Exploding the Myth of "Three Co-Equal Branches of Government", with Stephen Miller

Please understand what Stephen Miller is saying in the linked video.

Well, the Constitution is clear. And, that [i.e. the Constitution] is. of course, the supreme law of the land. ... Look, a lot of it [i.e. suspending habeas corpus with respect to illegal aliens] depends on whether the courts do the right thing, or not. At the end of the day, Congress passed a body of law, known as the Immigration and Nationality Act, which stripped Article III courts -- that's the Judicial branch -- of jurisdiction over immigration cases.  So, Congress actually passed -- it's called 'jurisdiction stripping legislation'.  They passed a number of laws that say that the Article III courts aren't even allowed to be involved in immigration cases.  Many of you probably don't know this.  I'll give you a good example: Are you familiar with the term 'temporary protected status', or TPS, right?  So, by statute, the courts are stripped of jurisdiction from over-ruling a presidential determination, or a secretarial determination, on TPS when the Secretary of Homeland Security makes that determination. So, when Secretary Noem terminated TPS for the illegals that Biden flew into the country, when courts stepped in, they were violating explicit language that Congress had enacted saying they [i.e. Article III courts] have no jurisdiction. So, it's not just that the courts are at war with the Executive branch, the courts are at war -- these radical rogue judges -- with the Legislative branch as well, too. ...

Understand -- Article III courts are the normal courts of the federal Judiciary branch: the single superior court [i.e. so-called "THE Supreme Court" (*) ] and the various inferior courts that Congress has, from time to time, established pursuant to Article III.

Understand, what Stephen Miller is discussing here is Congress' power, under Article III, Section 2, to limit, or even strip, the jurisdiction of the federal courts (**) over all but a few specific sorts of cases as explicitly enumerated in Article III, Section 2.

Understand -- the "Three Co-Equal Branches of Government" dogma that we all were taught in high school civics class is not only a myth, but a lie, and a pernicious lie at that. The lie was invented by lawyers/judges (***) to disguise their imperialistic power-grab over the other branches, and indeed, over our very lives.

So, since the three branches of the federal government are not "co-equal", where does that leave us? It leaves us where we always were: the three branches each have explicitly enumerated powers -- and no powers not explicitly enumerated -- and the Congress is the "supreme" branch.  That the congresscritters do not want to do their jobs is another matter ... and, in the end, the fault lies with the electorate for allowing them to shirk their duty.

(*) As I have pointed out repeatedly, Article III of the US Constitution does not create "THE Supreme Court". Rather, it establishes "one supreme Court" -- one highest-level or superior court -- and as many inferior courts as Congress may decide to create.

This is the text of Article III, Section 1 (emphasis added ):

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

(**) This is the relevant text of Article III, Section 2"

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. 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."

(***) Understand -- No matter the legal system, the lawyers of that system *always* eventually seek to corrupt the law to make it serve their own interests. Also remember -- judges are just lawyers who dress funny.

Tim Pool: Stephen Miller Says Trump SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING Suspending Habeas Corpus

Trump ... and His Ego

Look, I despise this corrupt little Ukrainian Ogre more than I can express. But, Trump is wrong (**) here (@ 3:20 mark in the first video) -- and the foolish Americans who are cheering Trump's behavior and/or accusing the little Ogre of threatening the US are ... well, fools (*).

Also, it's *really* rich of Trump ("This war would never have started had I been in office") to say to the Ogrette, "You don't know that". Hell! Anyone who knows anything about human beings "knows that".

The Buy-den maladministration *intentionally* gave Ukraine just enough military aid to drag out the war -- and to open up the sluice-gates of graft and corruption -- but not enough to win it. But now, rather than cleaning up the graft and corruption, and giving Ukraine the necessary aid, the Trump administration has decided to ratify the Putin regime's aggression ... and the end of the "post-war world order". The future is going to be bloody and ugly.

Maybe it already is too late for Ukraine ... but that case hasn't been made.

On the one hand, Trump is just doing what the fickle/bored American populace wants him to do. On the other, he *claims* to be a leader.

But, we all will pay a price for it, just as the Orge was trying to warn.

When the bill for this farce comes due, not one of the fools now cheering and laughing at Zelensky's humiliation is going to admit his own culpability in the horror then unleashed on us.

(*) 'fool' doesn't mean 'stupid', it means to behave *as though* one were stupid.  To call someone a 'fool' is to make a moral judgement about that person

(**) EDIT (2025/0303): At the time I saw the linked video and wrote this post, I hadn't seen what preceded Trump's reaction -- shame on me for falling for MSM selective "reporting".  Good night, but the nasty little Ogre was disrespectful!  Now, it's still true that Trump misinterpreted the Ogre's particular statement at that moment, but it's also true that by that point Trump was addressing the Ogre's performance of the entire past several minutes.

EDIT (2025/03/02): Here is a comment I saw elsewhere; I can agree with this --

"Zelensky essentially tried to guilt-trip Trump into taking the blame for what Obama and Biden did (or didn't do) in the past. Imagine trying to negotiate with this kind of attitude. Trump and Vance were having none of it."

DeVoryDarkins: Zelenskyy KICKED OUT of the White House after shouting match erupts

History Debumked: Why President Trump is determined to abandon Ukraine, and even withdraw from NATO

California Woman Sent to Prison Over Chinese Birth Tourism Scheme

I have written about "Chinese Birth Tourism" (i.e. Communist Chinese "anchor babies") as it relates to natural born citizenship before, noting that the US federal government prosecutes and imprisons persons who organize or facilitate such "birth tourism".  This post will focus on the absurdity of the leftist pretense that "anchor babies" are indeed US citizens.

The linked article reports that a "California woman" and her husband, who had "helped pregnant Chinese women travel to the United States to give birth so that their children would have automatic United States citizenship", were "both convicted of conspiracy and money laundering".  

Obviously -- definitionally -- if the US federal government is prosecuting, convicting, and imprisoning the organizers of "birth tourism" schemes on conspiracy charges, then it is the "birth tourism" itself which is the underlying crime at issue.  I mean, really! Literally everyone knows that only Donald Trump can be prosecuted for "conspiracy" to not commit a crime.

Think about this -- the (pregnant) Chinese women who make use of these (illegal) "birth tourism" schemes are in the US legally when they give birth.  Is giving birth in the US illegal?  Is giving birth in the US when one is not a US citizen illegal?  Obviously, the answer to both questions is a resounding "No".  So then, where is the illegality?  It is in trying to steal US citizenship for one's child (and thereby benefit oneself in the future). IF -- as the Democrats and other leftists assert -- the 14th Amendment mandates that *all* persons born in US territory (*) are by that mere fact US citizens, irrespective of the citizenship and legal status of the parent(s), THEN prosecuting the persons who facilitate those births is absurd.

As explained below (*), despite the 14th Amendment, until 1924, and even though born in US territory, and even though born to parents who likewise had been born in US territory, most American Indians were not US citizens because their parents were not citizens/subjects of the US sovereignty, but rather were citizens/subjects of different sovereignties; to wit: their tribal nations.

Now, IF the US Constitution did not extend US citizenship to American Indians or the children of American Indians -- to a class of persons who had for many generations been resident within the territory of the USA -- due to the fact that their parents were not already US citizens, THEN how can the Democrat/leftist assertion that the Constitution automatically confers US citizenship on the child of someone who had crossed the border five minutes ago possibly be true?  It is absurd!

Consider what is more typically meant by the term "anchor baby". There are two classes --

1) Those born to non-citizen parents who are in the US legally. This includes such persons as Barack Obama -- allegedly born in the US, with no real proof given, to a non-citizen father -- and Marco Rubio, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Kamala Harris;

2) Those born to non-citizen parents who are on the US illegally. This is currently the more numerous class, and the more contentious, as the Democrats and other leftists aim to use them to cheapen the value of US citizenship, and hope to use them to cement in permanent leftist control of the US government;

The Democrats and other leftists assert that the US Constitution confers US citizenship on the two classes of persons noted above. And moreover, they assert that the Constitution confers not mere citizenship, but natural born citizenship (which, as Mrs Olson says of Folger's Coffee, is "the richest kind").

But, as the examples of both the prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment of those who facilitate "birth tourism", and of the citizenship status of American Indians show, the leftists are wrong. They are, in fact, lying.

If, despite the criminal prosecutions of those who facilitated such "birth tourism" births, the children born in the US to "citizens" of Communist China are indeed US citizens, why does the US government allow their mothers to take them back to China, to a life of slavery in-all-but-name and life-long indoctrination in hatred of America?

Or what? Does the act of trying to steal US citizenship for one's child (and thus to benefit oneself in the future) become a crime only if one has "conspired" with and paid money to a third party, such that those who "free-lance" it to drop an "anchor baby" get a pass (and get the citizenship)?

=======

(*) I have also mentioned this fact before (though perhaps not in a post on this blog) -- 

After ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, and after the US supreme (**) Court's 1898 Kim Wong Ark ruling (which Democrats and leftists love to misrepresent), most American Indians *still* were not US citizens until passage of the "Indian Citizenship Act of 1924".

This is the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment --

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Notice that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment does not explicitly deny US citizenship to (most) American Indians.  And yet, they were not extended US citizenship either by the 14th Amendment itself nor by the supreme Court's Kim Wong Ark ruling.

Clearly, the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause does not mean what the Democrats and other leftists like to assert that it means.  Here is the Wickedpedia article's introductory paragraph on the Act --

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, (43 Stat. 253, enacted June 2, 1924) was an Act of the United States Congress that declared Indigenous persons born within the United States are US citizens. Although the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that any person born in the United States is a citizen, there is an exception for persons not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the federal government. This language was generally taken to mean members of various tribes that were treated as separate sovereignties: they were citizens of their tribal nations.

Attend to this: (most) American Indians -- even if born in US territory and even 56 years after ratification of the 14th Amendment -- were not US citizens because their parents were not citizens/subjects of the US sovereignty, but rather were citizens/subjects of different sovereignties.

So, since the US Constitution did not extend US citizenship to (most) American Indians, how is it that they became US citizens in 1924 by a mere Act of Congress? By the fact that the Constitution reserves to Congress the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". That is, the "Indian Citizenship Act of 1924" is a naturalization law: the US Congress enacted a law stating that all non-citizen American Indians were thenceforth naturalized US citizens, and thus that their (US-born) descendants would be natural born US citizens.

Clearly, the right to claim US citizenship is not merely a matter of 'jus soli' ("right of soil"). That is, it isn't merely the fact of being born on US soil which confers US citizenship. 

Similarly, the right to claim US citizenship is not merely a matter of 'jus sanguinis' ("right of blood"). That is, one is not a US citizen merely because one's parents (note the plural) are US citizens -- it is for this reason that children born overseas to US citizen parents are not accorded US citizenship unless their parent(s) with US citizenship submit requisite paperwork as established by US naturalization law before the child's 18th birthday.

(**) "supreme Court" capitalization as per the US Constitution.

California Woman Sent to Prison Over Chinese Birth Tourism Scheme

EDIT (2025/02/12): Chip Roy Raises Issue Of Birth Tourism During Discussion Of Birthright Citizenship

On "Political Capital" ... and Self-Fulfilling Prophesies

So many political careers become ensnared by the concept -- probably invented by "political consultants" (*) -- of "political capital", often to the point of fecklessness: "I dare not do anything the voters really want, if powerful interests don't want it, lest it cost me 'political capital' and leave me unable to do something the voters really want/"  The zero-sum nature of  "political capital" becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Now, while Trump 1.0 *did* do some of the important things Trump ran on doing, in the end, that administration was stymied by a combination of traitors within and the fear of expending  "political capital".

But, so far at least, Trump 2.0 is showing us that "political capital" doesn't have merely to be expended in a zero-sum exercise, but that it can also be invested, so as to increase one's "political capital".

(*) Political consultant -- an expert at siphoning money from political campaigns into his own bank account.

Sect. of War

 Now that Trump has picked Pete Hegseth to be his Sect. of War ("Dept. of War" is the true name of what is these days euphemistically called "Dept. of Defense"), there is a video clip making the rounds (both pro- and con-) in which he straight-up says that women should not "serve" in combat.

But, NOTICE: Even here, even saying that, he believed himself compelled offer the obligatory pinch of incense to the idols of Feminism and Female Ego: "We've all served with women, and they're great." No, they're not, not in Current Year; some women are great, just as some men are great. And some men -- and some women -- are not at all great. But, and this is the important point, women in the military are never great: for their mere presence, in any capacity, changes the inter-personal dynamics and lowers the effectiveness of the military to do its One Job. This is even *before* standard are inevitably lowered so as to "qualify" more women for higher ranks.

Hegseth doesn't go far enough: Women don't belong in the military. Period.

All the recent DEI bullshit in the military -- which, if not excised, will result in the deaths of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of military personnel -- is a direct result of submitting to the feminist lie that women have a legitimate place in the military.

What if?

What if --

What if "Supreme Leader" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is not *really* the ruler of the Iranian regime? What if the *real* ruler of Iran was the regime's late terrorist mastermind, General Qassem Soleimani?

What if there is no clear successor not only to the Iranian regime's terrorist-in-chief, but also none to the entire terrorist regime itself?

What if the Iranian people -- who clearly hate the regime -- are now able to overthrow it, as its various members flail about, each trying to assert his own supremacy?

What if Trump has just done more to promote peace in the world than any US president since Ronaldus Magnus (and certainly more that a certain "Nobel Peace Prize awarded" alleged president)?

Sovereignty ... or Not!

FrontPage Mag: THE MIGRANT CARAVAN INVASION

In typical leftist fashion, the leftists and Democrats (but I repeat myself) are using these people's *lives* as fodder for their political agendas of:
1) destroying the Trump Administration in the short-term; and,
2) destroying the USA in the longer-term. As they imagine it, they win no matter what happens.

There are really only two possible responses to this invasion, with three possible outcomes, the first two of which are "wins" for the leftists; the leftists and Democrats have convinced themselves that the third possible outcome cannot happen --

1) The Administration huffs and puffs, and the "migrants" call their bluff, and because it was nothing but huffing and puffing, the Administration does nothing to protect and enforce the sovereignty of the USA; the "migrants" continue their invasion.

The upshot of this is that *as a practical matter* the USA ceases to exist as a sovereign state -- a "win" for the leftists -- and, baring a successful War of Independence 2.0 by the American people themselves, we are swamped by further foreign invasion, until we no longer exist as a people.

2) The Administration is serious about protecting and enforcing the sovereignty of the USA, and so uses lethal force to stop this invasion -- killing as many of the invaders as necessary, irrespective of sex or age; the leftists and Democrats cry crocodile tears over the deaths of people they *intentionally* set up to be killed.

2a) If this is what happens, the Democrats believe that can parley those deaths into mass domestic outrage at the "crime" of killing "defenseless" invaders, and thus bring down the Trump Administration. If they are successful, this also spells the end of the USA, just slower that in scenario 1).

--- The (sub) scenario which the leftists and Democrats believe will not happen is this:

2b) The leftists and Democrats cry their crocodile tears over the deaths of people they *intentionally* set up to be killed ... and, rather than stirring outrage at our own government, the American People reply: "Go to Hell, Commies!" If this (sub) scenario plays out, America may yet survive.

The Road to Hell ...

Or, to be more precise, the road to *your* hell is paved with leftists' intentions.

One 'Yuri Dieujuste' in this Facebook thread --

It gets into the fun question of wether the Anglo settler colonies that became the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand* are extensions of their former motherland and should only be open to those people, or places that once they opened their doors to other people became settler colonies for the entire world to create a new culture from what was left of the aboriginal people, the original settlers, and those that followed.

*You can even open this to say, South American countries that played a similar role such as Chile, Argentina, and Brazil...

Mr Dieujuste is incensed that anyone would describe his ancestral country, Haiti, as a 'shithole', whether or not anyone actually did, and even though it is quite literally that. It's clear to me from exchanges with him over the past few days that whether he was born in America, and whether he holds US citizenship, he is not actually an American, for his loyalty is not to America. And, he subscribes at least to the leftist lie that America is racist and oppressive to "people of color".

He is an ingrate.

On the plus side, he hasn't so far resorted to the spittal-flecked rage that typifies white leftists.

"What Happened"

OR: Too Clever By Half

One of the reasons that Trump is in the White House ... and, God willing, Hillary "What Happened" Clinton will be in the Big House ... is that multiple thousands, perhaps even millions, of Democrats helped put him there. I'm not talking about the ones who voted for him in the general election; I'm talking about the ones who cynically "crossed party lines" in the primaries to vote for Trump on the assurance of their Too Clever By Half leftist puppet-masters that getting Trump nominated as the Republican candidate would *help* Crooked Hillary win the general election.

Think about this for a minute -- these Democrat voters fully expected that the Republican establishment would honor their official rules ... even as it was a not-so-secret "open secret" that the Democrat establishment had rigged their primary, so that Democrat voters' votes were total shams.

The Second Coming ...

... of Reagan (*)

No matter what Trump says or does, the leftists are going to act as though he were The Second Coming of Ronald Reagan. So, while he's at it, he might as well out-Reagan Reagan.


(*) While I was not a "Never-Trumper", in the end I didn't vote for him (to be more precise, as I am passed tired of voting for "the lesser of two evils", I couldn't bring myself to vote for him). I voted for Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party. My second choice would have been the Conservative Party; but the Constitution Party's planks were more explicitly "socially conservative" and, indeed, unashamedly Christian, so I voted for them.

While I am still registered as a Republican, I have for many years despised the establishment GOP almost as much as I do the Dems, and for much the same reason -- they do not love America, and they do not see it as Job One to further the true, and long-term, interests of actual Americans over undocumented Democrats.

But, Trump, for all his faults, comes across as someone who really does love America and is working for the interests of Americans, rather than of foreigners.

And that, by the way, was Reagan's "secret" -- he loved America and Americans. He disagreed with the "big thinkers" in both parties that it was America's fate to be overrun by the Marxists (and, as far as most Dems were and still are concerned, that we *deserved* to be).

Collusion!

In the post Burn in Hell, commie pinko!, I had linked to an article from The Federalist discussing Ted Kennedy's courting of the Soviets to destabilize (sitting) President Reagan's foreign policy so as to help Kennedy's electoral challenge to Reagan in 1984 (*).

Turns out, Kennedy had *also* tried to pull the same trick against (sitting) President Carter in 1980 (**) -- DailyWire: 5 Times Democrats Tried To Work With The Russians [and Soviets] To Swing Elections

(*) As did (Democrat) Speaker of the House "Tip" O'Neill that same election cycle.

(**) Amusingly, that same year, President "Carter tried to work with the Soviets during the 1980 election to improve his chances against [challenger] Ronald Reagan."

What's a poor Soviet dictator to do when his "useful idiots" act like such useless idiots?

===========
There are *reasons* that the Partisans of the Ass are rightly called "the Party of Treason".

About the Dems' 'Trump is Caesar' Murder Porn

An amusing thing about the Democrats' "Trump is Caesar" murder porn is that Caesar was of the party of the 'Populares', rather than of the 'Optimates'. That is, according to the Democratic Party's own self-serving mythology about itself, Caesar was one of them!

Make America Slightly Better For At Least A Little While

Criticus Ferox at Rightly Considered: Attack Until We Crack

I hope everyone has been enjoying themselves. But let’s get real now. While Trump’s victory was a tremendous achievement, the situation remains extremely grim. The election results demonstrate that basically half of the current population of America is in the grips of the left, either as zealots or complacent followers. This is the product of years of indoctrination through every major sector of American culture – the institutions of education, the arts and entertainment sectors, and the news media – which are all firmly under the control of the left. This election doesn’t change that one iota. Unless the right figures out a way to take over those institutions – something they have never done and that no one is even seriously talking about – the historic American nation is doomed. Without accomplishing that as well as dealing with the demographic issues that will tip the electorate permanently to the left, it’s far from clear that Trump will even be able to win re-election in four years, let alone put America on some kind of path to greatness. We are not even close to making America great again. The accurate campaign slogan would have instead been: Make America Slightly Better For At Least A Little While. Doesn’t have quite the same ring to it, does it? ...

Attack until we crack? No! until they do. And then attack some more.

As for separation, Hell no! This is *our* country; let's not surrender *any* of it to the leftists. They are insane, let them die in the outer darkness of their insanity.

The *reason* that for over the past century the left have been wining their culture war and destroying the historic American Nation is because the right have not been fighting back, but rather constantly retreating. Look: we rightists have been lying to ourselves, albeit with a different lie, just as much as the leftists have been lying to themselves. Their lie is: If we force everyone (except The Leaders, of course) to be slaves of The State (which is to say, The Leaders), then Utopia will arrive and everyone will be free. Our lie is: If we surrender just this one more time, then they will finally leave us alone and free to live as we see fit.

The Utopia the left's useful idiots think they want can never arrive until Christ rules directly. The peace of being left alone by leftist busybodies that we rightists want can never arrive so long as there is even one leftist in a position to impose his vision of himself as The Anointed upon anyone else.

The Democratic Party

The Evil Party Democratic Party Platform (PDF format) to summarize: "Left! Kill! Left! Kill! Left! "

EDIT 2016/11/06:
Here is Victor Reppert, allowing his "liberal" politics to drive his morality:

I have a problem with the deeply un-Christian character that Trump consistently exhibits, and even without apocalyptic thinking here, he is deeply problematic from a Christian standpoint. And this is independent of the fundamental divide between liberals and conservatives.

When you say that you have the right to approach women sexually without permission, and that wealth and position of power gives you permission to do so, then you have something deeply un-Christian. I am not saying that this can't be repented of, but someone who has said those things has to really walk these attitudes back in ways in which Trump has not.

Here is my response:

VR: "When you say that you have the right to approach women sexually without permission, and that wealth and position of power gives you permission to do so ..."

That is not what he said, and you know that that is not what he said. He was laughing about (boasting about) how his wealth and fame gives him the opportunity to take advantage of one of the most common ways in which the sinfulness of women is manifest.

Meanwhile, and even aside from her own personal-and-well-known wickedness, Hillary is a Democrat -- Hillary is for murdering children and making you and me pay the murderers; Hillary is for forcing all doctors and nurses to participate in murdering children; Hillary is for persecuting Christians.

There is no such thing as "voting for the man, not the party"; to vote for a any politician is to vote for his party, all of it. The Democrats are the party of abortion (and treason, let us not forget that).

Anyone who votes for *any* Democrat for *any* office is guilty of the abortions the Democrats facilitate; unless one repents, anyone who votes for *any* Democrat for *any* office is already condemned by God.

When you stand before Christ in judgment, and he asks you about your active support of the Party of Abortion, do you *really* imagine that he's going to let you justify that by pointing to your support of the other sinful policies of the Democrats?

His title pretty much sums it up

Dalrock: Do as you please with their wives, so long as you respect her in the morning.

It has been telling that Republican outrage over the audio of Trump describing his attempt to cuckold other men is almost entirely focused on the fact that Trump spoke crudely in describing the way women threw themselves at him. Cuckoldry they don’t mind, but describing slutty women with disrespectful language is unacceptable!

Trump had claimed he pushed a married woman to have sex with him and said he could grab women “by the p****” because he was a celebrity. A recording of his conversation with then-”Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush was published by NBC News and The Washington Post on Friday.

“No woman should ever be described in these terms or talked about in this manner. Ever,” Priebus said in a statement released that night.

As the saying goes: "You know who rules you when you know who you cannot criticize [or speak the truth about]"


edit --
Or, to channel Ann Coulter, the number of women Donald Trump has left unconscious to drown in a submerged car is *still* zero.

Trump can't be Hitler ...

If he were, George Soros would be collaborating with him. here on (the evil) FB

The Street Called "Hate" Runs Both Ways

Kathy Shaidle: An open letter to those Jewish ladies on Facebook who REALLY hate Christians -- "... Anyhow, don’t worry: If you really cared about this, you would just go visit this pastor and his congregation and I’m pretty sure that after about 5 minutes, they wouldn’t like Jews as much any more!"

Yeppers. Some Jews are as irrational and as hate-filled toward Christianity and Christians -- and as irrational in their hatreds -- as the people who "((()))"


EDIT: Of course, the *other* thing about Miss Shaidle's open letter is the tribalism of Catholics in America (in this context, Canada counts as being part of America), including (or especially?) the ones, such as Miss Shaidle, who are only culturally Catholic. In a very real way, "non-observant" Catholics mirror "non-observant" Jews when it comes to waving the tribal banner.

Making America Mexico Again

By his appearance, this little boy at a recent anti-Trump demonstration in California could be one of my cousins, and certainly one of *their* cousins. And by the use to which his parents are putting him, it is clear that he and his parents are not Americans and do not belong in America.

Maverick Philosopher: Making America Mexico Again -- "There is, however, a minor problem with this notion, namely, that Mexican invaders will then have to travel so much farther north to get to a place worth living in.

The graphic below is from a recent Trump protest rally in California. ..."


As I keep saying, for many decades now, regardless of which party holds its presidency, the Mexican government has been pursuing a more patient version of the Green March ... with the deliberate connivance of the Democratic Party and the RINOs in the GOPe.

As much as a despise Trump, and always have, and likely always will, the fact remains that he is the *only* contender who is even making noises about stopping/rolling-back the Green (and White and Red) March.

Identifying the 'mark'

Canadian Cincinnatus: Why I don’t support Donald Trump -- "And then I realized, like I was shot with a diamond bullet, that there is no there there. Trump has no ideas, he has no philosophy, he has no governing principles. He is little more than a salesman selling himself. He is a hollow man, a stuffed man, headpiece filled with straw.

Not only doesn’t he know, he doesn’t care to find out - which is much worse."

Exactly.

"... There is an old adage that if you look around the card table and don’t see who the mark is, you’re the mark."

EDIT 2016/04/11 --

Edgestrow asks: "What does a voter like me do? I loathe Hillary, but fear Trump. Whichever way I jump, it's going to be against someone, not for anything."

There are multiple threads to untangle here; I certainly won't insist that I see them all, but let's see that we can untangle.

== Regardless of what precisely Edgestrow is thinking, there is this shallow and tendentious idea being pushed in the culture -- pushed: because when people let it rule their lives, they tend to surrender to things they ought to oppose -- that it is in some way wrong simply to oppose things, that you must always be for something rather than against the other thing.

Like so much else that is driving the current implosion of our civilization and of our polity, this idea goes back to the Progressive Era of a century ago (that is, to the intellectual-and-political ancestors of today's "Social Justice Warriors" and leftists in general).

This idea is promoted because it is a means to control people en masse: it is belovéd of marketing people -- which is to say, by people in whose interest it is to separate you from your money -- and by leftists -- which is to say, by people in whose interest it is to separate you from your liberty, and incidentally, from your money.

[As a side note: The "Pro-Life Movement" calls itself that, rather than the "Anti-Abortion Movement" or the "Anti-(Legalized) Murder Movement", because its leaders have succumbed to marketing. Imagine the absurdity of the old Abolitionist Movement -- the Anti-Slavery Movement -- calling itself the "Pro-Freedom Movement" or the "Pro-Economic Growth Movement".

For what it's worth, I am not "pro-life"; I am anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia ... because I am anti-murder]

== Sometimes, "the lesser of two evils" is still *just* evil -- I'm not myself convinced that Trump falls into that category, but if you believe that he does, then it seems that you should vote for no one for that office in the general election. Or, you could "throw away your vote" (as people like to put it) by voting for, say, the Constitution Party candidate in the general election.


== No one else has the right or the authority to demand that you draw the above line where they choose for you to draw it -- it is your right to refuse to participate or cooperate if you believe the even the "lesser evil" is still just morally evil.

Certainly, others have the right to attempt to persuade you to their position; just as you do toward them. Others have the right to (attempt to) show *others* that your position is untenable or false or irrational or even hypocritical; just as you do toward them. Others even have the freedom to heap scorn on you due to your thinking, or lack thereof, on whatever the matter is; just as you do toward them.

But, in the end, what you do is between you and God: we will all answer to God, and none of the little self-deceptions that people so love to hide behind will be able to withstand his presence. We will all be naked before God; so, the task we all have is to live so that we need not be ashamed of our nakedness.

== Trump as "dangerous" -- While it seems pretty clear that at least some of the Trumpkins hope that Trump will be the Second Coming of Obama, I don't see that as even a possibility. Obama is able to get away with behaving as though he were Ceasar because a powerful block of the people in Congress want the results he decrees, and large block of the people in Congress are indisposed to oppose his rule-by-decree.

But, I just don't see Trump as having that sort of institutional/establishment backing.

Conceivably, a Trump administration might even be a good thing in the long-run, for it might (let me stress the "might") result in the Congress re-asserting its primacy, and putting an end to the "imperial presidency".