Sunday, February 19, 2017

Supreme Court Enters Mexico Border Debate with Texas Shooting Case

By A Texas Reader

Supreme Court enters Mexico border debate with Texas shooting case

As if U.S.-Mexico relations could get no worse, the Supreme Court enters the fray Tuesday with a case that may set them back further.

Like Baby, Like Dog! (GIF)

Do You Live in a Country Run by Idiots? Here’s One Way of Telling (Infographic)

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Video: See This News Hoax by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: CBC Activist Just Happened to Run into a Somali “Refugee” at the Border, Fleeing America into Canada!

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Wikileaks: Mike Flynn Didn’t Break Any Laws, Banning Private Citizens from Engaging in Diplomacy with Foreign Powers, but the Clinton Presidential Campaign Sure Did! Read This Smoking Gun E-Mail!

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Teach Your Granchildren Well (Trump Photo)


Saturday, February 18, 2017

If Rube Goldberg were Alive Today, and Had a Rat Problem (Hilarious Video)

Welcome to All the Readers Coming Over from Ex-Army Libertarian Nationalist!



“Nicholas Stix counterpunches a glibertarian law professor.”

Glibertarian Law Professor Richard Epstein Supports Putsch Against the President, and Calls on President Trump to Resign; I Call on Epstein to Resign!

[Re: “Glibertarian Law Professor Richard Epstein Calls on President Trump to Resign!”]

By Nicholas Stix

On February 13, law professor Richard Epstein called on President Trump to resign. Epstein asserts that,
The nearly four weeks since President Donald Trump’s inauguration have been the most divisive period of American politics since the end of the Second World War. The sharp lines that everyone is drawing in the sand pose a serious threat to the United States. On the one side stand many conservatives and populists who are rejoicing in the Trump victory as the salvation of a nation in decline. On other side sit the committed progressives who are still smarting from an election in which they were trounced in the electoral college, even as Hillary Clinton garnered a clear majority of the popular vote.

[Epstein neglected to mention the Republican Never-Trumpers, to whom he seems to belong.]

As a classical liberal who did not vote for either candidate, I stand in opposition to both groups. And after assessing Trump’s performance during the first month of his presidency, I think it is clear that he ought to resign.
Richard Epstein identifies himself as a “classical liberal.” If only.

Epstein is what I call a glibertarian. He adopts some libertarian (aka classical liberal) positions, while opposing others, based on political correctness.

Race is central to what is wrong, cowardly, and vicious about Epstein.

A true classical liberal/libertarian (CL/L) would be adamantly opposed to all civil rights laws. CL/Ls demand a minimalist state; civil rights laws create a totalitarian state. Epstein supports civil rights laws. I believe that he does this out of the same sort of cowardice that has Ron and Rand Paul claim to be libertarians, while sucking up to black supremacists, even though Epstein has enjoyed lifetime tenure for most of his adult life!
In a similar vein, unconstitutional and illegal affirmative action costs productive citizens (almost all of whom are white) between $700 billion and $1 trillion per year, but you won’t hear Epstein or the Pauls call for its abolition.

The same political correctness has Epstein call on President Trump to resign, while never, to my knowledge having called on his predecessor, the most racist, criminal, and vicious president in American history, to resign. The reason: Again, racial cowardice.

While Richard Epstein, now 76, spent much of his career as a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School, and presently has a sinecure at NYU Law School, he has never taught at the University of Mars Law School. Thus, like everyone else on Earth, he knows that the chaos of the first weeks of the Trump Administration is not of the President’s doing, but of those forces who are undertaking a putsch in progress: The DPUSA, including the John Doe calling himself “Barack Obama,” the leftwing MSM, and seditious moneybags like communist George Soros; some members of the rightwing MSM, e.g., Bill Kristol; the judiciary; the intelligence services (FBI, NSA, etc.), and some Never-Trump GOP pols like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and former president George W. Bush; and to the degree that they do not belong to the groups cited above, the “deep state.”)

The putsch is an extended version of the conspiracies that sought to deny the President the Republican nomination, and then the White House.

That Epstein refuses to mention the putsch, even though has not just arrived from years of teaching at Mars U., is to me a clear indication that he supports it.

Epstein’s attacks on Trump’s economic positions are classic glibism. He is very loyal to the needs of billionaires to get richer through importing cheap labor, to the point of lying about the benefits of said practice.

“… allowing the United States to create new industries and new jobs.”

Epstein’s economics professor friends have for years lied about this, asserting that open borders policies would create new jobs. The new jobs, unfortunately, have almost all gone to foreigners. (My VDARE colleague, economist Edwin S. Rubenstein, has developed the VDAWDI, the VDARE American Worker Displacement Index, which shows that during the Obama years, American workers were rapidly being displaced, on behalf of foreign workers.)

How does that help America? Epstein’s answer is the same lie that the Open Borders Lobby has pushed for years: The foreigners are superior to Americans!

There are two main types of foreign workers that globalism has given us: unskilled and skilled. Both have displaced American workers.

Almost all unskilled workers have come from south of the border. Most of these are illegals. They steal jobs from American workers, depress wages, and steal billions each year in welfare and EBT payments, Earned Income Tax Credit fraud, health, schooling, and infrastructure costs. Their economic contributions go to themselves, their families abroad via wire transfers, and the rich crooks they work for, who pay them much less than they would have had to pay Americans. Their economic “contribution” to America is completely negative.

And they are all criminals! They enter the country illegally. They engage in identity theft. They join murderous gangs. They terrorize huge swaths of the country, and illegal-friendly politicians handcuff the police. And they drive without licenses or insurance.

Meanwhile, unlike the white and Asian immigrants of yore, each generation of these low-IQ, violent people get worse.

Skilled workers come largely from India, via H-1B abuse by the tech industry. Such companies bring in third-rate Indians, whose education is often unverifiable, to cheat brilliant (overwhelmingly white) Americans, who spent a fortune attending top university STEM programs, out of their education and their jobs. Meanwhile these “brilliant” foreign workers are guilty of saddling most computer systems—Macs and Window-based alike—with buggy software!

Because of the criminality and corruption of the plutocratic globalists whom Richard Epstein champions, most of America’s most brilliant young people, who would have studied and entered STEM fields, must waste their talents and money studying fields like business. Some, who have studied engineering and worked for a time in the field, before being forced to train their Indian replacements, are so desperate to earn a living, that they apply for jobs like installing garage door openers!

Meanwhile, the plutocrats pay the incompetent South Asians 50 cents on the dollar of what they’d have to pay competent, qualified Americans.

By the way, rather than immigration somehow creating new jobs for Americans—already ten years ago, I came across an economist who granted that that talking point was unrealistic, computerization and robotics will be eliminating millions of jobs over the next 5-10 years.

Why would Richard Epstein promote policies that would lead America to a catastrophe of overpopulation, constant terrorism, and economic collapse for most people, while seeking to destroy the only leader America has had since Reagan, who cares about rescuing the country? That’s because Richard Epstein doesn’t give a damn about America. He hates the forgotten men and women whom Trump champions, which is why he hates Trump. Epstein is a class warrior.

Epstein’s criticism of Trump’s EO regarding so-called refugees, which Epstein misrepresented as being about “immigrants,” was nonsense on stilts, as matters of politics and of the law.

Richard Epstein also hates Trump for attacking the corrupt, black-robed caste. In my view, Trump’s attacks on corrupt judges is one of the best things about him. But these are Richard Epstein’s friends and cronies. He went to school with them. And when Epstein goes to a dinner party at his cronies’ homes, the food is cooked, the house cleaned, and the grass cut, by illegal aliens.

“It seems clear that if President Trump went about his job in a statesmanlike manner, the progressive counterattack would surely fail, and a sane Republican party could gain the support of a dominant share of the electorate for at least the next two election cycles, if not more.”

Been there, done that. John McCain and Mitt Romney ran exactly the sort of presidential campaigns that Richard Epstein surely approved of, and got trounced. Were all GOP candidates to follow Epstein’s advice, there would never have been another Republican president. Trump won, precisely because he ignored the concern-trolling Epsteins.

As for the notion that if Trump merely refrained from counter-punching, his enemies would give up, such a claim is either the product of complete ignorance, or complete dishonesty. The President’s enemies are leading a putsch against him. Richard Epstein’s response is to jump on the putsch bandwagon, and demand that the President surrender. Clearly Epstein supports the putsch. He’s completely dishonest.

“The personal moral failings of the President include…”

We just got through eight years of the most evil, racist, criminal president in American history, yet I don’t recall Richard Epstein ever calling for Barack Obama’s resignation. But Obama is “black,” and Epstein is a complete coward, when it comes to race.

Donald Trump is a very flawed man, but he is also the most heroic figure to occupy the Oval Office since perhaps Andrew Jackson.

As I told my son, great heroes have great flaws. But men who have nothing of the hero in them, also have great flaws. Given a choice, I’ll take the hero.

Pat Buchanan: The Same Treasonous, Conspiratorial Intelligence Operatives Who Criminally Wiretapped Michael Flynn’s Phone, Leaked His Phone Calls, and Smeared Him as a Criminal, are at the Center of an Ongoing Putsch Against the President

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

The Deep State Targets Trump
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Thursday - February 16, 2017 at 9:34 p.m.

When Gen. Michael Flynn was forced to resign as national security adviser, Bill Kristol purred his satisfaction, “If it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state.”

To Kristol, the permanent regime, not the elected president and his government, is the real defender and rightful repository of our liberties.

Yet it was this regime, the deep state, that carried out what Eli Lake of Bloomberg calls “The Political Assassination of Michael Flynn.”

And what were Flynn’s offenses?

In December, when Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats, Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador. He apparently counseled the envoy not to overreact, saying a new team would be in place in a few weeks and would review U.S.-Russian relations.

“That’s neither illegal nor improper,” writes Lake.

Vladimir Putin swiftly declared that there would be no reciprocal expulsions and U.S. diplomats and their families would be welcome at the Kremlin’s Christmas and New Year’s parties.

Diplomatic crisis averted. “Great move … (by V. Putin),” tweeted Trump, “I always knew he was very smart.”

But apparently, this did not sit well with the deep state.

For when Vice President Pence told a TV show that Flynn told him that sanctions did not come up in conversation with the Russian ambassador, a transcript of Flynn’s call was produced from recordings by intelligence agencies, and its contents leaked to The Washington Post.

After seeing the transcript, the White House concluded that Flynn had misled Pence, mutual trust was gone, and Flynn must go.

Like a good soldier, Flynn took the bullet.

The real crime here, however, is not that the incoming national security adviser spoke with a Russian diplomat seeking guidance on the future president’s thinking. The real crime is the criminal conspiracy inside the deep state to transcribe the private conversation of a U.S. citizen and leak it to press collaborators to destroy a political career.

“This is what police states do,” writes Lake.

But the deep state is after larger game than General Flynn. It is out to bring down President Trump and abort any move to effect the sort of rapprochement with Russia that Ronald Reagan achieved.

For the deep state is deeply committed to Cold War II.

Hence, suddenly, we read reports of a Russian spy ship off the Connecticut, Delaware and Virginia coasts, of Russian jets buzzing a U.S. warship in the Black Sea, and Russian violations of Reagan’s INF treaty outlawing intermediate-range missiles in Europe.

Purpose: Stampede the White House into abandoning any idea of a detente with Russia. And it appears to be working. At a White House briefing Tuesday, Sean Spicer said, “President Trump has made it very clear that he expects the Russian government to … return Crimea.”

Is the White House serious?

Putin could no more survive returning Crimea to Ukraine than Bibi Netanyahu could survive giving East Jerusalem back to Jordan.

How does the deep state go about its work? We have seen a classic example with Flynn. The intelligence and investigative arms of the regime dig up dirt, and then move it to their Fourth Estate collaborators, who enjoy First
Amendment immunity to get it out.

For violating their oaths and breaking the law, bureaucratic saboteurs are hailed as “whistleblowers” while the journalists who receive the fruits of their felonies put in for Pulitzers.

Now if Russians hacked into the DNC and John Podesta’s computer during the campaign, and, more seriously, if Trump aides colluded in any such scheme, it should be investigated.

But we should not stop there. Those in the FBI, Justice Department and intelligence agencies who were complicit in a conspiracy to leak the contents of Flynn’s private conversations in order to bring down the national security adviser should be exposed and prosecuted.

An independent counsel should be appointed by the attorney general and a grand jury impaneled to investigate what Trump himself rightly calls “criminal” misconduct in the security agencies.

As for interfering in elections, how clean are our hands?

Our own CIA has a storied history of interfering in elections. In the late ’40s, we shoveled cash into France and Italy after World War II to defeat the Communists who had been part of the wartime resistance to the Nazis and Fascists.

And we succeeded. But we continued these practices after the Cold War ended. In this century, our National Endowment for Democracy, which dates to the Reagan era, has backed “color revolutions” and “regime change” in nations across what Russia regards as her “near abroad.”

NED’s continued existence appears a contradiction of Trump’s inaugural declaration: “We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone.”

The president and GOP should get out front here. Let Congress investigate Russia meddling in our election. And let a special prosecutor run down, root out, expose and indict those in the investigative and intel agencies who used their custody of America’s secrets, in collusion with press collaborators, to take down Trump appointees who are on their enemies lists.

Then put NED down.

Friday, February 17, 2017

Videos: Did the Fake News Media Call Bill Clinton and Obama Racists When They Called for Enforcing Our Immigration Laws?

That was a rhetorical question.

CNN Promotes Baseless Assertion

By Nicholas Stix


Lawrence Auster Reaches Out from the Grave, to Throttle Bill Kristol on Illegal Immigration

[See also, at WEJB/NSU, on William Kristol:

“Has the Republicans’ Capitulation on Homosexualization of the Military Guaranteed the Democrats’ Victory in 2012?”;

“Bill Kristol and the New Anti-Trump Conspiracy (Pat Buchanan)”;

“NeverTrumper William Kristol, of the weekly standard: It’s the Most Wonderful Time for a Coup!”; and

“Neo-Con Chameleon Bill Kristol on Immigration, over the Years.”]

By David in TN

Here are two threads from our late friend Larry Auster blasting Bill "I'm a liberal on immigration" Kristol. This ( from 2003 and this ( from 2006.

The latter has a comment about Ben Stein's two homes.

Immigration has pushed America leftward, Kristol now admits

Howard Dean could beat President Bush, says William Kristol in the Washington Post. One of the reasons: “[D]emographic trends (particularly the growth in Hispanic voters) tend to favor the Democrats going into 2004.” Hey, Bill, what happened to all those “conservative” Hispanic immigrants that you and your fellow Republican strategic geniuses have been drooling over for the last ten years while you pushed for open borders, even as you contemptuously dismissed and marginalized the people who were making the very warnings about immigration that you now, the damage being done, off-handedly admit to be true?

If there is any justice in this world, some day the irresponsible, destructive, and perfidious role played by Republicans, establishment conservatives, and neoconservatives in the U.S. immigration debate will be known to history—with names named, and with quotations quoted.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 09, 2003 03:56 P.M.


What about their irresponsible, destructive, and perfidious role in American foreign policy? :)

Posted by: Chesterfield on December 9, 2003 4:35 PM

Neocons were hardly alone. On the right there were libertarians too. The left supports immigration for ideological and tactical reasons.

Big Business supports immigration, because it provides a subsidized workforce.

Posted by: Ron on December 9, 2003 4:57 PM

I’m not speaking about the left here. The left’s aims are openly anti-American. As for the libertarians, they are also so opposed to the necessities of any stable social order that one doesn’t expect anything rational or useful from them. No, I’m speaking about Republicans and the center-right, who professed to care about preserving the unity of our culture yet pushed unassimilable immigrants on us; who professed to care about keeping American politics “conservative” yet pushed populations into this country that will make American politics vastly more big-state and left-wing than they otherwise would have been. Conservatives are more guilty than the left, because they professed to know better and should have known better, and because they were the natural intellectual and political leaders that could have turned the immigration issue around but instead did their utmost to make that impossible. From the endless stream of “I love immigration” articles in mainstream conservative publiations to the Republicans’ shafting of immigration reform in 1996 to Bush’s love affair with radical Moslem groups, it has been the right more than the left who has enabled the immigration disaster.

Note that I changed the last sentence of the original blog entry to read “Republicans, conservatives, and neoconservatives” instead of just “neoconservatives.” However, I do believe that the neoconservatives are more guilty than other conservatives, because they were the most articulate and active critics of multiculturalism and group rights, and were supposedly concerned about the disintegration of American culture by the diversity ideology, and yet they refused to make the connection between the diversity ideology and diverse immigration; on the contrary, with their race-blind universalist ideology they made it impossible to oppose the immigration that was the chief driving force behind the multiculturalism that they opposed.

I guarantee you that the same offhand admission that Kristol now makes about the effect of Hispanics in moving the country leftward, he or other neocons will make some day (again, completely casually, with no hint of a mea culpa) about the effect of immigration on our culture. They’ll come out and say, “Well, it’s true that mass third-world immigration has destroyed our common culture, but there’s nothing we can do about it now, and besides, to oppose a radical change in society once it has been broadly accepted is not conservative but radical. Indeed, it means being as bad as the radicals themselves. So let’s just move on to the next issue.”

Isn’t that what they did in their defense of individual rights against affirmative action? After crusading against group rights for 25 years as a threat to the essence of America, they just gave the issue up after Grutter, as though it didn’t matter after all.

And look at my recent article about Mark Steyn. He openly says that the presence of Moslems among us is going to bring us down, and says there’s nothing to do about it but laugh. Well, where was Steyn five or ten or fifteen years ago, when an articulate mainstream conservative writer criticizing immigration could have made a difference? He was nowhere. He never wrote about the subject. He’s only writing about it now, AFTER it has reached a point where, according to him, it’s too late to do anything about it.

And that’s the general neoconservative pattern. They set the tone of so much conservative debate, but, time after time, it turns out that they are not serious people. They take positions that suit themselves and their careers.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on December 9, 2003 5:25 P.M.

What Steyn said follows a familiar pattern. Certain people, often playing a leading role in political discourse, ignore or dismiss a problem for years, and in some cases they actively stop other people from trying to do something about it. Then, at a certain point, when the problem has gotten really bad, they finally admit that it exists, but instead of saying, “I was wrong, I’m sorry for being so blind, this really is a problem, we’ve got to take action,” they say, “There’s nothing we can do about it, it’s too late.”

To summarize, in the first stage, they deny that the problem exists and refuse to lift a finger about it. In the second stage, they admit that the problem exists but they say that it’s too late to do anything about it, indeed they insist there’s no point in even talking about it. Either they deny the threat, or they surrender to the threat.

At no point in this process do they ever confront the threat and allow a debate to occur.
Posted by: Lawrence Auster on December 10, 2003 2:11 A.M.

[Many intelligent comments follow at Auster's site.]

William Kristol’s repulsive arrogance on illegal immigration

On Sunday morning on Fox Five News with Chris Wallace, William Kristol said:

I’m a liberal on immigration…. What damage have they done that’s so great in 20 years [since the 1986 amnesty]?… What’s happened that’s so terrible in the last 20 years? Is the crime rate up in the United States in the last 20 years? Is unemployment up in the United States in the last 20 years?

And they’ve been contributing to the U.S. economy and not damaging U.S. society. There have been marches with Mexican flags, which conservative talk radio is up in arms about. I mean, are these people serious? Are these people—what, are they going to be traitors to the U.S.?

… I am pro-immigration, and I am even soft on illegal immigration.
Isn’t that something? The neocons, and in particular the Jewish neocons, have been long seen by the paleo right as people who only care about spreading an American democratic empire abroad and who, in their pedal-to-the-metal support for open borders, are indifferent to the actual well-being, and even the long-term survival, of America as a distinct country. The neocons, of course, see such suspicions as nothing but irrational bigotry against Jews. And so what does Kristol do? He comes right out and says on national television that he couldn’t care less about the mass invasion of this country by illegal aliens. He looks at 500,000 illegals and their co-ethnics demonstrating in Los Angeles,—illegal aliens demanding rights from the government of this country while carrying Mexican flags and signs saying that this continent belongs to them, not to us—and it has no effect on him. He’s pleased to inform us that personally he’s not bothered by it. Even Brit Hume was put off by Kristol’s smiling demeanor.

It would be one thing for Kristol to disagree with those who want to stop illegal immigration. It’s another thing to act as if he’s never read the arguments against it, has no knowledge of the profoundly disruptive effects it has had on the cities and regions most affected, and has no awareness of or sympathy with the anguish millions of Americans people feel about it. He is also ignorant of the vast contribution illegals make to crime. As with President Bush, it is simply not a part of Kristol’s makeup to have any critical thought about mass Third-World immigration (“I’m a liberal on immigration, I am even soft on illegal immigration”), so he can’t bother taking in what his colleagues on the other side of the debate are saying, or noticing the most basic facts about the issue.

I’m reminded of an interview in the early 1990s with William Kristol’s parents, Irving Kristol and Gertrude Himmelfarb. At the time, they were living in an apartment on New York’s Central Park South where they had lived for ten years. They told the interviewer that they had never gone for a walk in Central Park, right across the street from their apartment. They seemed quite pleased with themselves in the way they said this.

What this stunning confession represented to me was: these people have their careers, they write their articles and books, but they themselves are completely apart from and uninterested in the actual America they live in, even as, from their aerie, they advise it on its politics and culture. And now the Kristols’ son puts his parents’ dégagé attitude toward America into practical, political expression: faced with an ongoing mass invasion of this country by hostile cultural aliens, he tells us, with a smug smile, that he couldn’t care less.

- End of initial entry -

Stephen writes:

Did you catch Ben Stein doing the debate segment on CBS Sunday Morning? The subject was illegal immigration and if you had tuned in during the middle of his spiel, you might have thought he was talking about some race of supreme beings from a far superior planet. Typical of neo-cons, most of his advocacy was focused not on the reality of the coming Mexican annexation of California, but more restricted to rhapsodic paeans to the illegal immigrants themselves.

It was the old “Mexicans aren’t equal to Americans—they’re actually much BETTER!” spin.

Another thing should be noted about Stein. He has two homes: one in Beverly Hills, the other in Malibu.

Neither are noted as primary destinations for squatting hordes from the third world. The Malibu residence is not a gated home, nor a gated neighborhood, it’s a gated MOUNTAIN.

Wildflower-plucking hikers who inadvertently stray off the trail in public lands near Ben Stein’s neighborhood can expect to be confronted by grim-faced private security guards riding ATVs and carrying Glocks on their hips. I think its safe to assume that Mr. Stein doesn’t have a lot of multi-families of illegal Mexican nationals crammed into the single-family residences in (either of) his neighborhoods, blasting the block with music, covering every inch of vertical surface with graffiti, and firing guns into the air to announce their victories in post-midnight cock fights.

I guess they’re a lot easier to appreciate from a distance.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 02, 2006 09:46 P.M.

News Conference Video: President Trump Even Made CNN’s Jim Acosta Laugh (or was that George Clooney, or Sadiq Khan?)

Thursday, February 16, 2017

How Twitter Helps Malware Sites by Blocking Those Who Alert Other Users to Them

By Nicholas Stix

Earlier today, I tweeted,

Suspicious site alert: (possible malware site).

Twitter blocked me!

“This request looks like it might be automated. To protect our users from spam and other malicious activity, we can't complete this action right now. Please try again later.”

I then responded,

Stupid, stupid, stupid Twitter! It just blocked me from warning about a suspicious site. [I included the Twitter "explanation."]

Several hours later, I tried again:

Suspicious site alert: The following site may spread malware.

Same old, same old, from Twit:

“This request looks like it might be automated. To protect our users from spam and other malicious activity, we can't complete this action right now. Please try again later.”

So, there you have it. Twitter is aiding and abetting malware sites. I wonder if its censors’ misconduct is actionable, by their victims.

I am aware that the blocking and moronic “explanations” are on auto-pilot, but a real person at Twitter sets up such programs, and another real person ordered him to do so.

Neo-Con Chameleon Bill Kristol on Immigration, over the Years

[Re: “NeverTrumper William Kristol, of the weekly standard: It’s the Most Wonderful Time for a Coup!”]

By David in TN

In the mid-Nineties, Bill Kristol said the Mexican “immigrants” were “Conservative Catholics” who would vote Republican, if they were catered to by the GOP. A decade later, Kristol's line was the GOP had to move left because of the increasing Hispanic vote.

N.S.: And he managed to be wrong both times! But Bill Kristol’s supposed to be so smart!

Glibertarian Law Professor Richard Epstein Calls on President Trump to Resign!



Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Richard Epstein spent most of his career at the University of Chicago Law School. In his dotage, he got a sinecure at NYU.

Stanford University


Time for Trump to Resign?
By Richard A. Epstein
via Defining Ideas (Hoover Institution)
Monday, February 13, 2017

The nearly four weeks since President Donald Trump’s inauguration have been the most divisive period of American politics since the end of the Second World War. The sharp lines that everyone is drawing in the sand pose a serious threat to the United States. On the one side stand many conservatives and populists who are rejoicing in the Trump victory as the salvation of a nation in decline. On other side sit the committed progressives who are still smarting from an election in which they were trounced in the electoral college, even as Hillary Clinton garnered a clear majority of the popular vote.

[Epstein neglected to mention the Republican Never-Trumpers, to whom he seems to belong.]

As a classical liberal who did not vote for either candidate, I stand in opposition to both groups. And after assessing Trump’s performance during the first month of his presidency, I think it is clear that he ought to resign. However, it important to cut through the partisan hysteria to identify both what Trump is doing right and wrong in order to explain my assessment of his presidency to date.

On the positive side is the simple fact that Trump won the election. What is right about Trump is what was wrong with Clinton—her promise to continue, and even expand, the policies of the Obama administration. The day after the election, it was clear that none of her policy proposals would be implemented under a Trump presidency, coupled with a Republican Congress. As I have long argued, there are good reasons to critique the progressive world view. Progressives believe that reduced levels of taxation and a strong dose of deregulation would do little or nothing to advance economic growth. In their view, only monetary and fiscal policy matter for dealing with sluggish growth, so they fashion policy on the giddy assumption that their various schemes to advance union power, consumer protection, environmental, insurance, and financial market regulation—among others—only affect matters of distribution and fairness, but will have no discernible effect on economic growth. In making this assumption, they assume, as did many socialists and New Dealers in the 1930s, that it is possible to partition questions of justice and redistribution from those of economic prosperity.

In taking this position, they fail to account for how administrative costs, major uncertainty, and distorted incentives affect capital formation, product innovation, and job creation. Instead, today’s progressives have their own agenda for wealth creation that includes such remedies as a $15 minimum wage, stronger union protections, and an equal pay law with genuine bite. But these policies will necessarily reduce growth by imposing onerous barriers on voluntary exchange.
The fact that there was any economic growth at all under the Obama administration—and even then, it was faltering and anemic—had one cause: the Republican Congress that blocked the implementation of further progressive policies and advanced a pro-growth agenda.

Sadly, both President Obama and his various administrative heads pushed hard on the regulatory levers that were still available to them. And so we got a Department of Labor (DOL) decision to raise the exemption levels under the Fair Labor Standards Act from just over $23,000 to just over $47,000, in ways that would have disrupted, without question, several major segments of the economy for whom the statutory definition of an hour does not serve as a workable measure of account. Thus, at one stroke, DOL compromised the status of graduate students, whose studies and work are often inseparable; of tech employees, whose compensation often comes in the form of deferred stock payments; and of gig workers, who are employed by the job and not the hour. At the same time, the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board has taken steps to wreck highly successful, long-term franchising arrangements, by announcing henceforth that the franchisor may on a case-by-case basis be treated as an employer subject to the collective bargaining obligations of the NLRA. These, and similar decisions, are acts of wealth destruction, and they offer one powerful explanation, among many, for the decline in the labor participation rate to its lowest levels since World War II.

The misguided opposition to the Trump administration extends far more broadly. I was an advisor to the MAIN coalition (Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now) in the now successful effort to undo the roadblocks that the Obama administration put in the path of the Dakota Access Pipeline, and still find it incomprehensible that any administration could engage in a set of collusive rearguard actions to block a pipeline that met or exceeded every government standard in terms of need, safety, and historical and environmental protection. The handwringing of the Obama administration over the Keystone XL pipeline was equally inexcusable. Two expertly crafted executive orders from the Trump administration removed the roadblocks simply by allowing the standard review processes of the Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies to run their course. Nonetheless, virtually every initiative to deregulate that comes from the Trump administration is greeted with howls of protest, whether the topic be healthcare, banking, brokerage, or consumer protection. Yet these very deregulations explain why the stock market has surged: collectively, they will help revive a stagnant economy.

Worse still are the attacks on the integrity and independence of Judge Neil Gorsuch from most, but not all, progressives. Georgetown University’s Neal Katyal should be singled out for his praise of Gorsuch as a person and a judge. Unfortunately, the vast majority of progressives, like Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, wail that Gorsuch is not a mainstream judge, is not sufficiently supportive of progressive ideals, and, most critically, is not Judge Merrick Garland. The United States sails in treacherous waters when members of either party think that any judge appointed by the opposition is not fit for service on the United States Supreme Court unless he publicly denounces the President who nominated him for that high office. I have long believed that any nominee should be judged on his or her record, without being called on to play rope-a-dope before hostile senators who only wish to bait, trap, and embarrass the nominee.

It seems clear that if President Trump went about his job in a statesmanlike manner, the progressive counterattack would surely fail, and a sane Republican party could gain the support of a dominant share of the electorate for at least the next two election cycles, if not more.

Yet there are deeper problems, because President Trump’s anti-free trade agenda will hurt—if not devastate—the very people whom he wants to help. Extensive trade between the United States and Mexico is indispensable for the prosperity of both countries. The looming trade war threatens that win/win position. The notion that the United States should run positive trade balances with every country is an absurd position to take in international economic relations, lest every country has the right to claim the same preferred status for itself. Yet it has never occurred to Trump that a negative trade balance amounts to a vote of confidence by other countries that it is safe to invest in the United States, allowing the United States to create new industries and new jobs. Nor does he understand that any effort to be successful in the export market requires importing cheap components from foreign firms—an oversight evident from his ill-conceived executive order calling, whenever legal, for American pipe on an American pipelines. If our trade partners retaliate, the current stock market surge will take on a different complexion. The Dow may be high, but the variation in future prices will be high as well. If Congress thwarts his anti-trade agenda, the domestic reforms should yield lasting benefits. If Congress caves, or if Trump works by aggressive executive order, the entire system could come tumbling down.

Speaking of executive orders, the President’s hasty and disastrous order dealing with immigrants has vast implications for America’s position in the world. In a global economy, the United States cannot afford to let petty protectionism keep the best talent from coming here for education and staying later for work. I, for one, believe that his executive order exceeds his executive powers. Others, like Michael McConnell, disagree. But no matter which way one comes down on its legality, nothing excuses its faulty rollout, petty nationalism, exaggerated fears of terrorism, and disruptive economic effects. The Trump administration agenda desperately needs to be rethought from the ground up by a deliberative process in which the President relies on his Cabinet.

[Epstein is misrepresenting the role of the cabinet, as if it were Congress. Each cabinet member serves at the pleasure of the President, unlike members of Congress, who serve at the pleasure of the voters.]

So the question remains: does Trump remain his own worst enemy? My fears are that he is too rigid and too uneducated [!] to make the necessary shift to good leadership. By taking foolish and jingoist stances, Trump has done more than any other human being alive today to bring a sensible classical liberal agenda into disrepute. Then there is the matter of his character. The personal moral failings of the President include his vicious tweets, his self-righteous attitude, his shameless self-promotion, his petty resentments, his immoral flirtation with Vladimir Putin, his nonstop denigration of federal judges, his jawboning of American businesses, his predilection for conspiracy theories, his reliance on alternative facts, and his vindictive behavior toward his political opponents.

[The President is plenty educated. Epstein is using “uneducated” to mean someone who has not submitted to the norms, etiquette, and mentality of the ruling elites. In Epstein’s usage, education is thus a synonym for decadence.]

Hence, I think that there is ample reason to call for Trump’s resignation, even though I know full well that my advice will not be heeded. And this welcome outcome will not happen so long as the attack against him comes solely from progressive Democrats. Sensible Republicans should focus on the threat that he represents to their plan, and recall that the alternative is no longer Hillary Clinton, but Mike Pence. I think that Pence is unlikely to abandon the positive aspects of the Trump agenda, and there is some reason to hope that he will back off Trump’s suicidal positions on trade and immigration, and put a stop to the endless train of uncivil behaviors demeaning the office of the President. Some miracles happen, but a Trump transformation will not be one of them. Unfortunately, his excesses could power a progressive revival. Would that I had the power to say to Trump, “You’re fired!”

NeverTrumper William Kristol, of the weekly standard: It’s the Most Wonderful Time for a Coup!

By Nicholas Stix

A tip ‘o the hate to my VDARE colleague, John Derbyshire.

Various other twits were cussing at Kristol, but your trusty correspondent was pleased as punch, as Hubie used to say.

[Full disclosure: I briefly freelanced for Kristol during the late 1990s, but we never met, and since I used a pseudonym, he didn’t even know I was writing for him.]

It's a Day Without Illegal Alien Foreign Criminals! (Poster)



By Nicholas Stix

A Twit bud pointed out that the poster is in English. But the campaign is directed at people who are illiterate in English. Thus, it’s a PR tactic to reach American amnestisiacs. The real advertising for the campaign is in Spanish, on Spanish-speaking radio stations.

CNN Has Something for You! (Funny Infographic)

“Sorry, that tweet has been deleted”: Twitter does not want people Spreading This Message (Graphic)

Every time I tried to RT or "like" the tweet above, I got the error message in my title.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Insane Clown Posse After Trump (Funny Foto)


Video: Rep. Steve King to CNN’s Alisyn Camerota: “I think it’s a CNN narrative” that Russia Hacked the Election

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Why are Women Permitted to Work in Men’s Correctional Facilities? Tennessee Female CO Busted for Having Sex in Prison with Inmate


Kenyetta Foxe in jail as a pro (or is that as an amateur?)

Kenyetta Foxe in jail as an amateur (or is that as a pro?)

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

A tip ‘o the hate to Countenance.

For centuries, it was universal common sense not to permit women to work in men's jails and prisons. Whom can we thank for this insane "progress"? None other than the SPLC!

Arrested correctional officer friends with inmates on Facebook
By Jeremy Finley
Posted: May 14, 2014 8:02 P.M. EST
Updated: May 15, 2014 3:01 P.M. EST

A correctional officer charged with having sex with an inmate also regularly communicated with inmates on social media, a Channel 4 I-Team investigation found.

Kenyetta Foxe was arrested this week for allegedly having sex with convicted murderer Michael Daniels at Riverbend Maximum Security Prison.

A Channel 4 I-Team investigation found Foxe is friends with several inmates on Facebook and Instagram and openly communicated with them.

We found one of her friends, who goes by the name "Dough Boy," has images on his Facebook page of himself rapping and eating pizza inside prison.

His Facebook profile shows he is friends with Foxe.

When "Dough Boy" wrote that he got stabbed, Foxe wrote on his Facebook page on May 9 that she saw him afterwards and "it was great seeing him and talking to him for a minute."

Foxe's profile shows she is friends with other inmates who appear to still be in prison.

The Channel 4 I-Team showed the postings to Davidson County Sheriff Darron Hall, who has long forbidden correctional officers in his jails to have any relationship with inmates.

"She wouldn't work here. It's as simple as that. You can't do that and work here," said Hall.

Hall said it is widely recognized that correctional officers cannot have any relationship with inmates, even on social media.

The Channel 4 I-Team found, at one point, Foxe posted a picture of herself, and then another inmate, Stevie Dickson, reposted the picture on his own timeline.

Dickson is at West Tennessee State Penitentiary where Foxe once worked.

When Dickson showed the picture, he wrote, "I need it in my life."

When Dickson posted that he needed support, Foxe wrote, "I got you."

We wanted to know if the Tennessee Department of Correction was aware of the Facebook communications, and a spokeswoman said it is an ongoing investigation.

"The Tennessee Department of Correction remains vigilant in our fight to reduce contraband in our facilities and will prosecute and discipline those found with illegal items. It is important to note that the arrest of the officer at Riverbend was a result of our efforts to operate safe and secure prisons and detect contraband," said spokeswoman Neysa Taylor in a statement to the Channel 4 I-Team.

We went by Foxe's home after she bonded out of jail, but no one was home.

How Harvard’s Laurence Tribe Came to be the Nation’s Most Respected Professor of Constitutional Law

By Nicholas Stix

He lies. And he lies. And he lies.

He lies about the Constitution. He lies about federal law. And he lies about precedent.

Note that when I said Tribe is the nation’s “most respected professor of constitutional law,” within the perverse universe of corrupt, racial socialist judges, law professors, and media operatives.

I saw Tribe a couple of days ago on CNN. I forget who the host was, but Tribe was on with former AG Michael Mukasey (from the end of the Bush II years).

Mukasey said, correctly, that the Ninth circus judges were granting American Constitutional rights to foreign nationals living on foreign nationals living on foreign soil, that universities were also promoting the fiction that they could confer rights, and that the courts were promoting the fiction that they had judicial review over matters that federal law, Congress, and precedent had granted were the President’s prerogatives.

Tribe then announced that Mukasey had been “a much better attorney general than he is a law professor,” and proceeded to lie about every matter that Mukasey had discussed. Thus, Tribe granted Constitutional rights to foreigners on foreign soil (which simultaneously entails the dilution or elimination of Americans’ Constitutional rights), and eliminated all presidential prerogatives.

If what Tribe was saying was true, the President would have prerogative, and the judiciary would be omnipotent.

But Tribe didn’t even believe his own words. He never challenged presidential prerogatives when “Obama” was president, and he won’t do so, when the DPUSA recaptures the White House. Laurence Tribe is a sophist.

Unfortunately, Mukasey was much too polite, and ignored Tribe’s lies.

Note, too, that the same Ninth Circus that has illegally blocked President Trump’s lawful presidential prerogative, in stopping foreigners from entering the country, is supporting the illegal, unconstitutional acts of “Obama,” in breaking the law on behalf of illegal aliens, even after “Obama” has left office, using the same rationale it has struck down, in Trump’s case!

Laurence Tribe has been silent on this outrage. Do not expect him to challenge the Ninth Circus on this matter.

Ta-Nehisi Coates Devotee Lectures Journalist; Journalist Responds

By Nicholas Stix

I just came across the following comment on my VDARE report commemorating the tenth anniversary of the black-on-white Knoxville Horror racist atrocity committed by up to seven blacks on the white couple, Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, which Ron Unz graciously reprinted at The Unz Review.

Aaron Aarons says:
January 27, 2017 at 4:09 pm GMT • 200 Words

Congratulations, Mr. Stix, on your ability to find several examples of atrocities committed over the last couple of decades by small groups from among a population of over 30 million people! Or, should I say, congratulations on your ability to get paid for such “research”.

BTW, almost all of the oppression of Blacks by whites has been and still is institutional, rather than in freelance atrocities, including in discriminatory practices by business, the “justice” system (including prosecutors and juries), and in government programs that have been tailored to favor whites. For example, there are the New Deal labor laws that excluded from their protection the two kinds of occupation mainly staffed by people of color, agricultural work and domestic work. The writer of this article and almost all of the commenters here are only concerned with the suffering of whites, and, within that, the small part of the suffering of whites that can be blamed on Black (or other non-white) people, especially when it can be used to increase the already-great oppression of Blacks. Calling those people “white supremacists” doesn’t fully capture the depth of their toxic racism.

Dear Mr. Aarons,

You are a despicable, racist liar. Those characteristics notwithstanding, I’ll gladly engage with you at greater length. Here’s all you need to do: Visit my blog, Nicholas Stix, Uncensored (link above), hit the PayPal button, and deposit $1,000. Once the money clears, you will be entitled to two hours of my time.

You didn’t really think I was going to make you a gift of my time, did you?

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Frank Sinatra, Singing Rodgers & Hart’s “My Funny Valentine”

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

My Funny Valentine
Music by Richard Rodgers
Words by Lorenz Hart

My funny Valentine, sweet comic Valentine,
You make me smile with my heart,
Your looks are laughable, un-photographable,
Yet, you're my favorite work of art.

Is your figure less than Greek?
Is your mouth a little weak?
When you open it to speak,
Are you smart?

But don't change your hair for me,
Not if you care for me,
Stay little Valentine, stay,
Each day is Valentine’s day.

Is your figure less than Greek?
Is your mouth a little weak?
When you open it to speak,
Are you smart?

But don't change your hair for me,
Not if you care for me,
Stay little Valentine, stay,
Each day is Valentine’s day.



Uploaded on September 4, 2013, by PM793.

[Previously, in this series:

“Frank Sinatra: My Shining Hour (Video, from Trilogy: Past Present Future)”;

“Hear Frank Sinatra Sing Arlen & Mercer’s Come Rain or Shine”;

“Hear Frank Sinatra Sing the Quintessential Version of Harold Arlen & Johnny Mercer’s ‘One for My Baby (and One More, for the Road)’”;

“Hear Frank Sinatra Sing the Classic Harold Arlen/Johnny Mercer Torch Song, ‘Blues in the Night’”;

“Frank Sinatra: Harold Arlen and Johnny Mercer’s Stormy Weather (Video)”;

“Frank Sinatra Live! Medley of The Gal That Got Away and It Never Entered My Mind, Performed in 1980 at Carnegie Hall (Great Quality Video of a Grand Performance!)”;

“Frank Sinatra: Here's That Rainy Day (Jimmy Van Heusen/Johnny Burke)”;

“Frank Sinatra’s Revelatory, 1962 Performance of Kern and Fields’ The Way You Look Tonight”;

“Paul Robeson?! Hear Frank Sinatra Give the Definitive Interpretation of Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein II’s Ol’ Man River (1963)”;

“The Greatest Song Ever Written? Hear Frank Sinatra Sing Rodgers & Hammerstein's Soliloquy”;

“Hear Frank Sinatra Sing the Real ‘New York, New York,’ by Leonard Bernstein, Betty Comden, and Adolph Green, from On the Town (1944/1949)”;

“The Swingingest Record You’ll Ever Hear! Fly Me to the Moon, by Frank Sinatra, Count Basie, and Quincy Jones”;

“Frank Sinatra: Autumn in New York, with the Billy May Orchestra (Video)”;

“Hear Frank Sinatra Make Rodgers & Hart Swing! ‘The Lady is a Tramp’; Live at Madison Square Garden/1974”;

“Hear Frank Sinatra and a Bunch of Little Kids Sing the 1960 Academy Award-Winning Song, ‘High Hopes’”;

“If Frank Sinatra were Still Alive, and were Interviewed by Larry King”;

“When Sinatra Ruled: Hear Him Sing ANOTHER Oscar-Winning Song, ‘All the Way,’ from The Joker is Wild (1957)”;

“Hear Frank Sinatra Sing Jimmy Van Heusen and Sammy Cahn’s ‘Love and Marriage’;

“Hear Frank Sinatra’s Unique Presentation of Cole Porter’s ‘I've Got You Under My Skin’”;

“Frank Sinatra Sings ‘Young at Heart’”;

“‘A Man Alone’: How Great was Sinatra? So Great that with a Voice that was Way Past Its Prime, and Less than Stellar Material, He was Still the World’s Greatest Singer—that’s How Great He was!”;

“I'll Never Smile Again: Hear 24-Year-Old Frank Sinatra with the Pied Pipers and the Tommy Dorsey Orchestra in 1940!”;

“Frank Sinatra: ‘In the Wee Small Hours of the Morning’ (1955)”;

“Frank Sinatra: I Didn't Know What Time It was”;

“Sinatra Celebration News: Pennsylvania Music Newspaper Columnist Announces Releases of Rare Radio Broadcasts and Rehearsals from 1935-1955, and Provides a Lovely, Yet Succinct Introduction to the Works of ‘The Voice’”;

“Frank Sinatra: A Swinging Ring-a-Ding-Ding (1961 Recording)”; and

“The Day the Music Died: A Photoessay on Frank Sinatra.”]

Not Exactly Flowers and Chocolates: The Passion of St. Valentine



St. Valentine, the Real Story
By David Kithcart - 700 Club Features Director
Circa February 1, 2016

Flowers, candy, red hearts and romance. That's what Valentine's day is all about, right? Well, maybe not.

The origin of this holiday for the expression of love really isn't romantic at all—at least not in the traditional sense. Father Frank O'Gara of Whitefriars Street Church in Dublin, Ireland, tells the real story of the man behind the holiday—St. Valentine.

"He was a Roman Priest at a time when there was an emperor called Claudias who persecuted the church at that particular time," Father O'Gara explains. " He also had an edict that prohibited the marriage of young people. This was based on the hypothesis that unmarried soldiers fought better than married soldiers because married soldiers might be afraid of what might happen to them or their wives or families if they died."

"I think we must bear in mind that it was a very permissive society in which Valentine lived," says Father O'Gara. "Polygamy would have been much more popular than just one woman and one man living together. And yet some of them seemed to be attracted to Christian faith. But obviously the church thought that marriage was very sacred between one man and one woman for their life and that it was to be encouraged. And so it immediately presented the problem to the Christian church of what to do about this."

"The idea of encouraging them to marry within the Christian church was what Valentine was about. And he secretly married them because of the edict."

Valentine was eventually caught, imprisoned and tortured for performing marriage ceremonies against command of Emperor Claudius the second. There are legends surrounding Valentine's actions while in prison.


St. Valentine, Kneeling in Supplication

"One of the men who was to judge him in line with the Roman law at the time was a man called Asterius, whose daughter was blind. He was supposed to have prayed with and healed the young girl with such astonishing effect that Asterius himself became Christian as a result."

In the year 269 AD, Valentine was sentenced to a three part execution of a beating, stoning, and finally decapitation all because of his stand for Christian marriage. The story goes that the last words he wrote were in a note to Asterius' daughter. He inspired today's romantic missives by signing it, "from your Valentine."

"What Valentine means to me as a priest," explains Father O'Gara, "is that there comes a time where you have to lay your life upon the line for what you believe. And with the power of the Holy Spirit we can do that —even to the point of death."

Valentine's martyrdom has not gone unnoticed by the general public. In fact, Whitefriars Street Church is one of three churches that claim to house the remains of Valentine. Today, many people make the pilgrimage to the church to honor the courage and memory of this Christian saint.

"Valentine has come to be known as the patron saint of lovers. Before you enter into a Christian marriage you want some sense of God in your life—some great need of God in your life. And we know, particularly in the modern world, many people are meeting God through his Son, Jesus Christ."

"If Valentine were here today, he would say to married couples that there comes a time where you're going to have to suffer. It's not going to be easy to maintain your commitment and your vows in marriage. Don't be surprised if the 'gushing' love that you have for someone changes to something less "gushing" but maybe much more mature. And the question is, is that young person ready for that?"

"So on the day of the marriage they have to take that into context," Father O'Gara says. "Love—human love and sexuality is wonderful, and blessed by God—but also the shadow of the cross.

That's what Valentine means to me."


Are the Democrats Looking to Replay the Violence of the 1960s? To What End are They Again Unleashing Chaos? (Pat Buchanan)



Is the Left Playing with Fire Again?
Tuesday - February 14, 2017 at 1:35 a.m.
By Patrick J. Buchanan

To those who lived through that era that tore us apart in the ’60s and ’70s, it is starting to look like “deja vu all over again.”

And as Adlai Stevenson, Bobby Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey did then, Democrats today like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are pandering to the hell-raisers, hoping to ride their energy to victory.

[Pat forgot to mention that it was the John Doe calling himself “Barack Obama” who revived the “tradition” of black supremacist anarchy.]

Democrats would do well to recall what happened the last time they rode the tiger of social revolution.

As the riots began in Harlem in 1964 and Watts in 1965, liberals rushed to render moral sanction and to identify with the rioters.

“In the great struggle to advance civil and human rights,” said Adlai at Colby College, “even a jail sentence is no longer a dishonor but a proud achievement. … Perhaps we are destined to see in this law-loving land people running for office … on their prison records.”

[I hadn’t realized that Stevenson was such an opportunist. I had always thought of him as primarily a bore.]

“There is no point in telling Negroes to obey the law,” said Bobby; to the Negro, “the law is the enemy.” Hubert assured us that if he had to live in a slum, “I could lead a mighty good revolt myself.”

[While as a boy and a college student, I had learned to deify Bobby Kennedy, 10-15 years ago, I concluded that he was despicable opportunist.]

Thus did liberals tie themselves and their party to what was coming. By 1967, Malcolm X had been assassinated, Stokely Carmichael with his call to “Black Power” had replaced John Lewis at SNCC, and H. Rap Brown had a new slogan: “By any means necessary.”

Came then the days-long riots of Newark and Detroit in 1967 where the 82nd Airborne was sent in. A hundred cities were burned and pillaged following the assassination of Dr. King on April 4, 1968.

And what happened in our politics?

The Democratic coalition of FDR was shattered. Gov. George Wallace rampaged through the Democratic primaries of Wisconsin, Indiana and Maryland in 1964, then ran third party and carried five Southern states in 1968.

His presidency broken by Vietnam and the riots, LBJ decided not to run again. Vice President Humphrey’s chances were ruined by the violent protests at his Chicago convention, which were broken up by the club-wielding cops of Democratic Mayor Richard J. Daley.

Race riots in the cities, student riots on campus, and that riot of radicals in Chicago helped deliver America to Richard Nixon.

Came then the huge anti-Nixon, anti-war demonstrations of the fall of 1969, the protests in the spring of 1970 after the Cambodian invasion and the Kent State killings, and the Mayday siege by thousands of anarchists to shut down D.C. in 1971.

[I wasn’t familiar with the Mayday siege. Pat Buchanan has forgotten more American history than almost all of us will ever learn.]

Again and again, Nixon rallied the Silent Majority to stand with him — and against them. Middle America did.

Hence, what did its association with protesters, radicals and Black Power militants do for the Democratic Party?

Where LBJ swept 44 states in 1964 and 61 percent of the vote, in 1968 Humphrey won 13 states and 43 percent.

In 1972, Nixon and Spiro Agnew swept 49 states, routing the champion of the countercultural left, George McGovern.

[And the DPUSA/MSM got their revenge against Nixon, for convicting the Communist spy and traitor Alger Hiss for perjury, and for twice winning the White House, by forming a criminal conspiracy in the offices of the Washington Post, and forcing Nixon to become the first President ever to resign.]

And the table had been set for California Governor Ronald Reagan, who defied campus rioters threatening him with violence thusly: “If it takes a bloodbath, let’s get it over with.”

Without the riots and bombings of the ’60s and ’70s, there might have been no Nixonian New Majority and no Reagan Revolution.

Today, with the raucous protests against President Trump and his travel ban, the disruption of Congressional town meetings, the blocking of streets every time a cop is involved in a shooting with a black suspect, and the rising vitriol in our politics, it is beginning to look like the 1960s again.

There are differences. In bombings, killings, beatings, arrests, arson, injuries and destruction of property, we are nowhere near 1968.

Still, the intolerant left seems to have melded more broadly and tightly with the Democratic Party of today than half a century ago.

Where Barry Goldwater joked about sawing off the East Coast and “letting it drift out into the Atlantic,” Californians today talk of secession. And much of Middle America would be happy to see them gone.

Where Nixon was credited with the “cooling of America” in 1972 [another reason for the racist Left to hate him!], and Reagan could credibly celebrate “Morning in America” in 1984, any such “return to normalcy” appears the remotest possibility now.

As with the EU, the cracks in the USA seem far beyond hairline fractures. Many sense the country could come apart. It did once before. And could Southerners and Northerners have detested each other much more than Americans do today?

Fifty years ago, the anti-Nixon demonstrators wanted out of Vietnam and an end to the draft. [Because they wanted the Communists to conquer South Vietnam.] By 1972, they had gotten both. The long hot summers were over. The riots stopped.

But other than despising Trump and his “deplorables,” what great cause unites the left today? Even Democrats confess to not knowing Hillary Clinton’s presidential agenda.

[What great cause? A totalitarian dictatorship, using the means of white genocide. However, the genocide has transformed into an end-in-itself. ]

From those days long ago, there returns to mind the couplet from James Baldwin’s famous book, from which he took his title:

“God gave Noah the rainbow sign/ No more water, the fire next time.”


Monday, February 13, 2017

Study: Detroit Least Healthy Big City in America

By Prince George's County Ex-Pat

Study: Detroit unhealthiest big city in America

"WalletHub’s data team compared 150 of the most populated U.S. cities across 34 key indicators of good health"

Only so many ways you can cook chitlins.

Houston: Paw, Wittle Iwwegal, Faweign Kwiminals are Afwaid About Wumors They’ll Have to Go Home!

By A Texas Reader

Immigrants [sic] fear deportation amid ICE raid rumors

"Many people in Houston’s immigrant [sic] community are on edge following arrests last week in Austin and elsewhere."

They should end up in the morgue.

N.S.: When the anonymous, KHOU activist wrote "immigrant community," she/he/it--s/h/it, for short--was referring to the illegal alien community. Immigrants have nothing to fear.

Milwaukee: Thousands of Foreign Criminals and Their American Criminal Allies March Against the Law and Sheriff David Clarke

By Reader-Researcher RC

Thousands march through Milwaukee to protest Sheriff David Clarke's crackdown on foreigners and his plans to deputize cops as immigration agents

Thousands protest Wisconsin sheriff's anti-immigration plan

Thousands marched from Milwaukee's predominantly Hispanic south side to the downtown courthouse to protest Clarke's plans people fear will lead to mass deportations.

Blood in the Water: Trump Gives in to Enemies, Sacrifices Michael Flynn, Whom He Forced to Resign!

By Reader-Researcher RC

Top Trump Adviser in Hot Seat Over Sanctions Discussions ...

A senior U.S. official said the acting attorney general expressed concerns Flynn could be vulnerable because of his discussions with a Russian envoy.

N.S.: This is not going to help the President. Rather, it will just excite his cut-throat enemies all the more!