Tuesday, October 17, 2017

White Juror Averts Another Emmett Till Jury in Mississippi; Crooked Jury Foreman Ignored Jury Vote, and Tried to Acquit Monster in Jessica Chambers Murder Trial

By Nicholas Stix

Sixty-two years after the fact, we constantly hear about Emmett Till, the 14-year-old black angel who was murdered in Money, Mississippi by Roy Bryant and his half-brother, J.W. Milam, after he had sought to get a married white woman, Carolyn Bryant, to sleep with him. (Yes, I know, the whole thing has since been revised into a racial fairy tale, in which Till was murdered for breathing while black. I’ll deal with that another time.)

In that case, the jury hearing the murder charge against Bryant and Milam took just enough time to order cokes, for appearance’s sake, before returning to the courtroom, and declaring the killers “not guilty.”

This time, instead of an all-white jury, it was a racially split one—six blacks and six whites, at first. Then, after one white man got himself kicked off for complaining on Facebook, it became seven blacks and five whites.

Panola County DA John Champion watered down justice, to the point of taking the death penalty (i.e., justice) off the table, but it didn’t help one bit.

This case was not a close call. One expert from the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation, investigator Tim Douglas, had testified that through triangulating the cell phones, he had been able to determine that defendant Quinton Tellis had been with victim Jessica Chambers up until at most four minutes before her murder. A forensic investigator testified that Chambers’ car keys, which her murderer had thrown away, after setting her and her car on fire, had Tellis’ DNA on them.

The jury foreman, Mr. Lamkin, passed a piece of paper to the clerk. Either the clerk or Judge Gerald Chatham read aloud, “Not guilty.”

A white juror piped up that the jury was not unanimous.

The black jurors who voted to acquit had never deliberated. They had decided, from the get-go, that they were going to help out a brother, no matter how monstrous he was. After all, the victim was only a white girl.

The mainstream media spun the verdict that the jury was “confused.” That’s a bald-faced lie. Judge Gerald Chatham had instructed the jury that the verdict had to be unanimous. The black jurors voting to acquit simply decided that the white jurors’ votes didn’t matter. Mr. Lamkin (Lampkin?), the jury foreman, simply acted as if the whites were invisible, and handed the clerk a verdict of “Not guilty.” [Judge declares mistrial in Jessica Chambers case after confused jury comes up with split not guilty verdict by David Boroff, New York Daily News, Tuesday, October 17, 2017, 9:27 A.M.]

CNN claimed that “most jurors” had voted guilty. That would have to mean at least what, nine?

There appeared to be confusion among jurors before the judge declared the mistrial. The jury said it had reached a verdict and the court clerk read the not-guilty verdict recorded on a piece of paper. But at the prosecution's request, the judge polled the jury, and most jurors said their vote was guilty. [Mistrial declared in burning death of Mississippi teen by Jamiel Lynch and Darran Simon, CNN, Updated 11:19 P.M. ET, Mon October 16, 2017.]
However, CNN also suggested that the final jury had six blacks, rather than seven.

The judge should have thrown Lamkin off the jury, after the latter sought to subvert justice, and had him charged with obstruction of justice, but he let him remain. (I know, such charges are never lain against criminal black jurors.) However, the judge no longer trusted Lamkin, and would later repeatedly emphasize the requirement of jury unanimity, and carefully go through pages of documents.

The AP/NBC News reported today (sotto voce) that the foreman tried a second time to ram through an illegal acquittal, but that doesn’t sound right to me.
BATESVILLE, Miss. — The jury in the tense murder trial of a Mississippi man charged with setting a 19-year-old friend on fire and leaving her to die handed a bailiff a note: They have reached a verdict.

What followed was confusion.

Before the decision was read, Judge Gerald Chatham asked if the 12-person panel had unanimously agreed on a verdict. A male juror spoke the shocking words: “We didn’t all agree.”…

After the verdict disagreement, the judge asked the panel to continue deliberating. Shortly afterward, a court clerk read what was believed to be the final verdict: Not guilty.

Tellis’ relatives smiled. Chambers’ family cried.

Then, the judge polled the jury. Seven for guilty, five for not guilty. [Jessica Chambers Case: Mistrial Declared in Death of Teenager Burned Alive by Associated Press, Oct 17 2017, 10:53 a.m. ET]
If the foregoing AP/NBC News report is correct, and I’m wrong, it is even more incriminating of Lamkin, the jury foreman. It would mean that Lamkin repeatedly disobeyed the Judge’s orders. It would also mean that likely two blacks voted to convict.

DA Champion said there will be a re-trial.

The courts have invented a constitutional right for blacks to subvert the criminal justice system, and blacks are running with it.

Blacks, who constitute 13.3% of America’s “residents,” commit the majority of the murders in this country.

The American jury system is dead, which means the American criminal justice system is dead. Can a diverse America, in which colored criminals run amok, endure without a criminal justice system?

Monday, October 16, 2017

Too Black to Prosecute: Sadistic Black Coach Assaults and Abuses White Girls with Impunity—and He’d Struck Before!

By Jesse Mossman
Mon, Oct 16, 2017 1:48 p.m.

Sadistic black coach will not be prosecuted for injuring girl by forcing her to do splits. I suspect he enjoyed hurting a white girl, but
apparently he is too black to prosecute. Now if a white man did this to a black girl the media would blast this nonstop until they threw away
the key.

At Buzzfeed, of all places!

Hate Hoax Alert! Yet Another Fake Campus “Hate Crime”; Individual Arrested for Graffiti Swastika at University of Maryland is Black

Mon, Oct 16, 2017 5:09 p.m.
By “W”

At PJ Media.


By David in TN
Mon, Oct 16, 2017 5:13 p.m.

It's official. Hung Jury. Don't know the split yet.

Seinfeld’s John O'Hurley Praises Mike Pence, “Bravo” for Leaving Colts Game, Puts Down Political Theater!

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Published on Oct 9, 2017

"I go to a football game as I go to a movie or anything else ... for escapism. Not to hear somebody's political views." -- John O'Hurley on Mike Pence's decision to leave Colts game.

Lawrence Auster and Jessica Chambers

By Nicholas Stix

When putting together David in TN’s work on the Jessica Chambers trial last night, I forgot an observation of the late Lawrence Auster: “Liberalism is a factory for the production of dead white females.”

Larry had once written the same statement, without the word “white.” I followed up, and asked him if that was what he meant. He responded in the affirmative.

To add to Larry’s observation, the liberal criminal justice system is increasingly a factory for the protection of white females’ killers.

“Not Guilty”; Chaos in the Courtroom! Foreman in Jessica Chambers Murder Trial Tried to Slip in an Acquittal of Defendant Quinton Tellis, Even Though Several Jurors Voted Guilty! Another Juror Had to Pipe Up in Open Court, to Stop Travesty of Justice

By David in TN

JESSICA CHAMBERS VERDICT WATCH: Jury sent back for more deliberations
By Eryn Taylor

Prosecutors said Tellis doused the women [sic] in gasoline then set her on fire and left her to die on a country road near Courtland.

N.S.: There’s a video and tweets from reporter Bridget Chapman at WREG.

The judge is now being very careful, and no longer trusting the jury foreman. He keeps repeating to the jury the instructions he had given it before deliberations began, but which the foreman, Mr. Lamkin, had ignored, that the verdict must be unanimous.

I wonder what Mr. Lamkin’s background could possibly be.

New York Daily News Provides Phony Cover Story for Arab Moslem Who Murdered Young Woman, Ted Kennedy-Style, While He was Getting Her to Cheat on Her Boyfriend


Murder victim Harleen Grewal

By An Anonymous Reader

Ahmad, Grewal, Singh, Azam - SHAZAM! Another fine NYC morning rush...
Mon, Oct 16, 2017 1:40 a.m.

Another one for the “minority intersectionality” wreckage files - in this case actual and flaming - of the 3rd-World mess that NYC has become.

The Daily News deserves an award for “most unintentionally comical article headline”:

“Father can’t understand why son fled burning car with passenger trapped inside after Brooklyn crash”

The answer can be summed up conclusively and simply: the father's name is Mohammad Azam, and his son's name is Saeed Azam - fine, honorable, brave Muslims both.

The father's duty is to lie and obfuscate for his son, his son's duty was to leave the dhimmi (“non-believer”), and save his own [butt], leaving her to burn to death in the wreck that resulted from his reckless driving.

“The 23-year-old smashed the luxury Infiniti 35G into a concrete barrier on the Gowanus Expressway.”


The victim's boyfriend, Karan Singh Dhillon

How does a 23-year-old Brooklyn punk afford a “luxury Infinity”?

Back in the day, the best anyone of us could muster at that age was a 10, 15-year-old beater.

“Ahmad was caught on camera hailing a yellow cab early Friday after escaping the roaring flames that killed passenger Harleen Grewal, 25.”

(When was “early”? 2 A.M., 4 A.M., 6 A.M.?)

“Ahmad told police he was dating Grewal, but friends said he was just giving her a ride home.”

[N.S.: “Dating” is prostitute talk for “sleeping with.”]

Didja catch the neat new “journalism” here? Ahmad - the perp - admitted to the police that he was “dating” the victim, but somehow the crack Daily News is saying otherwise, very quickly hunting down and interrogating “friends” (of whom?) who said “he was just giving her a ride home.”

In other words, they feel that this spineless worm of a man should be cut some slack, as the woman in his “luxury” ride was just a “friend” he happened to be taking home, “early Friday.”

But wait - her REAL boyfriend - a man by the name of Karan Singh Dhillon - told the News that “She would do anything for people.” Apparently that included getting into the car of a [dirtbag] with a suspended license, incapable of handling this “luxury” car that he somehow had in his possession.

This [crap] seems to be happening on a daily basis in this city, and who the hell knows how many other places in this nation now. Welcome to the new “normal.”

N.S.: It turns out the 25-year-old victim was from India. Her boyfriend was a Sikh, so she was probably one, too.

This is significant, because had Saeed Azam cuckolded a Moslem, there would have been hell to pay, including the life of the woman involved. (Unlike whites and Hispanics who, if they killed anyone for cheating, would have killed the other man, Moslem men always kill their own woman/relative/whatever, even when she was raped.)

The fact that Azam considered his victim his inferior—to him, she was no better than a prostitute—made it that much easier to let her be burned alive.

There are other perps in this incident: New York Daily News alleged reporters, Aaron Showalter and Denis Slattery, Head of Content Zach Haberman and Arthur Browne, editor-in-chief and publisher of the New York Daily News.

At the New York Daily News.


Murder suspect Saeed Azam

Summary of First Week of the Mississippi Burning, Jessica Chambers Murder Trial of Quinton Tellis: Jurors Finished First Day of Deliberations; Deliberations Resume Today (Monday)

[See earlier “Was Jessica Chambers a Hate Crime Victim?” (VDARE Report); and “The Jessica Chambers Murder: Mississippi Authorities Have a Suspect!” (VDARE Report).]

By Nicholas Stix

The following is largely a summary/copy of daily blogging by my friend and partner-in-crime, David in TN, beginning last Monday, and of a long telephone conversation we had on the case a couple of days ago.

CNN produced a documentary on the murder of Jessica Chambers, which it scheduled for broadcast on the Saturday (on CNN) and Sunday (on its subsidiary, HLN) before the trial began.

CNN “pre-empted” the show on Saturday for the tornado and attacks on Trump.

The theory of the lead investigator is Tellis had done something to her and thought Jessica Chambers was already dead when he set the car on fire.

The doc ran on Sunday night on HLN, as planned, thus ensuring that only a fraction as many people would see it.

The film crew spent a great deal of time with the DA, the chief police investigator, and Jessica Chambers’ best friends, a black woman, as well as Clarion-Ledger reporter Therese Apel, Chambers’ parents, and other people from the hamlet of Courtland.

While on the surface, the film seemed to be in “Just the facts, ma’am” mode, it was actually working from the usual racist script.

The bad guy of the piece was not the defendant but the victim’s father, Ben Chambers Sr., because he said that he opposes interracial dating.

Jessica’s mom (who had long ago split from her dad) was o.k., because she emphasized that she had nothing against her daughter dating black guys.

Keep in mind that Jessica Chambers was a very discriminating young woman. Not only did she only sleep with blacks, but only with black criminals.

Her first boyfriend, abusive gang member Bryan Rudd, had moved away to Colorado. The second, drug dealer Travis “Travo” Sanford, was in prison at the time of her murder. Panola County DA John Champion rejected Internet speculation that the jailbird might have ordered Chambers’ murder from inside.

No mention was made of the People magazine report that largely introduced this atrocity to the nation, or of the reporting done by the local paper, The Panolian, whose editor/publisher, John H. Howell Sr., was very helpful to this reporter, graciously giving me an extended interview.

The documentary denied that Jessica and Tellis, who had only met two weeks earlier, had slept together, but reports I’ve read said they had.

On the one hand, the audience was told that Chambers had been running with “a bad crowd,” but on the other hand, we were supposed to ignore the fact that all of the men in that bad crowd were black.

The script also turned black murder defendant Quinton Tellis (whom authorities also believe committed the torture-robbery-murder of a Chinese graduate student in Louisiana eight months after the Chambers murder) into a victim. Tellis was supposedly as gentle as a lamb, before spending a four year bid in prison on a ten-year sentence for burglary.

Tellis, who has repeatedly benefited from criminal justice affirmative action, likely attended master classes in prison with other bright lights, who would have taught him how to commit the “perfect crime,” by burning his victims, in order to destroy DNA evidence.

Monday saw voir dire, and the choosing of a jury. The trial proper began on Monday, and ran through the weekend. The jury began deliberations on Sunday, and will pick up where they left off at 9 a.m. Monday.

Monday, Day 0: Prospective jurors underwent voir dire, and the jury was empaneled. Since the justice, er, the death penalty, is off the table, the black prospective jurors didn’t need to lie during voir dire, by claiming that they were ready, under appropriate circumstances, to vote for execution. (The prosecution argued that it would be easier to get a conviction without the death penalty being in play. You can say that again.)

The jury consisted of six blacks and six whites; five women and seven men.

Tuesday, Day 1: Quinton Tellis is sporting a pair of eyeglasses, just like Lemaricus Davidson at his trial for the Knoxville Horror.

Jessica Chambers managed to say something like "Eric" or Deric." In her condition (throat literally on fire) she might have been trying to say "Tellis," and it came out "Deric."

Tellis' DNA was found on the car keys that had been tossed to the side of the burned out car.

Wednesday, Day 2: One white man gets himself kicked off the jury, after he is caught posting to Facebook, “It Sucks.”

That makes the jury 7-5 black over white.

Several people at the scene said Jessica Chambers said “Eric.” Most observers see this as a major sticking point regarding a conviction in the case. On the other hand, the victim called herself “Katrina” and other names. It's difficult to imagine the state she was in. (She had First and Second-Degree burns on 98 percent of her body.) One witness testified to asking Chambers if her killer was white or black and she answered “Black.”

Thursday, Day 3: The jury was taken to the scene of the crime, the store where Jessica Chambers was last seen alive, and the suspect’s home.

Friday, Day 4: First Responders Testify to Hearing Jessica Chambers Say “Eric” Burned Her

The live stream I saw allowed you to see the autopsy photos, very horrific.

Jessica Chambers’ body had been turned brown by the fire, with red splotches all over. Her hair was singed, with some burned off. The eyes were shut with mouth open, burns and soot showed inside the mouth. It's difficult to see how she could have spoken very clearly.

The hospital gave Jessica Chambers “comfort care,” what they give to a patient who won’t survive. She looked to be in terrible pain when she died, her face twisted in agony.

Friday, Day 4: Quinton Tellis admits to being with Chambers the evening she died.

Investigator testifies how phone records and interrogation began to swing case against Quinton Tellis. (Tellis deleted his telephone messages, as soon as he heard Chamber had died.)

Interviewed by police, Quinton Tellis admits to being with Chambers most of the day. He had lied when questioned a year earlier that he was with her only in the morning.

This filled in the timeline right up to Chamber’s horrific death.

Saturday, Day 5

Closing arguments. The defense rested without calling any witnesses, Tellis in particular. His original supposed alibi witnesses couldn't support him.

Sunday, Day 6

In closing argument, a defense attorney referred to Jessica Chambers as "Erica Chambers" THREE times.

You wish Knoxville Horror prosecutors Takeesha Fitzgerald and Leland Price were on this case. Or former LA prosecutors Walt Lewis or Paul Turley.

Another time, they said "circumstantial evidence = acquittal."

A top-flight prosecutor would have a field day in the rebuttal.

I think the prosecutor did well in his rebuttal. He started by pointing out "Her name was Jessica Chambers, not Erica Chambers." The defense attorney called her "Erica Chambers" in his closing.

He pointed out Tellis was proven by cell phone and texting to be with Chambers up to four minutes of when she would have been murdered.

The jury finished deliberations Sunday night, and will resume deliberations at 9 a.m. CT tomorrow (Monday) morning.

The Jury in the Jessica Chambers Murder Trial Has Finished for the Night

By David in TN
Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 9:45:00 P.M. EDT

They will resume deliberations at 9 a.m. CT tomorrow (Monday) morning.

Sunday, October 15, 2017

Alleged Comedian George Lopez—El Busboy—Gets Booed Off Stage at Juvenile Diabetes Gala, after Making Racist Cracks

By Reader-Researcher RC

Why would any sensible person pay George Lopez to emcee an event?

Page Six
New York Post

Comic George Lopez was booed off stage at a gala for juvenile diabetes in Denver last week, over an anti-Donald Trump routine that fell flat with the crowd.

We’re told the flap began when Trump backer and Liberty Media CEO Greg Maffei donated $250,000 but requested that Lopez cool it with the anti-Trump jokes at the Carousel Ball.

An attendee at the event — where tables sold from $5,000 to $100,000 to benefit the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes — commented on a YouTube video that “George was asked nicely to stop making Trump jokes by a man in front row [Maffei] who just donated $250K.” But “George doesn’t, continues. Gets booed.”

We’re told that Lopez responded to Maffei, “Thank you for changing my opinion on old white men, but it doesn’t change the way I feel about orange men.”

Trying to recover and sensing the audience turn, Lopez said, “Listen, it’s about the kids. . . I apologize for bringing politics to an event.
This is America — it still is. So I apologize to your white privilege.”

We’re told Lopez also told a joke about Trump’s proposed border wall with Mexico, saying, “I guess you can get some Mexicans to do it cheaper and they wouldn’t crush the tunnels ¬underneath.”

When the audience did not respond well, he quipped, “Are you El Chapo people?” in reference to the drug kingpin who has used tunnels to evade authorities.

Lopez then announced a video segment — but he did not return to the stage, and a local newscaster took over the hosting duties.

TV host Chris Parente posted on Twitter, “big controversy: host of HUGE charity #CarouselBall, @georgelopez, makes political comments about Trump, drops f-bomb and is escorted out.” But a source close to the comedian insisted to Page Six that Lopez’s segment was “only supposed to be four minutes,” even though he was listed as the night’s emcee.

Lenny Kravitz performed at the gala, which raised $1.65 million.

Reps had no comment.

Closing Arguments Begin in Jessica Chambers Murder Trial

Sun, Oct 15, 2017 3:41 p.m.
By David in TN

The closing arguments are going on now. The defense rested without calling any witnesses, Tellis in particular. His original supposed alibi witnesses couldn't support him.

Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 4:33:00 P.M. EDT

In closing argument, a defense attorney referred to Jessica Chambers as "Erica Chambers" THREE times.

You wish Knoxville Horror prosecutors Takeesha Fitzgerald and Leland Price were on this case. Or former LA prosecutors Walt Lewis or Paul Turley.

Another time, they said "circumstantial evidence = acquittal."

A top-flight prosecutor would have a field day in the rebuttal.

Sun, Oct 15, 2017 5:18 p.m.

I think the prosecutor did well in his rebuttal. He started by pointing out "Her name was Jessica Chambers, not Erica Chambers." The defense attorney called her "Erica Chambers" in his closing.

He pointed out Tellis was proven by cell phone and texting to be with Chambers up to four minutes of when she would have been murdered.

[At WMCA Action News5.]

On Friday, Oct. 6, after Her Little Boys Got Off the School Bus and Walked into Their House, She Shot Them Both in the Head; then She Turned the Gun on Herself

By A Texas Reader


Jessica Chambers Murder Defendant Tied to Louisiana Torture-Murder

By David in TN
Sun, Oct 15, 2017 8:47 a.m.

Detective Chris Bates said, “He’s the reason prisons were built. He’s as evil as they come. He’s not going to get out of jail, ever.”

[When have we heard that before?]

Check out this story on

This is over a year and a half old. Most I could find.


Mississippi Burning Trial: Intelligence Analyst Draws Timeline of Jessica Chambers,’ Quinton Tellis’ Whereabouts, Based on Phones

By David in TN
Sat, Oct 14, 2017 7:31 p.m.

Intelligence analyst draws timeline of Chambers, Tellis whereabouts based on phones

Quinton Tellis’ defense attorney Alton Peterson hammering on the question of the name “Eric,” in cross examination of MBI investigator Tim Douglas.

Article by the reporter who has covered it.

The Clarion Ledger.

Must We Shoot Judicial Tyrants, or is There a Non-Violent Alternative? Part I

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

The initial problem with which Daniel Horowitz and my colleague Fred Elbel eloquently wrestle has, unfortunately spawned multiple additional problems. How does one hew to the original conception of the Supreme Court and the people it was founded to serve, and solve those problems?

It can’t be done.

Either an activist, restorative court must turn back the court, or a dictator must do so, or the present-day United States must be broken up, with one section representing a close demographic approximation of the original nation.

The Judicial Transformation of America - Two views on a timely, scathing critique of judicial tyranny

By Fred Elbel (I)

Volume 27, Number 5 (Summer 2017)
Issue theme: "Malthus Revisited - The Perils of Overpopulation and Globalism"

Printer friendly page
Articles by this author
View original PDF format

Book review:
How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America
By Daniel Horowitz
WND Books (July, 2016)
288 pp., $25.95

Americans neither want nor deserve societal transformation without representation.

America is at a breaking point. If nothing is done to strip the judiciary of its presumed authority over foundational issues, our representative democracy will disappear. Our ability to restore America from judicial overreach — which includes deleterious immigration policies — will be lost.

Daniel Horowitz, in his book Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America, observes that bureaucrats, political elites, and unelected judges are transforming our society, sovereignty, and system of governance without consent. Horowitz observes that:

… even many of the conservatives within the legal community have become brainwashed into the notion of one-directional stare decisis — upholding unconstitutional decisions of past liberal judges as precedent — even if those decisions themselves were reversals of long-standing settled law…

A government that was once committed to shielding its citizens from any undesirable immigration — from public charge to security and cultural threats — is now committed to bringing in anyone and everyone unless they are proven terrorists up front.

Stolen Sovereignty is an important, readable, and well-researched book. It’s an engaging read, which includes a moderate discussion of relevant case law, oriented toward the lay reader. Horowitz emphasizes that with the election of conservatives to Congress and the Presidency, it is imperative to address judicial overreach before it is
too late.

Historical limitations

Horowitz writes that historically:

… [federal] courts were never vested with the power to decide broadly consequential societal and political questions not explicitly addressed in the Constitution, such as gay marriage, abortion, and immigration policy. They were primarily created for the purpose of interpreting and plying the meaning of statutes, mediating disputes between individuals and between states, deciding complex separation of powers disputes between the legislature and executive, and several esoteric jurisdictions for which the Constitution granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction…
They were to have “neither force nor will” with regard to political issues. Consequently, there was no reason to overrule them because they never had jurisdiction over governing the nation; they had the power to offer opinions in individual “cases and controversies.”
President Calvin Coolidge reaffirmed this view in his July 4, 1926 speech commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Declaration, that the ideals expressed in the Constitution were immutable:
If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.
Horowitz clarifies that:
What Coolidge was noting is that, unlike the shallow-minded bleeding-heartedness of the Left, the spectrum of liberty is not an infinite straight line; it’s a bell curve. You have to get it just right and freeze it at the peak. That peak was established by the Declaration of Independence, ratified by the Constitution despite the gaping hole of slavery, and repaired by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.
What a marked contrast to the modern liberal tenet of a “living and breathing” Constitution!

The principle of judicial limitation was first challenged in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, where the power of judicial review originated. Horowitz notes that:
Marshall opened the door for the view of the court as the final arbiter of every important ideological debate in this country, although Marshall himself never envisioned the Court as the final arbiter, but merely as an arbiter of constitutional disputes.
In 1907, leading progressive Charles Evans Hughes, who served as Chief Justice during the bulk of FDR’s tenure, made the more radical statement: “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.” Horowitz remarks how this paradigm has become entrenched in the modern judiciary:
Starting in the FDR era, accelerating during the Warren court of the ’60s, and now crystallizing during the modern era of Obama, the courts — aided by the left-wing takeover of the legal profession — have gradually yet relentlessly turned the governing arrangement on its head by completely reinterpreting the most foundational aspects of our Constitution.

Judges who were supposed to be immune to politics have enshrined their political and social preferences into the Constitution itself. What is in the Constitution, they refuse to recognize as a fundamental right and defend from the encroachment of the other branches of government. Yet, what is not in the Constitution they have installed as new and evolving fundamental rights.

Our unconstitutional Constitution

During the 1970s and 1980s, Thurgood Marshall, on the Supreme Court with William Brennan and Earl Warren, exemplified the paradoxical approach that “the Constitution is unconstitutional,” stating:

While the Union survived the civil war, the Constitution did not. In its place arose a new, more promising basis for justice and equality, the Fourteenth Amendment, ensuring protection of the life, liberty, and property of all persons against deprivations without due process, and guaranteeing equal protection of the laws.
In other words, Marshall professed that the Fourteenth Amendment completely rewrote the Constitution, maintaining that it is a “living and breathing document.”

Yet section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly grants Congress enforcement purview, not the judiciary, stating “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” Identical provisions are contained in both the Thirteenth and Fifteenth amendments.

One might ask: how then could the courts claim absolute power via the Fourteenth Amendment?

The answer was provided by Justice William Brennan’s “ratchet theory.” He authored an opinion upholding the power of Congress through section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to expand upon the scope of rights expressed in that amendment. As with a ratchet, Congress could move forward in creating new rights, but could not revoke preexisting rights — even if they were established under liberal judicial interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus the “guarantees” of the Fourteenth Amendment are to
be defined by the >courts, not Congress, even if those guarantees infringe on state powers provided under the Tenth Amendment.

As a consequence of this theory, the concept of stare decisis — that is, legal precedent — is one-directional, leading to
inevitable judicial tyranny. Horowitz clarifies:
There is no greater tyranny than the retroactive creation of an ever-elastic set of laws that is anchored to nothing more than the political judgment of unelected judges at the time they woke up that day.

Ratcheting case law

Horowitz investigates a number of high profile cases that reveal how liberal judicial activism has ratcheted up. He points out that the Commerce Clause was never intended to establish federal regulatory activity, yet even in 1829, Madison wrote that it had already been abused. The purpose of the original clause was to break down trade barriers between the states, not to create mandates on the American public. Today it is used in a myriad of regulatory manners, including banning of firearms.

Recently, Chief Justice Roberts interpreted the Commerce Clause as having the power to regulate inactivity in order to preserve Obamacare at all costs. He rewrote legislation from the bench which upheld the Obamacare individual mandate under auspices of the power of Congress to levy taxes, thus compelling an individual to engage in commerce.

Horowitz points out that the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold federal subsidies to states with federal health insurance exchanges was an “even more egregious and nakedly political” decision:

What Roberts was essentially saying is that anytime the policy of a bill goes off the rails and is in need of a political fix, the courts have the power and desire to help fix the law in the event of litigation against executive overreach in defying the plain meaning of the law.
Roberts’ legislative decision has further enabled the courts to serve as an unelected super-legislature.

Horowitz examines how in the same-sex marriage case of 2015, Justice Anthony Kennedy redefined marriage from the bench and in doing so trampled on the Constitution and our entire system of governance, writing “and so they [the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment] entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.” Here the “we” refers to the courts. Future courts can use this ruling to “discover” new rights supposedly granted by a presumably prescient Fourteenth Amendment. Left-wing social policy, from amnesty for illegal aliens to transgender bathrooms, has now become the domain of the courts.

Horowitz notes that when our founding documents mentioned “rights,” they referred to protection from a negative action—that is, imprisonment, fine, or capital punishment without due process. This contrasts with the positive mandate of the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling on same-sex marriage. Justice Scalia commented in strong dissent that the activist courts have taken this decision away from the people. Horowitz explains that:
This court opinion was not about homosexual rights, equality, or marriage. It was about permanently remaking the Constitution in a way that will allow all subsequent justices to create new rights and laws from the bench without any limitations. And yes, that will include expanding rights to illegal aliens.
Horowitz points out that in legal and prosecutorial terms, homosexuality has been elevated to the status of a national religion. James Madison referred to religious conscience as the most sacred of property rights. Yet bakeries and private farm owners have now been prosecuted — and one might say persecuted — in the name of gay rights. Unelected judges have concocted super rights for special classes that now supersede our most inalienable rights of religious conscience and private property.

Immigration and citizenship

Illegal immigration drastically undermines the sovereignty of a nation-state. Horowitz predicts that we will soon see courts issue judicial amnesty for illegal aliens, even if the political branches of government regain rational commitment to enforcing immigration law.

As explained by John Quincy Adams in 1819, our Founders did not regulate immigration because they did not want to encourage it with fixed policy. Congress began significantly regulating immigration in 1875. In 1882, Congress barred immigrants from China, as well as undesirables who would be a burden or danger to society. The Supreme Court affirmed this right of Congress in 1889. In 1896, the court reaffirmed the legislative authority of Congress to deport legal permanent residents without judicial review. Horowitz notes that this authority remains today regarding deportation of non-citizen Islamists.

During the Great Wave from 1880 through the 1920s, courts humbly recognized that they had no role in immigration policy. Yet within a generation, we have gone from deporting legal immigrants without judicial review to mandating full constitutional rights for illegal aliens, resulting in dangerous criminal aliens being released into the general population without public consent.

Children of illegal aliens are currently granted citizenship via a masterful misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress has plenary power over immigration, and the amendment itself grants Congress power to enforce the amendment. Horowitz discusses the amendment’s infamous “subject to the jurisdiction” clause. He notes that opponents of U.S. sovereignty hang their hats on the 1898 Wong Kim ArkPlyler v. Doe

There you have it; American citizens — through their elected representatives — have no recourse to prevent future illegal immigrants from obtaining citizenship against their will — all because of the nonbinding footnote of one of the most radical justices of the twentieth century, from a case reversing precedent and relying on the English feudal system that was twice repudiated. This is what passes for constitutional scholarship among our political elites.Horowitz asks us to consider:

When was the last time Congress passed a bad immigration bill? It’s been about thirty years. Every time they try to pass an open borders bill through both houses of Congress, the public weighs in swiftly and decisively against it. This is why liberals resort to using the administrative offices and the judiciary to enact their transformative agenda…
It could truly be said that the lawlessness of the modern courts could not possibly drift further from the intent of the Founders than it already has in respect to immigration.

Sinking sovereignty

Immigration without assimilation is an invasion. Massive immigration ultimately threatens our sovereignty. It brings with it foreign concepts of government and values antithetical to America’s form of government. Our founders never imagined that immigration could be used as a powerful tool to transform society from within.

Horowitz delineates five immigration practices that undermine our sovereignty and dilute our ability to self-govern:

• birthright

• chain

• refugee

• counting
illegal aliens in the census,
and reapportionment

• non-citizens
voting in our elections.

For example, under chain migration, a single immigrant can trigger an automatic chain of 273 additional immigrants. Horowitz points out that ending chain migration is the single most effective policy step our government could take.

He also recommends immediately suspending refugee resettlement, and forcing Congress to reauthorize refugee programs yearly.

Horowitz notes that counting illegal aliens in the census is doubly detrimental, disenfranchising voting constituents via reapportionment. For example, counting illegal aliens has given California an extra five seats in the House, and has provided Washington and New York each with one extra seat. No one sought approval from the American public before doing this.

Reining in the courts

Horowitz asks: why are judges who have invested themselves with the power to concoct law and change the Constitution not elected? After all, their power now exceeds the power of the entire legislature.

After 240 years of serving as that asylum for religious liberty, have we regressed as a people so deeply that we will obsequiously accept the judicial tyranny of a few flawed individuals in robes who overturn the preamble of the very document that spawned our independence and affirmed the very rights they seek to expand? If the spirit of liberty runs through your veins, you must shout from the rooftops, “Hell no!” and start rejecting the illegitimate coup d’état of the unelected oligarchy.
The courts were never intended to have jurisdiction over sovereignty or political questions. The Judiciary Act of 1789 did not grant the Supreme and inferior courts appellate jurisdiction on important issues. It wasn’t until 1875 that Congress transferred that authority from state courts. Then in 1914, Congress granted the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over cases heard by state supreme courts. Note that Congress has the authority to grant judicial purview, as well as negate it.

As Horowitz notes, we have been brainwashed into thinking the courts are the last word on legislative issues. Yet Congress ultimately does have the final say. Congress has complete power to regulate district and appellate courts. Indeed, the Constitution in Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 specifically grants Congress the authority to regulate and limit appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, stating:
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Final observations

As Benjamin Franklin left the Constitutional Convention, he was reportedly asked, “Well doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” He famously replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

A core principle of a republican form of government is that political and societal questions must be addressed by the political branches of government, which are directly accountable to the people.

Today we are confronted with stolen sovereignty, thanks to dogmatic judicial activism. We are quickly moving toward irremediable, non-representational despotism. We are being ruled, not governed, by an activist judiciary. As Horowitz so aptly asks:

If judges serve life tenures, can decide political issues, and are inoculated from congressional checks on their authority, then what was the purpose of the revolution? ■

About the author

Fred Elbel is an IT consultant and Director of Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform (CAIRCO). He has been active on immigration issues for several decades.

Quinton Tellis Erased Text Message History with Jessica Chambers after Learning She’d Died

By David in TN
Sat, Oct 14, 2017 7:27 p.m.

Tellis erased text message history with Jessica after finding out she'd been killed

Day 5 of Jessica Chambers trial. The cell phone data cornered Tellis with a timeline up to the last moment. Setting Jessica Chambers on fire killed the DNA from her skin. This is likely one of the reasons it was done.

At WMC Actionnews5.

“That’s Why Hillary Clinton’s Not the President”: Sarah Sanders vs. Leftist, White House Press Corps Activist (Video)

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Published on September 13, 2017

Jessica Chambers Trial: No More Gaps; Quinton Tellis Admits to being with Chambers the Evening She Died

By David in TN

Investigator testifies how phone records and interrogation began to swing case against Quinton Tellis.

Day 4 of the Jessica Chambers trial and a strong day for the prosecution.

Interviewed by police, Quinton Tellis admits to being with Chambers most of the day. He had lied when questioned a year earlier that he was with her only in the morning.

This filled in the timeline right up to Chamber’s horrific death.

David and I discussed this case at length over the phone the other night. It seems that Quinton Tellis, like so many other violent, black, career criminals, thinks that he’s a criminal mastermind. Thus, Tellis decided to use the lessons he had received in the master classes in the prison yard from other criminal masterminds during the four-year bit he did on a ten-year sentence, from which he was paroled just two months before allegedly murdering Jessica Chambers.

Apparently, black geniuses are convinced that if you set a victim’s corpse on fire, you destroy all DNA evidence.

They also fail to understand that the smartest “ploy” to take with detectives is to lawyer up. Instead, they start talking, i.e., lying, and the coppers take mental notes of each lie, and return to them. When they do, they get either new information or new lies, each of which will incriminate the “suspect” at trial.

(Even dumb coppers use a similar tactic of constantly repeating the same questions, even when talking to a crime victim from a group they hate—e.g., a normal white man—who was victimized by a member of a group they love (the usual suspects). A vic in such a situation must go on the offensive, asking, say, “Why do you keep repeating the same question? I already answered that.”)

However, the recent CNN documentary (which CNN scheduled on both its flagship network, and its HLN division,
only to cancel from broadcasting it on the former) on this case didn’t take that angle at all. It snuck in the notions that Tellis was a victim of the criminal justice system, having been a gentle soul who wouldn’t hurt a fly, until he was swept up in the system of mass incarceration, and that the real heavy in the piece was Jessica Chambers’ father, Ben Chambers Sr., because he disapproved of interracial dating.

Note too that at the time of the crime, Quinton Tellis was not an “ex-con,” but a convict. When someone is convicted of a felony, he remains a convict until he has completed serving his sentence, whether “inside” jail or prison, or “outside” on probation or parole.

Check out this story on

Saturday, October 14, 2017

Doing the Work Saturday Night Live’s Lorne Michaels Won’t (Harvey Weinstein Cartoons)

By An Old Friend

Former Trump Campaigner and Rubio Intern Shot 13 Times While Sleeping: Sen. “Little Marco” Rubio is Not a Suspect


Vic Nick Corvino

By “W”

This has all the signs of a gay murder.

At Fox News.


Suspect Scott Wadell

First Responders Testify to Hearing Jessica Chambers Say “Eric” Burned Her

By David in TN

The live stream I saw allowed you to see the autopsy photos, very horrific.

Jessica Chambers’ body had been turned brown by the fire, with red splotches all over. Her hair was singed, with some burned off. The eyes were shut with mouth open, burns and soot showed inside the mouth. It's difficult to see how she could have spoken very clearly.

The hospital gave Jessica Chambers “comfort care,” what they give to a patient who won’t survive. She looked to be in terrible pain when she died.

WMCA Action News.

TCM is Running a Film Noir Double Feature Tomorrow (Sunday, October 15, 2017)



By David in TN
Friday, October 13, 2017 at 7:56:00 P.M. EDT

There is a kind of Noir Double Feature for this Sunday on TCM. At 10 a.m. ET, Sunday October 15, Eddie Muller hosts the regular Film Noir of the Week, Side Street (1950). It stars Farley Granger and Cathy O'Donnell, who are reunited after They Live by Night.

Farley Granger and Jean Hagen in a taxicab

Granger is a part-time mail carrier who seizes a chance to steal a roll of money, a blackmail payoff that belonged to some ruthless hoods who soon come after him.

While delivering the mail to a crooked lawyer's office, he steals a large sum of money he'd seen placed there. Expecting to find a few hundred dollars, Granger finds it was 30 grand. The usual Noir predicament results. A hood employed by the lawyer is played by James Craig, who was thought to be a replacement for Clark Gable when Gable went off to WW II.

Jean Hagen playing a nightclub singer

Funny thing, a 1950 New York street hood is played by an actor in his late 30's, born in Nashville, Tennessee, and a graduate of Rice University. Oh, wait. A street hood in a 21st Century Law and Order episode could be like this.

Side Street was filmed in Manhattan and shows what it looked like in 1950, through what may be the first car chase in a movie.

In my opinion, Side Street is better than They Live by Night.



Right before Side Street, TCM shows Follow Me Quietly (1949) at 8:45 ET.


It stars William Lundigan and Jeff Corey as detectives pursuing a “faceless,” psychopathic serial killer.



Dorothy Patrick

It has a good script and some suspense, directed by Richard Fleischer in an early effort.

Today in History for October 14th (Associated Press Video)

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Highlights of this day in history: Chuck Yeager breaks sound barrier; Britain's Battle of Hastings takes place; Martin Luther King, Jr. wins Nobel Peace Prize; Former President Theodore Roosevelt shot; Singer Bing Crosby dies. (Oct. 14)

Decisions and Revisions Which a Minute Will Reverse: Mark Steyn Rolls the Dice, with the Many Las Vegas Massacre Timelines

[Of related interest:

“Ann Coulter: The Media’s Lies about the Las Vegas Massacre are as Credible as Their Lies about Trump… Race… the Weather… the Time of Day…”]

By An Old Friend

Revealed again in Las Vegas: The awesome, broad-spectrum incompetence of American officialdom.

What Happens in Vegas Doesn't Stay in Reno
By Mark Steyn
October 12, 2017

As readers know, I have a low regard for conspiracy theories, mainly because the reasons the world is going to hell are pretty much staring us in the face. But I can't honestly blame anyone following the Las Vegas massacre story from taking refuge in any conspiracy theory, no matter how wild and zany. Almost a fortnight from the moment when 58 people were gunned down at a country-music festival, officialdom has so bungled the case that almost every single one of the most basic facts about the act are up for grabs.

As I had cause to remark over a week ago, I dislike the contamination of police press conferences by various politicians and bureaucrats all indulging in an orgy of mutual self-congratulation. But, in this case, the self-congratulation is entirely unwarranted. From the beginning this seemed an unusual crime that didn't seem to line up with any other mass shooting by a nutter who flips. It has only gotten weirder in the days since.

Earlier this week whichever branch of the Keystone Kops is running this show (apparently the Feds) completely reversed their timeline of the case. Previously we were told that Mandalay Bay security guard Jesus Campos had gone up to the 32nd floor to investigate an "open-door" alert and was a hero because his intervention had distracted the perp from killing even more people - and fortunately, even as Mr Campos was taking a bullet in his leg, the cops were already pounding up the stairs.

We're now told that that timeline was, in fact, back to front. Instead, Jesus Campos was investigating the door alert before the massacre even began. At 9.59pm, Paddock responded to Mr Campos' arrival by emptying 200 rounds into the 32nd floor corridor. Which seems a tad excessive. Paddock then apparently took a leisurely six-minute break before going over to the window and beginning his massacre. Which seems a tad excessively relaxed. What was he doing? Having a nice cup of tea? Calling down to room service? Your guess is as good as the coppers'.

But, at any rate, it seems someone else was on the scene - maintenance man Stephen Schuck, who was also forced to take cover from those 200 rounds:

As Mr Schuck says above, when the shooting began, he used his radio to call in what was happening - including the precise location of the room from which the shots were coming. That was six minutes before Paddock began firing on the crowd. So in theory the police could have gotten there in time to prevent, if not all, then many or most of the deaths at the concert.

But they didn't. Instead, Paddock fired on the crowd for ten minutes and then, despite having apparently prepared for a siege, decided to call a halt and shoot himself.

The Mandalay Bay resort is now disputing the police's revised timeline. They say that officers were already in the building when Campos radioed in that he was shot and, within 40 seconds, both police and hotel security were on the 32nd floor.

So that's three timelines. We're now told:

Police say the current timeline will be revised again by Friday.

I'll bet. While we're waiting, I'll confess that I dislike the current preferred jargonizing whereby the Sheriff announces that they're "working" various crime scenes. I don't know quite what's involved in "working" a crime scene but one would assume it includes at minimum securing the crime scene. Yet apparently not. Last weekend, Paddock's home in Reno was burgled. Just consider that for a moment: On Sunday night someone pulls off the worst single-shooter massacre in American history - and yet it's insufficient of a priority to the multiple federal, state and local agencies investigating it to prevent the supposed perpetrator's property being broken into under their noses.

That seems odd, don't you think? Sometimes, in unusual cases, sleepy small-town two-man police departments find themselves a wee bit overwhelmed, and sloppy things happen. But how can it happen with these resources in the most prominent investigation in the country?

It is unclear to the Keystone Kops what was taken from the Reno home. Of course. Since Day One, this entire case has been about what's missing, and what's missing seems to be getting larger. There appear to be four photographs of Stephen Paddock - three from many years ago, and a fourth that shows him with closed eyes. That's quite unusual in the age of Facebook and selfies. But it seems even more absurd for a guy who spent much of his time in a town where humanity is under closer scrutiny than almost anywhere on the planet. Long before computers and the Internet, Vegas casinos had cameras everywhere filming their patrons for the benefit of unseen eyes in the back office concerned to know what their customers are up to at every moment and from every angle. Yet there's only one solitary image that approximates to how Stephen Paddock looked on the night of October 1st?

Where's the footage of him bringing those bags into the hotel? When, come to that, did he check in to the Mandalay Bay? By now, this ever shifting, reversible "timeline" should at least have a verifiable starting date, shouldn't it? As "empty" as Paddock was a week and a half ago, he's getting emptier, and blanker: We're asked to believe that he made "millions" playing video poker - which is as likely, as Ann Coulter put it in an excellent column, as making millions by smoking crack. If, in the all but statistically impossible event he did manage to relieve the casinos' machines of millions of dollars, he would certainly not be additionally enriched by free hotel suites and complimentary $500-a-glass vintage port, as his brother claims. On the other hand, Steve Wynn, whose hotels Paddock stayed in over many years, says that the only unusual thing about the guy and his "girlfriend" was that neither was ever seen to take a drink.

Sheriff Lombardo referred last Wednesday to what he called cryptically Paddock's "secret life". But Las Vegas has a "secret life", too. The new Disneyfied "family-friendly" Vegas is a veneer, underneath which prostitution, money laundering, organized crime, etc, chug along much as before. Paddock supposedly availed himself of prostitutes; did he also use Vegas for laundering cash? That's a better reason for the time he spent there than that he was "winning" millions at video poker.

But it doesn't get us any closer to what happened on Sunday October 1st. I said over a week ago that Paddock seemed more like a professional assassin than the usual mass-murdering nutjob. On the other hand, a think-tanker in London wrote to me to argue that the sheer superfluousness of all that firepower suggested that the weaponry itself was the message. As one of the officers said a few days ago, the hotel room "looked like almost a gun store".

Maybe it was - and maybe something went wrong on a deal. And maybe this and maybe that. And maybe it will all become clear at tomorrow's revised timeline. Offered the now wearily familiar line that the police remain completely baffled as to motive, Tucker Carlson responded: forget motive; right now he'd settle for the basic facts. What are the odds we'll get them at the Friday presser? Better than video poker?

Friday, October 13, 2017

Heroic Ann Corcoran is Attacked by Foreign Policy Magazine for Publishing the TRUTH about Immigration; the Liberal Left is Outed, and Incensed

By a Super-Secret Colleague!

At Refugee Resettlement Watch.

Excellence through Promoting Incompetent, Unfit "Scholars" at the University of Virginia!



By Reader-Researcher A.L.

Feds’ DACA Fake Stats: Georgia Has Over Twice as Many Nightmares as the Feds Say It Does

Via “W”

Numbers don’t add up: Georgia says it has double the DACA recipients that fed statistics state

By D.A. King
Special to The [Macon] Telegraph
October 09, 2017 3:22 P.M.

How many illegal aliens has former President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) provided amnesty? That’s a question that may need some closer review.

A United States Citizenship and Immigration Services report (page 6) dated September 4 (the day before President Trump announced a pending end to the program) on the numbers of illegal aliens with DACA status in each state does not match with the number of DACA recipients to whom Georgia says it has issued a drivers license.

USCIS has the national total number of DACA recipients at 689,800, with 21,600 of these victims of borders living in Georgia. But a recent response letter from Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal’s Commissioner of the Department of Driver Services (DDS — our DMV) to Georgia state Sen. Josh McKoon puts the number of drivers licenses and official state ID cards issued to DACA recipients at 48,935 — more than twice as many as the feds say live in the Peach State. And that was as of August 8.

DDS says it has has also issued some 8,700 official photo ID cards to those registered in DACA. Here in Georgia, an individual can obtain both the drivers license and ID Card.

Which number is accurate? Jeremy Redmon, the Institute for Justice and Journalism on Immigration Reporting — trained, immigration reporter at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution uses the federal numbers in a Friday news item that also breaks down the stats offered for the Atlanta-metro area.

There is a lot of confusion in Georgia on the topic in general. In a 2015 email, the DDS Public Information Director explained to a statewide news outlet that DDS policy on deferred action was based on the DREAM Act, which we hear did not pass Congress.


And DDS has been telling state legislators for years that they don’t issue drivers licenses or ID cards to “undocumented or illegal immigrants.” They stick to “non-citizens with lawful status” or “non-citizens with lawful presence.” It has become quite a sensitive issue for the DDS lobbyist in the state Capitol.

The po-tay-to/po-tah-to word-play comes from the fact that the 2012 USCIS website explaining DACA clearly says “deferred action on deportation does not provide lawful status.”

But, the REAL ID Act of 2005 (2) (B) (vii) says deferred action status is “evidence of lawful status.” Got that?

The Georgia DDS uses the REAL ID Act definition, but a growing number of Georgians are waking up to the fact that only illegal aliens require deferred action on deportation. And that in real-speak, illegal aliens – including illegals who do not even have deferred action and who are already under deportation orders — are being issued the same REAL ID Act - approved drivers license that is given to legal immigrants and guest workers here on a temporary visas, like Mercedes Benz and Coca Cola executives.

These drivers licenses are used to board airliners literally every day at airports all over the country, including here in Atlanta at the busiest airport in the world.

It surprises a lot of people to learn that according to DHS, (Department of Homeland Security) Georgia has more illegal aliens than Arizona.

We hope the discrepancy in the stated numbers of DACA beneficiaries from USCIS and the database in the Georgia office in charge of the integrity of our driving and ID credentials gets some attention.

D.A. King is a long-time, pro-enforcement activist in Georgia and president of the Dustin Inman Society.

Photo: Georgia DDS

White School Hate Crime Victim Gets Suspended for Cursing After being Sucker-Punched and Brutally Beaten by Racist Black Thug (Video)

By Pax Romana58
Friday, October 13, 2017 at 4:45:00 A.M. EDT

White Special Needs Student Attacked by Black in Delaware High School Cafeteria (Video)

[The Black student who viciously and repeatedly punched the white kid was charged with "offensive touching". To see what the Liberal school board considered "offensive touching" when a white student is attacked, watch the video.]

A Delaware high school student with special needs was assaulted by another student and then suspended for using inappropriate language.

Now, the victim’s mom says her son doesn’t want to go back to school.

Rose Boyles said her son, Josh, was beat up in the Caesar Rodney High School cafeteria after an argument with another student over a girl.

Just when her son thought the argument seemed to be over, felt a punch to the back of his head, Boyles said. And the blows kept coming.

“The boy jumped over the table and continued to punch my son,” Boyles said.

A video showed her son attempting to protect his head as the second student threw punch after punch. Josh remained on the ground for the duration of the attack.

After the ordeal ended, Josh was suspended for two days while the student who punched him was charged with offensive touching.

“It’s more than offensive touching,” Boyles said. “It is actual assault.”

[N.S.: Assault and battery.]

Josh, who has special needs, refuses to return to school and Boyles said she wouldn’t feel comfortable sending him there anyway.

Caesar Rodney High School said in a statement that “disciplinary action was taken and an arrest was made."
At NBC Philadelphia.

Ann Coulter: The Media’s Lies about the Las Vegas Massacre are as Credible as Their Lies about Trump… Race… the Weather… the Time of Day…

Media Begging Us for Conspiracy Theories on Las Vegas

By Ann Coulter
October 11, 2017

Now the media are just taunting us with their tall tales about Stephen Paddock, the alleged Las Vegas shooter. Reputedly serious news organizations are claiming that he made a living playing video poker. That's like claiming someone made a living smoking crack.

The media are either doing PR for the gambling industry or they don't want anyone considering the possibility that Paddock was using gambling to launder money.

NBC News reports, with a straight face: "Las Vegas gunman earned millions as a gambler." A Los Angeles Times article is headlined, "In the solitary world of video poker, Stephen Paddock knew how to win." The story says that Paddock's gambling "was at least a steady income over a period of years."

I don't know all the ins and outs of Paddock's life, but that's a lie.

How do reporters imagine casino owners make a living? Any ideas on how all those glorious lobbies, lights, pools and fountains are paid for? How do they think Sheldon Adelson and Steve Wynn became billionaires if gambling is a winning proposition for people like Paddock -- and therefore, by definition, a losing proposition for the casinos?

The media think about money the way Democrats do. They have absolutely no conception of where it originates. Those casino owners sure are generous! reporters think to themselves. Economist Thomas Sowell is always ridiculing journalists for not understanding basic economics. It turns out, they don't understand the spreadsheet of a lemonade stand.

The New York Times explained that the "top" video poker machines pay out 99.17 percent. That's great that Paddock was only losing cents on the dollar (if true), but it's still losing. The Times quickly explained that he could have more than made up his losses with all the "comps" -- the free rooms, meals and "50-year-old port that costs $500 a glass," as his brother Eric said.

Gamblers who are beating the house are not given $500 glasses of port. Refer to the profit/loss spreadsheet. And yet, according to his brother, Paddock was treated like royalty by the casinos. Which means he was losing.

Apart from outright theft, the only way to have an advantage over the casino is by card-counting. That's not cheating and it doesn't guarantee a win. It merely allows the gambler to make a more educated guess as each card is played, thereby tilting the odds ever so slightly in his favor. Still, if the casinos suspect a customer is counting cards, he will be promptly escorted off the premises.

And counting cards only helps with blackjack. Paddock's game of choice was VIDEO POKER. That's a computer! It's programmed to ensure the house wins. Not all the time, but at least often enough to make casino owners multibillionaires. Anyone who plays video poker over an extended period of time will absolutely, 100 percent, by basic logic, end up a net loser.

So why are the media insistent that Paddock was getting rich by playing video poker?

I don't know what happened -- and, apparently, neither do the cops -- but it's kind of odd that we keep being told things that aren't true about the Las Vegas massacre, from the basic timeline to this weird insistence that Paddock made a good living at gambling.

The most likely explanation is that the reporters and investigators are incompetent nitwits. But the changing facts from law enforcement and preposterous lies from the press aren't doing a lot to tamp down alternative theories of the crime.

Among the questions not being asked by our wildly incurious media:

Why would Paddock unload 200 rounds into the hallway at a security guard who was checking on someone else's room before beginning his massacre?

How can it possibly take eight days to figure out when the alleged shooter checked into the hotel?

Why was Paddock wearing gloves if he was about to commit suicide?

Have any other solitary mass shooters ever had girlfriends?

If Paddock wasn't making money on video poker -- and he wasn't -- why would he be cycling millions of dollars through a casino, turning every dollar into, at best, 99 cents?

Maybe Paddock enjoyed video poker. But if the allegedly serious media are going to keep telling us he was making a living doing it, they're just begging us to say that losing a percent or two on millions of dollars doesn't make sense as an investment strategy, but it does make sense as a money laundering operation.

And the probable illicit business requiring money to be laundered that leaps out at us in Paddock's case is illegal gun sales. If true, it would not only explain the arsenal in his hotel room, but also raises the possibility of either an accomplice or different perpetrator altogether.

If this were a movie script, a terrorist would go to Paddock's room on the pretense of buying guns, kill Paddock, commit the massacre, put his gunshot residue-covered gloves on Paddock's dead hands and slip out of the room when the coast was clear.

According to the all-new timeline given by the Las Vegas police -- pending a third revision -- this is at least possible. The hallway was empty, except for a bleeding security guard down by the elevators, for at least two minutes after the shooting stopped. The stairwell was clear for more than half an hour. It also explains the gloves.

There's no evidence for any of this, but on the other hand, there's no evidence for the version the media are giving us. At least the movie script version doesn't require us to pretend that Paddock was making "millions" from video poker.

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Video: The SPLC: The “Anti-Hate” Group that is a Hate Group

Thanks to An Old Friend

Jessica Chambers Murder Trial, Day 2: Juror is Booted, First Responders Testify to Hearing Jessica Chambers say “Eric” Burned Her

By David in TN

A juror just got booted for making a Facebook post complaining about how “It Sucks.” He was a white male. The jury is now seven-to-five black.

Several people at the scene said Jessica Chambers said “Eric.” Most observers see this as a major sticking point regarding a conviction in the case. On the other hand, the victim called herself “Katrina” and other names. It's difficult to imagine the state she was in. One witness testified to asking Chambers if her killer was white or black and she answered “Black.”

A suspicious black male was seen in the area, not ID’d as of yet. There might have been two killers.

Tomorrow (Thursday) the jury will be taken to the scene of the crime, the store where Jessica Chambers was last seen alive, and the suspect’s home.


Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Video of a Lynching in “Charlottesville, New York”: Multicultural Subway Mob, Including Rapper, Commit Attempted Murder, Aggravated Assault, Robbery, Attempted Robbery, Assault and Battery, While Filming Attack on White Straphanger Who Said the N-Word; Racist Blog Gothamist Celebrates Lynching, but is Disappointed that Victim wasn’t Arrested

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

This is what whites have to look forward to, when they become a minority in their own country. And if Trump amnesties DACA “Dreamers,” this nightmare will be accelerated.

Although there were some commenters at YouTube (besides yours truly) who opposed the Communist celebrants, I could not find a single comment standing up for morality or the law.

Gothamist’s original title, as buried in the URL, is “Princess Nokia Soup Hero.” Every comment I saw supported the lynching. Perhaps someone criticized it, and the thread Nazi deleted his comment. The racist blog permablocked yours truly about three years ago.

Published on Oct 10, 2017
Video courtesy Joshua R. Pyne.

Rapper Princess Nokia Says She Was The One Who Souped Lime-A-Rita L Train Racist
by Jake Offenhartz
Oct 11, 2017 11:30 a.m.

Princess Nokia performing in Los Angeles over the summer. (Emma McIntyre/Getty Images)

Princess Nokia is exiling racists from her kingdom, one hot cup of soup at a time.

On Wednesday, the Bronx-based rapper outed herself as the woman who threw hot soup at a man spewing racial slurs on the L train. In the now viral video, Princess Nokia—real name: Destiny Frasqueri—can be heard shouting "get the fuck out!" at the man, as he chants the n-word and dares straphangers to confront him.

Princess Nokia did just that, then recounted the experience on Twitter:

this bigot called a group of teenage boys "niggers" on the train so I stood up and slapped him and everybody on the train backed me up. When I slapped him he called me a nigger, and when I did all my brothers on the train came to my side and held my hand and comforted me. although painful and humiliating we stood together and kicked this disgusting racist off the train so we could ride in peace away from him.

And yes I threw hot soup in this mans face and kicked him off off the train, and kicked in the face. Any other racists wanna try us again?

The important matter is: I will do anything to defend the honor of my brothers and sisters #blacklivesmatter. I witness blatant racism in public constanly, and it is heartbreaking to witness such hatred and bigotry go Un defended. It take alot of risks trying to stand up to racist & bigots. Putting yourself in potential danger is scary ASF, esp as a young women. But I be damned if i let some drunk bigot call a group of young teenage boys racist names and allow him to get away with it.

Following Saturday's incident, Princess Nokia and some of the other riders reportedly shared a moment. "After Bedford, the woman [who first called him out] kind of broke down," witness Joshua R. Pyne told us. "She and the larger gentlemen in black embraced and there was a good sense that social justice had been served."

In response to Princess Nokia's tweets, several people have also voiced their support for New Yorkers fighting back against white supremacy.

On Tuesday, Paul Lawson shared a series of since-deleted Facebook posts identifying himself as the man in the video, and admitting to being a "race-baiter in this context." He added that he was "not that sorry" about his behavior, because he "enjoys getting a rise out of people." According to video shared with us yesterday, Lawson has a history of disparaging black people on the subway, and getting beat up for it.

Witnesses say a police officer was on the scene at Bedford Avenue during Saturday's incident. A spokesperson with the NYPD said there were no records of anyone who matched Lawson's description being arrested at the station.

Who Engineered Cover-Up for Harvey Weinstein? It was Corrupt, NBC News President Noah Oppenheim, a Screenwriter Who Came from Hwood, and Wanted to be Able to Return There

By Nicholas Stix

Oppenheim’s screenwriting credits.

The story’s at AIM.