic.twitter.com/WvA3XPZO31
— New York Mets (@Mets) September 30, 2018
On the Precipice of Civil War: A Video from Code of Vets' Gretchen Smith
How do WE process/respond to the behavior in DC?! Do WE have a civic responsibility to step in?! #THISWEWILLDEFEND https://t.co/A1zX9Jqppk
— Gretchen Smith (@codeofvets) September 29, 2018
Massive patriotic demonstrations in D.C.?
— Nicholas Stix (@NicholasStix) September 29, 2018
I also don't know what to say, because my diagnosis differs very little from yours. The difference is that I blame the cowardly GOP for ceding ground for many years, which emboldened the evildoers of the DPUSA to become ever more extreme. https://t.co/RGNvxisZ2L
N.S.: Last year, the #Countenance Blogmeister predicted that 2016 would the last free, presidential election this country would see, and that in 2020 we would see a dictatorship, either of Trump or one of his enemies. He is looking more prophetic by the day.
Confirm #BrettKavanaugh now! Screw an additional #FBI investigation. Ford and the Dems have broken their word every time. Investigate #ChrsitineBlaseyFord for possible conspiracy and perjury.
Aging Kennedy Brat Maria Shriver Makes a Fool of Herself by Joining the Anti-Kavanaugh Gang-Bang
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Listen to Frank Cordell’s Ambitious Score to Khartoum (1966), the Epic Tale of Gen. Charles Gordon
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
With the exception of the masterpiece/classic year of 1962,* the 1960s was a lousy decade for pictures.
However, one genre that produced several excellent pictures during that decade was of the British Empire’s battles in and around its colonies in primitive lands, and stories set in North Africa.
In Khartoum, Charlton Heston played Gen. Charles “Chinese” Gordon.
I saw this in a theater. Couldn't have been more than eight years old. All I remember is the death of Gordon, that Chuck Heston played him, and that Larry Olivier played the Moslem bad guy, who never blinked (I read that latter part later). That certainly wouldn't be permitted today!
There are traditional cinematic sounds of Araby; a little touch of Elgar begins at 4:15.
Other 1960s pictures of the genre included, most famously, Lawrence of Arabia (1962); A Boy Ten Feet Tall (1963); Guns at Batasi and Zulu (both 1964); Sands of the Kalahari and The Flight of the Phoenix (both 1965); and The Charge of the Light Brigade (1968).
There were surely others, as well. What stands out, of the pictures I saw, was that I recall none of them portraying white men as intrinsically evil, or even the British Empire as such.
Synopsis
By garykmcd
After an Egyptian army, commanded by British officers, is destroyed in a battle in the Sudan in the 1880's, the British government is in a quandary. It does not want to commit a British military force to a foreign war but they have a commitment to protect the Egyptians in Khartoum. They decide to ask General Charles "Chinese" Gordon, something of a folk hero in the Sudan as he had cleared the area of the slave trade, to arrange for the evacuation. Gordon agrees but also decides to defend the city against the forces of the Mahdi - the expected one - and tries to force the British to commit troops.
*1962
Lawrence of Arabia
To Kill a Mockingbird
Ride the High Country
The Manchurian Candidate
Lonely are the Brave
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
How the West was Won
Long Day’s Journey into Night
The Longest Day
Gypsy
The Music Man
Khartoum Soundtrack Suite (Frank Cordell)
Published on Jan 3, 2015 by Soundtrack Fred
Original Motion Picture Soundtrack (1966). Composed and Conducted by Frank Cordell.
Please note that the rights belong to the owner. Support the publishing company by buying the product, if possible, to get the full listening experience. Enjoy!
Get the Soundtrack:
http://amzn.to/1P2lWlX or directly from the label http://filmscoremonthly.com/cds/detai...
Get the Movie:
http://amzn.to/1P2kJuX
Music Awards:
- None
Playlist:
-00:00 = "Overture"
-02:25 = "Prologue"
-04:10 = "Gordon Meets Gladstone"
-05:11 = "Up The Nile"
-06:07 = "Intermission Music"
-07:40 = "Gordon Enters The Mahdi's Camp"
-08:10 = "The Cattle Raid"
-09:43 = "Prelude To Battle"
-10:26 = "Death Of General Gordon"
-12:07 = "End Title / Exit Music"
Music Source:
Film Score Monthly FSMCD Vol. 7, No. 2
More Information:
http://www.soundtrackcollector.com/ca...
Soundtrackfred at Facebook.
You’ll Want to Hear What Brit Hume Had to Say about Jeff Flake!
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
So what, exactly, did Sen. Flake get in return for forcing a delay to accommodate an FBI update of Kavanaugh’s background file?
— Brit Hume (@brithume) September 28, 2018
Christine Blasey Ford: Very Credible!
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
Christine Ford during the testimony: “I remember being hooked up to a machine, like the … being placed onto my body. Being asked a lot of questions and crying a lot. That’s my primary memory of that test.”
— Jack Murphy (@RealJack) September 29, 2018
The polygraph was only TWO questions.
Things that make you go hmmm 🤔
Security Alert to All Readers of WEJB/NSU!
I just deleted a phishing link that had been placed on a blog page that had been created by a hacker on this blog, with the title, “Re.” I then changed my password.
However, 51 people had visited the fake page before I got wise to it. I hope that none of you hit the fake, phishing link the perp had posted on the page, but in any event, anyone who visited that page should do a malware scan of his hard drive.
I apologize for the inconvenience.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Stix
Friday, September 28, 2018
In Honor of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Tom T. Hall Sings, “I Like Beer”
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
I had hoped to hold back on this presentation until after Judge Kavanaugh had become Justice Kavanaugh, but passing out of the Senate Judiciary Committee is all we can be sure of, at this point. (I'm looking at you, Jeff Flake and Donald Trump!)
I Like Beer
Words & Music by Tom T. Hall
In some of my songs I have casually mentioned
The fact that I like to drink beer,
This little song is more to the point,
Roll out the barrel
And lend me your ears.
I like beer, it makes me a jolly good fellow
I like beer, it helps me unwind
And sometimes it makes me feel mellow.
(Makes him feel mellow)
Whiskey's too rough, champagne costs too much,
Vodka puts my mouth in gear,
This little refrain should help me explain,
As a matter of fact, I like beer.
(He likes beer)
My wife often frowns when we're out on the town,
And I'm wearing a suit and a tie,
She's sipping vermouth and she thinks I'm uncouth,
When I yell as the waiter goes by.
I like beer, it makes me a jolly good fellow,
I like beer, it helps me unwind,
And sometimes it makes me feel mellow.
(Makes him feel mellow)
Whiskey's too rough, champagne costs too much,
Vodka puts my mouth in gear,
This little refrain should help me explain,
As a matter of fact, I like beer.
(He likes beer)
Last night I dreamed that I passed from the scene,
And I went to a place so sublime,
Aw, the water was clear and tasted like beer,
Then they turned it all into wine (Awww)
I like beer, it makes me a jolly good fellow,
I like beer, it helps me unwind,
And sometimes it makes me feel mellow.
(Makes him feel mellow)
Whiskey's too rough, Champagne costs too much,
Vodka puts my mouth in gear,
This little refrain should help me explain,
As a matter of fact I like beer.
(He likes beer)
I had hoped to hold back on this presentation until after Judge Kavanaugh had become Justice Kavanaugh, but passing out of the Senate Judiciary Committee is all we can be sure of, at this point. (I'm looking at you, Jeff Flake and Donald Trump!)
I Like Beer
Words & Music by Tom T. Hall
In some of my songs I have casually mentioned
The fact that I like to drink beer,
This little song is more to the point,
Roll out the barrel
And lend me your ears.
I like beer, it makes me a jolly good fellow
I like beer, it helps me unwind
And sometimes it makes me feel mellow.
(Makes him feel mellow)
Whiskey's too rough, champagne costs too much,
Vodka puts my mouth in gear,
This little refrain should help me explain,
As a matter of fact, I like beer.
(He likes beer)
My wife often frowns when we're out on the town,
And I'm wearing a suit and a tie,
She's sipping vermouth and she thinks I'm uncouth,
When I yell as the waiter goes by.
I like beer, it makes me a jolly good fellow,
I like beer, it helps me unwind,
And sometimes it makes me feel mellow.
(Makes him feel mellow)
Whiskey's too rough, champagne costs too much,
Vodka puts my mouth in gear,
This little refrain should help me explain,
As a matter of fact, I like beer.
(He likes beer)
Last night I dreamed that I passed from the scene,
And I went to a place so sublime,
Aw, the water was clear and tasted like beer,
Then they turned it all into wine (Awww)
I like beer, it makes me a jolly good fellow,
I like beer, it helps me unwind,
And sometimes it makes me feel mellow.
(Makes him feel mellow)
Whiskey's too rough, Champagne costs too much,
Vodka puts my mouth in gear,
This little refrain should help me explain,
As a matter of fact I like beer.
(He likes beer)
Famous Writer Meditates on Race During Brett Kavanaugh Hearings
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
Susan Orlean
✔
@susanorlean
I'm so tired of old white men.
I'm so tired of old white men.
— Susan Orlean (@susanorlean) September 27, 2018
Susan Orlean
✔
@susanorlean
I'm so tired of old white men.
Video: See the Highlight of Brett Kavanaugh’s Opening Remarks Yesterday
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
Brett Kavanaugh destroyed the Democratic Party and the Clintons in 27 seconds.#KavanughHearings pic.twitter.com/c5GXYSY6p7
— Based Monitored 🇬🇧 🇮🇪 (@MonitoredReboot) September 28, 2018
Lindsey Graham Video: “I am more pissed than I have ever been”
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
Lindsey Graham: "I am more pissed than I have ever been” at Dems https://t.co/Y4YNlp6JzW pic.twitter.com/aku9WJskca
— The Hill (@thehill) September 28, 2018
The Kavanaugh Nomination: Which Side is Megan McArdle on?
By Nicholas Stix
Megan McArdle @asymmetricinfo
I pause to implore GOP not to confirm Kavanaugh this way. It can only end in something worse to the disgraceful circus we've just endured. And to implore Democrats to offer some sort of olive branch compromise that might let them agree to a reasonably time-limited investigation.
What way might that be? What could be worse? Do you not know what is going on here? Are you that naïve, or that dishonest? Did you make that statement for the sake of your paymasters at the Post? You have to know that the Democrats have no interest in any “investigation,” and there’s nothing to investigate. Either you support them, or you support Trump/Kavanaugh.
I copied everything, because there is a good chance she’ll block me, which would cost me her comment.
P.S. This sounds like concern-trolling on McArdle's part.
Megan McArdle @asymmetricinfo
I pause to implore GOP not to confirm Kavanaugh this way. It can only end in something worse to the disgraceful circus we've just endured. And to implore Democrats to offer some sort of olive branch compromise that might let them agree to a reasonably time-limited investigation.
I pause to implore GOP not to confirm Kavanaugh this way. It can only end in something worse to the disgraceful circus we've just endured. And to implore Democrats to offer some sort of olive branch compromise that might let them agree to a reasonably time-limited investigation.
— Megan McArdle (@asymmetricinfo) September 28, 2018
What way might that be? What could be worse? Do you not know what is going on here? Are you that naïve, or that dishonest? Did you make that statement for the sake of your paymasters at the Post? You have to know that the Democrats have no interest in any “investigation,” and there’s nothing to investigate. Either you support them, or you support Trump/Kavanaugh.
I copied everything, because there is a good chance she’ll block me, which would cost me her comment.
P.S. This sounds like concern-trolling on McArdle's part.
“Gaslighting”: A Moronic Word Box of Democrat Talking Points
By Nicholas Stix
My response to the Democrat who posted the above word box on Twit:
What a stupid, dishonest set of talking points. A nice graphic box does not make them seem more intelligent or honest.
My response to the Democrat who posted the above word box on Twit:
What a stupid, dishonest set of talking points. A nice graphic box does not make them seem more intelligent or honest.
Ann Coulter: Who Could Possibly Doubt Dr. Christine Blasey Ford?
This is so emotionally wrenching. What human being thinks she is making this up???
— Jennifer Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) September 27, 2018
The members of the Duke lacrosse team. https://t.co/iBiGxqjsk8
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) September 28, 2018
Thursday, September 27, 2018
Unknown Second Victim Steps Forward in Judge Kavanaugh Hearing!
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
CNN NEWS BREAK: Unknown second victim steps forward in Judge Kavanaugh hearing. pic.twitter.com/bRuJCwPVUL
— Steve McGranahan🇺🇸 (@wsredneck) September 28, 2018
Breaking News: Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats’ Prep Material
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
SCOOP: @JudiciaryDems Prep Material Part 1 https://t.co/kFeGSjzI2M
— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) September 27, 2018
SCOOP: @JudiciaryDems Prep Material Part 2 https://t.co/I8WQlIsLUY
— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) September 27, 2018
Photo: Cory Booker Exposed as a Neo-Nazi!
Heil, Booker!
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
Booker makes white supremacist hand gesture at Senate hearing, an apparent signal to this Nazi supporters. Left wing crazies (and the Coast Guard) mysteriously fall silent. https://t.co/TG2bzEw6SS
— AIC Foundation (@AICFound) September 20, 2018
Video: Lindsey Graham’s Warning to America, and to President Trump
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
LINDSEY GRAHAM CALLS ON CONSERVATIVES TO STOP DRINKING THE KOOLAID
— USA NEWS (@USANEWS007) September 27, 2018
“To my conservative friends. Where have a lot of you been?? Can you not see what’s happening here??....Do you really think Brett Kavanaugh was a gang rapist in high school and knobody knew about it until 2018??” pic.twitter.com/GBsrN4yNMq
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
“France is being Islamised and Africanised”
By Reader-researcher R.C.
Wed, Sep 26, 2018 10:15 p.m.
"France is being Islamised and Africanised" - Journalist
"The elites wanted it," said the young Czech national to me.
He was speaking of communism in the former Czechoslovakia.
Western elites nowadays want globalism not communism.
Both communists and globalists have one big thing in common:
The destruction of the old order.
voiceofeurope.com
Wed, Sep 26, 2018 10:15 p.m.
"France is being Islamised and Africanised" - Journalist
"The elites wanted it," said the young Czech national to me.
He was speaking of communism in the former Czechoslovakia.
Western elites nowadays want globalism not communism.
Both communists and globalists have one big thing in common:
The destruction of the old order.
voiceofeurope.com
Tulane Mandates New Students Take "Race & Inclusion" Course
Wed, Sep 26, 2018 8:29 p.m.
Tulane Mandates New Students Take "Race & Inclusion ...
Tulane University now requires all incoming students to enroll in a “Race and Inclusion” course, a new addition to the curriculum that has been condemned by some students for its lack of acknowledgment of viewpoint diversity. In a recent press release, Tulane announced that all new enrollees ...
www.zerohedge.com
Shouldn't it more accurately be called, "Racial profiling and Exclusion: Harvard University and Race-based Quotas"?
What am I missing here?
Harvard’s Asian Quota -- Who Benefits? | National Review
The lawsuit alleging anti-Asian discrimination in Harvard admissions has unearthed some fascinating numbers. As we learned last week, Harvard’s own internal review found that Asians would be 43 ...
www.nationalreview.com
Knoxville Horror News!
By David in TN
Today (Wednesday), the Knox County District Attorney General's office announced they would not seek the death penalty for Eric Boyd for his role in the January 2007 rape-torture-murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom.
If convicted, Boyd would receive a sentence of life with possibility of parole after 51 years.
This hearing had been postponed for several months while Boyd had a medical condition. He supposedly had a large cyst on his forehead. No such thing was visible in court on Wednesday.
The trial was set by Judge Bob McGee for January 3, 2019.
The link to the Knox News story has a brief interview with the victims' parents. Gary Christian has a new young wife.
Today (Wednesday), the Knox County District Attorney General's office announced they would not seek the death penalty for Eric Boyd for his role in the January 2007 rape-torture-murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom.
If convicted, Boyd would receive a sentence of life with possibility of parole after 51 years.
This hearing had been postponed for several months while Boyd had a medical condition. He supposedly had a large cyst on his forehead. No such thing was visible in court on Wednesday.
The trial was set by Judge Bob McGee for January 3, 2019.
The link to the Knox News story has a brief interview with the victims' parents. Gary Christian has a new young wife.
Video: Lindsey Graham Takes the Full Measure of the Kavanaugh Hoax
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
I know what you’re going to say. Lindsey Graham (Chameleon-SC) drives me nuts, too. But I have heard this man talk about the law before, and he is a brilliant mind when it comes not just to the letter but the pursuit [correction: spirit] of the law.
Back in 2009, Criminal General Eric Holder (ZANU PF) testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on how to legally treat unlawful enemy combatants captured on the field of battle. Although CG Holder knew exactly what the topic was, had sufficient time to prepare himself, and Graham did not spring any trick or surprise questions on him, Holder exposed himself as a moron with no respect for, or knowledge of the laws in question.
Graham, who at the time was still a reserve Army officer in the Judge Advocate General Corps sounded like he had the makings of a great law professor. (Maybe he was one.)
I know what you’re going to say. Lindsey Graham (Chameleon-SC) drives me nuts, too. But I have heard this man talk about the law before, and he is a brilliant mind when it comes not just to the letter but the pursuit [correction: spirit] of the law.
Back in 2009, Criminal General Eric Holder (ZANU PF) testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on how to legally treat unlawful enemy combatants captured on the field of battle. Although CG Holder knew exactly what the topic was, had sufficient time to prepare himself, and Graham did not spring any trick or surprise questions on him, Holder exposed himself as a moron with no respect for, or knowledge of the laws in question.
Graham, who at the time was still a reserve Army officer in the Judge Advocate General Corps sounded like he had the makings of a great law professor. (Maybe he was one.)
I could listen to Lindsey Graham all day long if he wants to keep talking like this... pic.twitter.com/KZnhcQ1lQ6
— 🇺🇸 CHIZ (@CHIZMAGA) September 26, 2018
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
Second Kavanaugh Hoaxer, Deborah Ramirez, Refuses to Tell Her “Story” Under Oath to Senate Judiciary Committee, Where She Could Potentially be Liable for Prosecution for Perjury: “Read the New Yorker” … “Thank you for respecting my privacy”
By Nicholas Stix
“A Yale University classmate of Judge Brett Kavanaugh is refusing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee about her charges of sexual misconduct against him, a panel member said Tuesday.
“Sen. John Kennedy, Louisiana Republican and a panel member, told a gaggle of reporters that a lawyer for Deborah Ramirez told him that she already has told her story to the press.
“‘Our counsel repeatedly tried to reach him,’ Mr. Kennedy said. ‘They finally did reach him, and he said we are not issuing a statement. He said if you want our statement, read the New Yorker.’”
“Ms. Ramirez accused Judge Kavanaugh, according to a story Sunday night in the New Yorker, that the future Supreme Court nominee, flashed his naked genitals on her face during a booze-sodden party.
“Judge Kavanaugh flatly denies the charge, and the New Yorker story has been heavily criticized as thin on corroboration and for an admission that the magazine could not find any witness to confirm that Judge Kavanaugh was even at the party….” [“Kavanaugh accuser Deborah Ramirez refuses to talk to Congress: 'Read the New Yorker'” by Victor Morton, The Washington Times, Tuesday, September 25, 2018.]
As Ramirez’ lawyers well know, a newspaper interview is not acceptable as a substitute for sworn testimony under oath, before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I think she just impeached herself as a witness.
“Thank you for respecting my privacy”: I’ll bet Judge Kavanaugh wishes Ramirez had respected his.
Breaking Fox News Video: More Obstruction and Manipulation from Christine Blasey Ford
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
Christine Blasey Ford objects to GOP hiring outside counsel https://t.co/KP1tSFKEeK pic.twitter.com/XLRMhxr3fp
— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 26, 2018
Video: CNN Personality Brooke Baldwin Just Said She’d Like to Do What with Lesbian Bill Cosby Victim, Andrea Constand?! You Tell Me!
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
Video: Hear Joe Biden Explain Why the Communist Demands for a Sex Investigation of Brett Kavanaugh are Ridiculous
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
Quite the find from @NTKNet. Sen. Biden is very informative in this clip. pic.twitter.com/HUeyZKupPC
— Elliott Schwartz (@elliosch) September 25, 2018
Monday, September 24, 2018
More Latino Perversions: Gabriel Cortez Batzin, 45, Reached a Plea Deal with Prosecutors; He Had been Charged with 5 Counts of Improper Photography or Visual Recording and a Charge of Invasive Visual Recording
By A Texas Reader
More Latino perversions: Gabriel Cortez Batzin, 45, reached a plea deal with prosecutors, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported. He had been charged with five counts of improper photography or visual recording and a charge of invasive visual recording.
Mon, Sep 24, 2018 9:21 p.m.
Fort Worth man gets 8 months for putting cameras in ...
A Fort Worth man has been sentenced to eight months in state jail after his wife found cameras in her daughters' bedrooms and bathroom in November. Gabriel Cortez Batzin, 45, reached a plea deal ...
www.dallasnews.com
More Latino perversions: Gabriel Cortez Batzin, 45, reached a plea deal with prosecutors, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported. He had been charged with five counts of improper photography or visual recording and a charge of invasive visual recording.
Mon, Sep 24, 2018 9:21 p.m.
Fort Worth man gets 8 months for putting cameras in ...
A Fort Worth man has been sentenced to eight months in state jail after his wife found cameras in her daughters' bedrooms and bathroom in November. Gabriel Cortez Batzin, 45, reached a plea deal ...
www.dallasnews.com
Jogger Stabbed to Death Will be Buried in Wedding Dress ...
By Prince George's County Ex-Pat
The mother of a recently engaged runner who was stabbed to death in the nation’s capital says her daughter will be buried in a wedding dress.
Cora Martinez tells WRC-TV that 35-year-old Wendy ...
www.koat.com
The mother of a recently engaged runner who was stabbed to death in the nation’s capital says her daughter will be buried in a wedding dress.
Cora Martinez tells WRC-TV that 35-year-old Wendy ...
www.koat.com
Mexican Serial Killer: The Arrest of 47-Year-Old Ramon Escobar Comes after Five Men were Brutally Beaten over the Head Across L.A. County in the Last Week, Resulting in at Least Three Deaths
By Reader-Researcher R.C.
Suspect Arrested in Unprovoked Baseball Bat Beatings that ...
A man accused of fatally bludgeoning two sleeping homeless men and critically injuring a third in downtown Los Angeles last week has been arrested in connection with a fourth assault in Santa ...
ktla.com
Suspect Arrested in Unprovoked Baseball Bat Beatings that ...
A man accused of fatally bludgeoning two sleeping homeless men and critically injuring a third in downtown Los Angeles last week has been arrested in connection with a fourth assault in Santa ...
ktla.com
Mexican Man Charged with Sexually Assaulting Child; Others at Virginia Day Care Might be Victims
Mug shot of Jose Garcia Urrutia; immigration status unknown
By Prince George's County Ex-Pat
Man charged with assaulting child; others at Va. day care ...
[N.S.: "Man."]
WASHINGTON — An Alexandria [sic] man is being held without bond after Fairfax County police say he sexually abused a child at a home day care. Investigators also fear that there may be other victims ...
["An Alexandria man."]
wtop.com
Colleges Ramp up Discrimination against People with White Skin, with Call by Administrators to Force Acknowledgement of “Privilege”
By Reader-Researcher R.C.
Mon, Sep 24, 2018 9:39 p.m.
Colleges ramp up discrimination against people with white ...
Google has declared war on the independent media and has begun blocking emails from Natural News from getting to our readers. We recommend GoodGopher.com as a free, uncensored email receiving service, or ProtonMail.com as a free, encrypted email send and receive service.
www.naturalnews.com
Mon, Sep 24, 2018 9:39 p.m.
Colleges ramp up discrimination against people with white ...
Google has declared war on the independent media and has begun blocking emails from Natural News from getting to our readers. We recommend GoodGopher.com as a free, uncensored email receiving service, or ProtonMail.com as a free, encrypted email send and receive service.
www.naturalnews.com
Sing: Hoaxes! We've Got Hoaxes! We've Got Stacks and Stacks of Hoaxes! Hoaxes!
By Nicholas Stix
Even legendary reporter Byron York, not known for his light touch, is mocking the obvious hoax free-for-all.
“Trailing Ford and now Ramirez in Kavanaugh allegation race, Michael Avenatti plays catch-up. Gang rapes! That's it! Gang rapes! (Details TBA.)”
More “victims” are surely waiting in the wings.
Even legendary reporter Byron York, not known for his light touch, is mocking the obvious hoax free-for-all.
Trailing Ford and now Ramirez in Kavanaugh allegation race, Michael Avenatti plays catch-up. Gang rapes! That's it! Gang rapes! (Details TBA.) https://t.co/c1akaFe7Gl
— Byron York (@ByronYork) September 24, 2018
“Trailing Ford and now Ramirez in Kavanaugh allegation race, Michael Avenatti plays catch-up. Gang rapes! That's it! Gang rapes! (Details TBA.)”
More “victims” are surely waiting in the wings.
Video: Hear Mark Levin’s Short, Modern History of the Democrat Party’s Poisoning of the Supreme Court Nomination Process
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
Levin Video: Democrats and the Judicial Confirmation Process
On a special edition of "Life, Liberty & Levin" Mark Levin takes a deep dive into the Democratic Party's impact on the judicial confirmation process.
Watch the latest video at foxnews.com
Levin Video: Democrats and the Judicial Confirmation Process
On a special edition of "Life, Liberty & Levin" Mark Levin takes a deep dive into the Democratic Party's impact on the judicial confirmation process.
Watch the latest video at foxnews.com
Sunday, September 23, 2018
Utah Police Officer Who Fatally Shot 20-Year-Old Theft Suspect Will Not Face Charges
Sun, Sep 23, 2018 11:10 pm
https://www.yahoo.com/news/utah-police-officer-fatally-shot-182705441.html
Utah Police Officer Who Fatally Shot 20-Year-Old Theft Suspect Will Not Face Charges
The West Valley City police officer who shot and killed Elijah Smith after he entered a home and brandished a screwdriver will not be criminally prosecuted.
www.yahoo.com
shouldn't steal.
Shouldn't run.
Should be dead.
I Told You so! Democrats Cook Up New Hoax Against Kavanaugh: New Hoaxer’s Name is Deborah Ramirez; Grassley Must Hold Vote Monday Morning!
Newest Democrat sex hoaxer, Deborah Ramirez
By Nicholas Stix
Updated Monday, September 24, 2018, 12:20 a.m.
A week or so ago, I half-joked that Democrats were holding auditions for 40-50 new sex hoaxers, in their newest campaign to undo the 2016 election, by making it impossible for President Trump to seat another Supreme Court justice of his liking.
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
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.
At Fox News.
Warning: Highly Disturbing, Explicit Video Racist, South African Murderers Made of Them Slaughtering and Beheading a White Girl with Cutlasses; This is the South African Genocide
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
Last updated on Monday, September 24, 2018, 6:33 p.m.
Sorry, folks, but the video was removed by the Twitter Politburo. However, I saw it, and it was the most shocking thing I ever have.
Last updated on Monday, September 24, 2018, 6:33 p.m.
Yo @realDonaldTrump!
— ONE (@Supreme_Infidel) September 21, 2018
When is the right time to act? Tomorrow? Next Week? A few more months?
These are our own brothers and sisters, and they are being killed by our common enemy (the same enemy targeting you); we have a duty to intervene.#Maga #SouthAfrica #WhyIDidntReport pic.twitter.com/OzE1XKNZo3
Sorry, folks, but the video was removed by the Twitter Politburo. However, I saw it, and it was the most shocking thing I ever have.
Saturday, September 22, 2018
New York Bar's "Racist" Dress Code?
By Reader-Researcher R.C.
"Code for no black people": New York bar's "racist" dress code sparks online debate
"'I post a lot of stuff on Facebook, so I thought a few of my friends would chime in,' Herbert Smith says of posting the bar's dress code. 'But what happened next I was not expecting.'"
www.yahoo.com
R.C.: They are free to take their $$$$ and frequent another watering hole.
N.S.: They are the modern-day slavemasters, and we are their slaves.
"Code for no black people": New York bar's "racist" dress code sparks online debate
"'I post a lot of stuff on Facebook, so I thought a few of my friends would chime in,' Herbert Smith says of posting the bar's dress code. 'But what happened next I was not expecting.'"
www.yahoo.com
R.C.: They are free to take their $$$$ and frequent another watering hole.
N.S.: They are the modern-day slavemasters, and we are their slaves.
Yet Another Thing You Can Buy with Food Stamps
By A Texas Reader
Strip Club Shut Down after Food Stamps Reportedly Used to ...
An Ohio adult entertainment bar was reportedly shut down after agents with the Ohio Liquor Control Commission discovered the bar accepted food stamps for drugs and lap dances.
www.ksat.com
ATR: What would an economist say?
That food stamps and dollar bills are fungible?
That these women are doing a job that immigrants won't do?
Strip Club Shut Down after Food Stamps Reportedly Used to ...
An Ohio adult entertainment bar was reportedly shut down after agents with the Ohio Liquor Control Commission discovered the bar accepted food stamps for drugs and lap dances.
www.ksat.com
ATR: What would an economist say?
That food stamps and dollar bills are fungible?
That these women are doing a job that immigrants won't do?
Memorial Service Held for Slain D.C. Jogger Wendy Martinez
[Previously, on this racist atrocity, at WEJB/NSU: “Washington, D.C.: Logan Circle Jogger's Murder May Have been Racially Motivated.”]
By Prince George's County Ex-Pat
At WJLA.
Family, friends, and loved ones gathered in Southeast Washington on Saturday morning to remember a woman they call the "light of our lives." “It’s a gift to uncover the memories and at the ...
wjla.com
By Prince George's County Ex-Pat
At WJLA.
Family, friends, and loved ones gathered in Southeast Washington on Saturday morning to remember a woman they call the "light of our lives." “It’s a gift to uncover the memories and at the ...
wjla.com
Trump Seeks to Enforce Laws on the Books for Generations against Immigrants being Public Charges
By Prince George's County Ex-Pat
WASHINGTON — Trump administration officials announced Saturday that immigrants who legally use public benefits like food assistance and Section 8 housing vouchers could be denied green cards under new rules aimed at
Trump Administration Aims to Sharply Restrict New Green ...
A rule proposed by the Trump administration could force immigrants seeking permanent resident status to prove they will never become reliant on government assistance.
www.msn.com
PGCE-P: They can always go home.
WASHINGTON — Trump administration officials announced Saturday that immigrants who legally use public benefits like food assistance and Section 8 housing vouchers could be denied green cards under new rules aimed at
Trump Administration Aims to Sharply Restrict New Green ...
A rule proposed by the Trump administration could force immigrants seeking permanent resident status to prove they will never become reliant on government assistance.
www.msn.com
PGCE-P: They can always go home.
Carol Swain Channels Dr. Seuss Re Dr. Tawana Brawley, er, Christine Blasey Ford
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
#TawanaFordHoax
Lizbenoit Retweeted
Dr. Carol M. Swain @carolmswain 13h13 hours ago
"I will not testify on a boat,
I will not testify with a goat.
I will not testify,
Here nor there.
I will not testify anywhere.
I will not testify first. Or last.
I will not testify slow or fast.
There's nothing more for me to say.
I can't remember, anyway. Dr.Seuss-Ford"
"I will not testify on a boat,
— Dr. Carol M. Swain (@carolmswain) September 22, 2018
I will not testify with a goat.
I will not testify,
Here nor there.
I will not testify anywhere.
I will not testify first. Or last.
I will not testify slow or fast.
There's nothing more for me to say.I can't remember, anyway.
Dr.Seuss-Ford"
Brett Kavanaugh: The Big Story about Hoaxer Christine Blasey Ford that Has been Reported and Cited Everywhere Today, is Just More #FakeNews
By Nicholas Stix
Look at the headline: “Kavanaugh accuser will testify against him.”
Now read the story through to the end:
“we are hopeful that we can reach agreement on the details,” read a letter signed by [Ford’s lawyers] Debra Katz and Lisa Banks.
“The date and other details of the hearing were yet to be negotiated, the letter stated…”
“A White House official voiced skepticism of Ford’s decision to testify.
“‘This is an ask to continue “negotiations” without committing to anything… It’s a clever way to push off the vote Monday without committing to appear Wednesday.’”
As Tucker Carlson explained two nights ago, the delays by Christine Blasey Ford and her political handlers are to stall the confirmation vote beyond Wednesday, which will make it impossible for him to be confirmed before the 2018 election. Democrats’ expectation is that they will take the Senate, and then be able to thwart President Trump from ever seating an acceptable candidate on the Supreme Court. Thus would the communists, er, Democrats have succeeded at undoing the 2016 election.
#TawanaFordHoax
Kavanaugh accuser will testify against him
By Mary Kay Linge
September 22, 2018 | 2:56 p.m. | Updated
New York Post
The woman who has roiled the U.S. Senate with sexual assault accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh will testify against him, after all.
Attorneys for Christine Blasey Ford sent an acceptance [sic] letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee with moments to spare before a 2:30 p.m. Saturday deadline which was set late Friday by the committee’s chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).
“Although many aspects of the proposal you provided… are fundamentally inconsistent with the Committee’s promise of a fair, impartial investigation, and we are disappointed with the leaks and the bullying [sic] that have tainted the process, we are hopeful that we can reach agreement on the details,” read a letter signed by Debra Katz and Lisa Banks.
The date and other details of the hearing were yet to be negotiated, the letter stated, but Grassley had been adamant that it should be scheduled for Wednesday at the latest.
Ford’s decision to testify under oath will set off a fresh round of political fireworks as Republicans battle to get Kavanaugh confirmed in time to ascend to the Court before its Oct. 1 opening session.
Kavanaugh has strongly denied Ford’s allegation that he sexually assaulted her when they were both high school students.
Negotiations between Ford’s attorneys and Judiciary Committee representatives stretched into the wee hours Saturday morning, Fox News reported, with Republican senators unwilling to sanction further delay.
A White House official voiced skepticism of Ford’s decision to testify.
“This is an ask to continue ‘negotiations’ without committing to anything,” an unnamed source told Fox News. “It’s a clever way to push off the vote Monday without committing to appear Wednesday.”
Hoaxer Christine Blasey Ford
Washington, D.C.: Logan Circle Jogger's Murder May Have been Racially Motivated
[Also, on this racist atrocity: “Memorial Service Held for Slain D.C. Jogger Wendy Martinez.”]
By “W”
N.S.: Duh. The same things—didn’t like white people—could be said of every black who kills a white (and most who don’t). But over 95% of the time they refuse to say it. Why are they saying it here? Because the vic’s name was Martinez. She even received an affirmative action bonus in death.
[K-2 has] “Proven far too tempting for desperate people, struggling with homelessness.”
The WUSA “reporter” reversed the causality. Homeless people are typically drug addicts and/or mentally ill first. That’s what causes them to end up on the street. They’re not “struggling” with homelessness, or anything else.
“Court records show Crawford was paranoid, suspicious.”
Well, that’s 90% of blacks.
Logan Circle jogger's murder may have been racially motivated
Investigators are looking into the possibility that Martinez's murder might have been "racially motivated" because Crawford "does not like white people."
Author: Marcel Warfield, Arielle Buchmann
Published: 9:24 A.M. EDT September 20, 2018
Updated: 8:02 P.M. EDT September 21, 2018
WUSA
WASHINGTON -- The murder of a recently engaged 35-year-old woman who was jogging near her home may have been racially motivated, investigators said.
Wednesday, 23-year-old Anthony Crawford of Northwest D.C. was arrested in the stabbing death of Wendy Martinez.
Crawford was found by police at a park on 14th Street and Girard and was brought in for questioning late Wednesday night, a day after 35-year-old Wendy Karina Martinez was stabbed while jogging only blocks away from her home in the Logan Circle area approaching the corner of P Street and 11th Street in Northwest D.C.
It was a picture-perfect night to be outdoors, with temperatures in the 70s and clear skies. As Martinez approached the intersection, people across the street were outside on a restaurant patio, enjoying dinner.
It was then that Martinez was stabbed in what police believe was "more than likely" a random attack. It was an "unprovoked attack" and there is no information to suggest that it was a robbery.
It was concluded that Martinez was stabbed seven times, twice in the head and once in the face around the right side of the neck near the carotid artery.
Martinez's stab wounds were very serious, and she made her way into a nearby Chinese restaurant after the attack.
Surveillance video from the restaurant, which we are not showing due to its graphic nature, shows the woman coming inside the restaurant covered in blood. She appears to be talking to the customers inside before she collapses.
DC Police Chief Peter Newsham said a nurse in close proximity attempted life-saving efforts before emergency crews arrived.
Martinez was transported to the hospital where she was pronounced dead at 8:23 p.m. A medical examiner determined her death was caused by multiple stab wounds.
Crawford was arrested Wednesday night and charged with first-degree murder while armed in connection with the stabbing. Police said he did not cooperate with investigators, however, they are confident they have the right person.
Police say evidence collected several blocks away from the stabbing included a knife covered in "fresh blood," a mustard colored sweatshirt with possible blood on it and a blood trail that was observed leaving the scene.
In addition to the items listed above, police also collected an umbrella and white socks with possible blood on them.
The suspect does have a criminal background, however, there is no indication of any violence in his criminal past, according to authorities. Police will continue to comb through his background.
Investigators are looking into the possibility that Martinez's murder might have been “racially motivated” because Crawford “does not like white people.” A source also said that Crawford has a history of mental illness and K2 addiction. K-2, also known as "spice", is a synthetic marijuana that is banned in the U.S.
Both DC Police Chief Newsham and Mayor Bowser said they were able to make an arrest so quickly thanks to the efforts made by the community and authorities.
Martinez's family released the following statement Wednesday night, however did not speak during a press conference on Thursday.
“We are deeply saddened by this senseless tragedy. Wendy Karina Martinez was the light of our lives. Not only was she an avid runner, but she was a devout Christian, a wonderful friend, and a driven professional. Everything you hope that a daughter and a friend could be. She was also excited to be planning her upcoming wedding to her fiancé, Daniel Hincapie. They were engaged just last week.”
Chief Newsham said it appears this was an isolated attack in an otherwise safe area.
["Otherwise safe"--ha, ha, ha!]
"This is a very isolated incident, you don't see crimes like this very often. It's very unlikely that this occurred here at the intersection," Chief Newsham said.
Martinez's family and friends held a vigil for her at 7 p.m. Thursday at Logan Circle.
By “W”
N.S.: Duh. The same things—didn’t like white people—could be said of every black who kills a white (and most who don’t). But over 95% of the time they refuse to say it. Why are they saying it here? Because the vic’s name was Martinez. She even received an affirmative action bonus in death.
[K-2 has] “Proven far too tempting for desperate people, struggling with homelessness.”
The WUSA “reporter” reversed the causality. Homeless people are typically drug addicts and/or mentally ill first. That’s what causes them to end up on the street. They’re not “struggling” with homelessness, or anything else.
“Court records show Crawford was paranoid, suspicious.”
Well, that’s 90% of blacks.
Logan Circle jogger's murder may have been racially motivated
Investigators are looking into the possibility that Martinez's murder might have been "racially motivated" because Crawford "does not like white people."
Author: Marcel Warfield, Arielle Buchmann
Published: 9:24 A.M. EDT September 20, 2018
Updated: 8:02 P.M. EDT September 21, 2018
WUSA
WASHINGTON -- The murder of a recently engaged 35-year-old woman who was jogging near her home may have been racially motivated, investigators said.
Wednesday, 23-year-old Anthony Crawford of Northwest D.C. was arrested in the stabbing death of Wendy Martinez.
Crawford was found by police at a park on 14th Street and Girard and was brought in for questioning late Wednesday night, a day after 35-year-old Wendy Karina Martinez was stabbed while jogging only blocks away from her home in the Logan Circle area approaching the corner of P Street and 11th Street in Northwest D.C.
It was a picture-perfect night to be outdoors, with temperatures in the 70s and clear skies. As Martinez approached the intersection, people across the street were outside on a restaurant patio, enjoying dinner.
It was then that Martinez was stabbed in what police believe was "more than likely" a random attack. It was an "unprovoked attack" and there is no information to suggest that it was a robbery.
It was concluded that Martinez was stabbed seven times, twice in the head and once in the face around the right side of the neck near the carotid artery.
Martinez's stab wounds were very serious, and she made her way into a nearby Chinese restaurant after the attack.
Surveillance video from the restaurant, which we are not showing due to its graphic nature, shows the woman coming inside the restaurant covered in blood. She appears to be talking to the customers inside before she collapses.
DC Police Chief Peter Newsham said a nurse in close proximity attempted life-saving efforts before emergency crews arrived.
#BREAKING Investigators looking into possibility murder of jogger Wendy Martinez might have been “racially motivated.” Suspect Anthony Crawford “does not like white people.” Also has history of mental illness and K2 addiction. @wusa9 pic.twitter.com/WocJzUYCjS
— Bruce Leshan (@BruceLeshan) September 21, 2018
Martinez was transported to the hospital where she was pronounced dead at 8:23 p.m. A medical examiner determined her death was caused by multiple stab wounds.
Crawford was arrested Wednesday night and charged with first-degree murder while armed in connection with the stabbing. Police said he did not cooperate with investigators, however, they are confident they have the right person.
Police say evidence collected several blocks away from the stabbing included a knife covered in "fresh blood," a mustard colored sweatshirt with possible blood on it and a blood trail that was observed leaving the scene.
In addition to the items listed above, police also collected an umbrella and white socks with possible blood on them.
The suspect does have a criminal background, however, there is no indication of any violence in his criminal past, according to authorities. Police will continue to comb through his background.
Investigators are looking into the possibility that Martinez's murder might have been “racially motivated” because Crawford “does not like white people.” A source also said that Crawford has a history of mental illness and K2 addiction. K-2, also known as "spice", is a synthetic marijuana that is banned in the U.S.
Both DC Police Chief Newsham and Mayor Bowser said they were able to make an arrest so quickly thanks to the efforts made by the community and authorities.
Martinez's family released the following statement Wednesday night, however did not speak during a press conference on Thursday.
“We are deeply saddened by this senseless tragedy. Wendy Karina Martinez was the light of our lives. Not only was she an avid runner, but she was a devout Christian, a wonderful friend, and a driven professional. Everything you hope that a daughter and a friend could be. She was also excited to be planning her upcoming wedding to her fiancé, Daniel Hincapie. They were engaged just last week.”
Chief Newsham said it appears this was an isolated attack in an otherwise safe area.
["Otherwise safe"--ha, ha, ha!]
"This is a very isolated incident, you don't see crimes like this very often. It's very unlikely that this occurred here at the intersection," Chief Newsham said.
Martinez's family and friends held a vigil for her at 7 p.m. Thursday at Logan Circle.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This dingbat still has 'Conservative' included on her bio. https://t.co/pROGIKjfUq
— Joe (@CrimsonMariner) September 21, 2018
Meet Lazarus and Cleo: A Brief, Touching Video
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
DOG’S BEST FRIEND: Three-year-old Lazarus helps his elderly furry friend, 13-year-old Cleo, walk down the stairs safely. Lazarus is always one step ahead of Cleo to make sure she doesn’t trip on the stairs. Since the video was shared, Cleo has passed away following an illness. pic.twitter.com/UfdfxUMv5l
— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 21, 2018
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:
If you rape someone it’s pretty automatic you can’t prove you’re innocence you fuckin scumbag https://t.co/QFXJh8oMDS
— Jay Mohr (@jaymohr37) September 21, 2018
Sexual assault + fear of life = rape.
— Jay Mohr (@jaymohr37) September 21, 2018
Shame on you. Really. https://t.co/GrBhS1p8Xe
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
By 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:
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 citizenship—not 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
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:
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:
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:
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:
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?
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:
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.
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
By 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 citizenship—not 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.