"The Homeschoolers Who Proved That School Is a Waste of Time"

=====
"Of course, there are disadvantages to homeschooling, too. If enough people do it, tattoo artists, body-piercing parlors, drug dealers, and abortionists may go out of business."
=====

Also, contrary to their constant whining, teachers are NOT underpaid. Moreover, these days, even the somewhat normal ones, the ones who aren't trying to recruit you children into sexual perversion, tend to be idiots.

I wasn't home-schooled, but three years of my schooling (8th-10th grades) was comparable to home-schooling. And, if not for those three years of absence from the government-union run indoctrination centers, I know that I would not have finished high school, much less college. By the way, overnight, I went from being a "C- student" to being a "straight A student" (and this was without "grade inflation").

The final straw (*) occurred when I was in 7th grade, and the principal told my father, "We don't need students like your son in our school", and my father decided, "You know, I think I agree that my children don't need to be in your school.". You see, I had dared to fight back against a kid who bullied me daily. And worse, I had dared to "call out" a teacher who was refusing to protect an unpopular kid from a mob of "vibrant youth", a few of whom intended to beat the shit out of him (**), and the others to watch and laugh at his pain and injury.

So, my father found places for us for the next school-year in a Seventh-Day Adventist school (we are not Adventists). This wasn't cheap. Or, rather, it *was* cheap, but it was also a *huge* portion of the family income (as I recall, the first year cost $1000 for the four of us).

This is how I think that that "religious" schooling was somewhat comparable to home-schooling: Each class was actually two grades, combined (1/2, 3/4, 5/6, 7/8, 9/10). Other than the 9th and 10th grades, a single teacher taught the combined classes: sometimes the two grades received the same lesson, but usually one grade had "study hall" while the other had active instruction, all in the same room. As I mentioned, I went from being a "C- student" in 7th grade, to being a "straight A student" in 8th grade. Moreover, I not only had time -- while at school -- to do all my school-work, but I also had free time to do what interested me. What interested me was history, and without knowing what it was, during that free time I read the entire history book that would be the text in 9th grade history class.

(*) Mind you, this was 55+ years ago. The public schools have been shit for a very ling time.

(**) You've surely seen some of the recent videos of gangs of "vibrant youth" knock someone to the ground and then kick the defenseless person in the head . This behavior is not new.

Selwyn Duke: The Homeschoolers Who Proved That School Is a Waste of Time

When Is Charity Not?

Notice the high-lighted claim this "whistleblower" makes -- the "migrant shelter" he was running was charging the tax-payers of Massachusetts $180 per room per night, even if the room was empty. *Someone* is making bank from this "charity".

Most institutional charity involves some sort of scam, and often fraud; it the very least, it is based on false premises. If there is "government money" involved, you can be sure that there is fraud involved ... and *you*, Dear Taxpayer, are on the hook for funding the scam.

I live in the middle of a city of 50K. This is an older part of the city, so the lots are on the small side, but they still average at least 50x150; that is, they are large enough that the residents could have a nice garden, did they wish to do the work to put in and maintain one.

Several years ago, the city -- at tax-payer expense -- put in a "community garden" on a vacant lot a few blocks from my house. During the summer, the city sends a water-truck around to water the "gardens". Shortly after creating the "gardens", the city -- again at tax-payer expense -- had to put a fence around the lot, to protect the "gardens" from vandalism (*). This wasn't a cheap fence; it's wrought-iron. And, it's gate is kept locked, except at posted times. So, that means that the city pays a public employee to come around to unlock the gate. I presume, but don't know, that that employee stays on the premises, at tax-payer expense, during open hours.

A few years ago, at a lot perhaps 1/2 mile from my house, a "charitable group", I presume a church, started serving a free meal once a day (at noon), regardless of weather. Because weather exists, they built a roof over the serving area. Then, due to the behavior of their clientele, they had to install ground-to-ceiling fencing around the roofed area. And, no surprise, the picnic tables are chained to weights.

I sometimes see some of the regulars "served" by this "charity". They tend to smoke, at the very least cigarettes; I've seen some of them "paper-bagging" alcohol. My point is that by indiscriminately giving people "free" food, what the "charity" is *really* doing is subsidizing their tobacco, and pot, and alcohol, and smart-phones.

(*) It's possible that what the city saw as vandalism was actually damage from deer. You see, while I live in the middle of a city of 50K, there is a family of deer who make my property their home-base. And that "community garden" is certainly close enough to be visited by them.

Every year, the matriarch doe has two fawns. Just the other day, I startled this year's twins. She seems to allow the previous year's fawns to stay with her, and I sometimes see all five together. A couple of years ago, I stepped out the front door and encountered a buck. It's not uncommon, as I'm working in my (fenced) garden, to notice one or two young deer watching me.

Believe you me, you don't want deer living in your yard: they eat nearly everything you try to grow.

Ex-Migrant Shelter Director Blows Whistle on Fraud

Stop Telling Little Girls "You can be anything you want to be!"

Women should not be cops. No woman should be a cop, but especially short, fat women, who can't even kneel, should not be cops. Once a female cop enters the "situation", the likelihood that someone is going to get shot, and generally unnecessarily, dramatically increases.

For that matter, the male deputy in this situation doesn't appear to be all that fit, either.

The insanity on view in the body-cam footage -- the female deputy's unnecessary shooting of the criminal, and her endangerment of the male deputy's life -- lies ultimately at the feet of the high-level bureaucrats and politicians who care more about their damned DEI spreadsheets, and thus their raises and promotions, than they care about the lives of the citizenry, or of the cops, or of the criminals.

EDIT:

Apparently, the criminal died. While it's true that I have no sympathy for criminals, the fact remains that his death was utterly unnecessary ... and he's dead precisely because the raises and promotions of high-level bureaucrats follow from their DEI spreadsheets.

PS:

The criminal's relatives are going to file a wrongful death suit against Harris County (Texas), and they're going to win a massive pay-out. And who is on the hook for that? As always, the taxpayers, but never the politicians and bureaucrats who are causing the problem in the first place.

PPS (2025/05/30):

To be clear: it appears in the video that the fellow was initially cooperating with the deputies. It appears that he started resisting and fighting when she tried -- recall: short, fat, can't kneel -- and failed to cuff him. It appears that she twisted his arm into an unnatural and painful position, and that that is when he started fighting. It appears that the entire escalation, and his resulting death, is due to her inability to do a job for which no woman is really qualified.

Hodge Twins: Female Cop Just Stands There While Partner Fights Suspect Alone

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

When is a "Refugee" not a Refugee?

Isn't this odd --

1) Illegal aliens from Central and South America (and from all across the world, actually) -- from countries which are poor, certainly, but in which people are not being murdered for political reasons -- who, were they actually "refugee", have traversed any number of "safe" countries, in which they were required by "International Law" (such as it is), flood into America ... and the leftists insist that they are "refugees" who *cannot* be sent home.

2) The Trump administration is attempting to allow Afrikaners -- white South Africans who *are* being murdered for racist political reasons, and with the connivance of the South African government -- to *legally* come to America as refugees ... and those same leftists mock their designation as "refugees".

Why, one might get the impression that leftists hate white people as much as they hate America. 

Even Infinite Buckeroos Will Not Feed Us

In the linked video, Dan Tubb of LotusEaters.com discusses "Modern Monetary Theory", the insane socialistic hyper-Keynesian "economic theory" by which our rulers are destroying us.

My comment/response --

The *point* of an economy is not to "add value", but rather to generate/create wealth. Certainly, "adding value" ... well, adds value. But, if there is not an underlying and robust generation of wealth to which to "add value", then everyone dies, no matter how much "value" is being added as we all die. In the "buckeroo" pseudo-economy, no wealth at all is being generated; that "economy" is nothing more than an accounting trick. Moreover, in its interface with the real economy, it almost certainly destroys wealth, rather than creating it. For, of a certainly, whatever tasks the students do at the hospital to earn the buckeroos will be either pointless waste-of-time make-work, or something that regular employees are already being paid to do. While the "work" the students perform to earn those buckeroos may potentially be "useful" (or not), that work's relationship to the real economy of wealth-creation is no different than if they were made to dig holes one day, and fill them in the next. Now, hospitals are certainly nice things to have, and a well-run hospital "adds value" to its community. BUT, hospitals do not generate wealth; rather, they consume wealth. In that regard, hospitals are luxuries: we cannot have hospitals unless and until we have an underlying economy producing enough excess wealth to support siphoning off enough wealth to fund the hospitals.

Dan Tubb, LotusEaters: The Nonsensical Economic Theory That Affects Your Life

It's an odd world

What an odd world we find yourselves in.

According to many judges (*), including those on the highest court, we mere US citizens do not "have standing" to petition the courts (i.e. said judges) to order that the laws be faithfully enforced by the persons whose sworn duty it is to faithfully enforce the laws. BUT, according to that some gaggle sort of judges, lawyers and NGOs (often, or even exclusively, funded by monies forcefully extracted from us citizens), DO "have standing" to petition the courts (i.e. other lawyers, the ones who dress funny) to FORBID the faithful enforcement of the law.

(*) And remember, judges are just lawyers (**) who dress funny.

(**) Further remember: No matter the legal system, the lawyers of that system will *always* attempt to corrupt it to serve their own interests.

What Is Your Citizenship Worth?

Will American citizens *ever* get it into their heads that the Democratic Party is the sworn enemy of the American People and of our Republic? Or are too many Americans content to vote against the interests of their children and grandchildren, so long as they are told that "the rich" are being made to suffer?

Will black American citizens *ever* get it into their heads that the Democratic Party *despises* them and is *using* them as a cats paw? Or are too many black Americans content to cut off their noses to spite their faces, so long as "the white man" is made to suffer?

EDIT (2025/06/06):

The Democrats are now openly/explicitly calling illegal aliens "undocumented citizens". No one who has been paying attention can be surprised at this, as making your citizenship worthless has been their over-riding goal for many decades now.

So, again: "What Is Your Citizenship Worth?"

"It's Un-American" - 19 Democratic State AGs Sue To Stop Trump Blocking Non-Citizen Voting

Doom, All the Way Down

This -- adults brow-beating 12/13 year-old girls to change clothes in front of a boy -- is the world that *women* demanded. And it will not be solved until *women* abandon feminism, root and branch.

By the way, the late Phyllis Schlafly -- remember her -- *warned* us that if the ERA were ratified, that *this*, and worse, would be among the inevitable results. Thanks in large part to Mrs Schlafly, the ERA wasn't ratified ... but the leftists figured out how to use the "Civil Rights Act of 1964", coupled with judicial imperial over-reach, and the craven acquiescence of elected officials, to achieve the same vile goals.

Things are only going to get worse unless *women* reject feminism, and that must include refusing to vote for *any* Democrat or *any* RINO. And, it most assuredly means abandoning the immoral claim that women have a right to murder their babies.

Matt Walsh: Mom Reveals HORRIFYING Details Of Woke Middle School Corruption

Where Are All the Democrats, So Quick to Stir the Pot At Any Other Time?

I wasn't able to speak for hours when my father died. I can't imagine how difficult it would be to speak after losing a child in such a horrible and senseless manner.

The answer to the question posed in the video's title is: No. And we all know it, and we all know why, and we all know how things would have gone were the races reversed. And we all know the why of that: Democratic Party racist hypocrisy.

Where is B Hussein "If I Had a Son" Obama? Where is Ben "Can I make It Worse?" Crump? Where is Elie "Q-Tip" Misstal? Where is Al "Oddly Slim of Late" Sharpton? Where is Joy "Less" Reid? Where is Don "Wanna Snif?" LeMon? Where is Cory "Spartacus" Booker? Where is Keith "Tanktop (if you know, you know)" Ellison? Where is Jasmine "Ratchet" Crockett? Where is Hakeem "Dimestore Obama" Jeffries? Where is Ayanna Pressley? Where is Kamala "Middle Class" Harris? Where is Maxine "Mad Max" Waters?

Where is Chuck "We Will Win! We Will Win!" Schumer? Where is Nancy "I Got Mine" Peolsi? Where is Adam "Lying Pencilneck" Schiff? Where is Tim "Timpon" Walz?

Surely, these notables (and so many others I haven't named) have some Words of Wisdom to share with us!

Quartering: Will Cities Burn For Him? White Track Star SNUFFED Out By Thug Over Sitting In The Wrong Seat

Fox: ‘HUG YOUR BABIES TIGHT’: Grieving mother, brother of murdered teen speak out

Congresscritters ... and Public Accusations, While Shielded From Liability

Back in February (of 2025), Congresscritter Nancy Mace (R-Feminism) used -- misused -- her congressional immunity from legal liability to accuse four men of some terrible crimes -- 

Nancy Mace Makes EXPLOSIVE Sexual Assault, Voyeurism Allegations On House Floor

Apparently, she has a habit of accusing people (which is to say, men) of various foul deeds. She accused a fifth man of assaulting her during an event at the Capitol last year. On Tuesday (2025/04/01), federal prosecutors moved to drop charges against this man: Charges dropped against Illinois man accused of assault by Rep. Nancy Mace

Note this quote from the linked article:

Several eyewitnesses disputed Mace’s characterization of the Dec. 10 incident, suggesting it looked like a “normal handshake.”

A few days ago, I had seen a YouTube video which purported to show the video of the encounter.  IF that video was indeed a record of the full encounter, then I have to agree with the above quote.

Apparently, this most recently accused man is a "trans-rights activist" -- which means that he is as despicable as she is. But, this intellectually dishonest game of "Won't You Strong Brave Men Protect Poor Little Me No Matter What Accusation I Make?" played by feminists, in general, and she, in particular, must be called out, and it must stop.

Why America Is Doomed

These sorts of abominations (as see the linked 'X' post) sprout from the anti-Constitutional Civil Rights Act of 1964, and they are rooted in the 17th (Popular Election of Senators) and 19th (Female Suffrage) Amendments. That the federal government is killing the nation via taxation and reckless deficit spending is rooted in the 16th (Income Tax / Direct Taxation of the People) Amendment.

And this is why America is doomed:

1) Almost no American man is willing to acknowledge that Female Suffrage was a civilization-ending mistake, lest women whine at him;

2) Almost no "conservatives" are willing to acknowledge that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is fatally flawed, and that it is the basis by which the commies are undermining our liberties (and very much including the liberties of black Americans), lest the communists call them racist.

=====

LAWFARE: An Obama-appointed judge has blocked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's mandate, which required all U.S. soldiers to meet uniform physical fitness standards, ruling that it discriminates against those who are not physically fit.

=====

Post on 'X'

Have I Changed, Really?

 Recently, I posted a semi-meme on FascistBook, which said this: 

"Democrats, please clam down. Musk can't become President. Unless ... he can find the guy who made Obama's birth certificate."

A few days later, a woman I had known in college (i.e. 45+ years ago), made this comment, attached to the above:

"Troy, what has happened to you? The guy I knew in college wasn't full of spite and meanness. Do you really think this is helping anything? I guess "love your neighbor as yourself" is just a nice little phrase reserved for Sunday school. It's crap like this that is driving young people away from the church, and vitriol never won a single soul."

Now, this is the same foolish and absurd woman who, in 2016 (*), I think, though it might have been in 2220 (**), said something on FascistBook to the effect that she couldn't fathom how people who call themselves Christian could even consider voting for the man who said the sort of things about women that he had said.  She was referring the the "leaked" "Access Hollywood" tape, in which Trump had crudely -- but accurately -- stated a basic truth about women in general, and certainly about the sort of women who gravitate to the circles in which he moves.

This foolish and absurd woman accuses me of being "full of spite and meanness", in apparent contrast to what she imagines I was like 45+ years ago.   I am, in fact, a very kind man, as I always have been ... but I no longer hold my tongue in the presence of lies and intellectual dishonesty, as I did when I was a conflict-avoidant youth.  You could say, I have grown into myself.

But, so too has this foolish and absurd woman grown into herself. You see, way back in 1979 or 1980, I noted to myself the trajectory she was on.  One spring day before I graduated (so, probably 1980) both Debra and I happened to be hanging out in her mother's office (oh, that poor woman!), and she opined about how it was the moral duty of mankind to protect and preserve every living species.  I said nothing to the contrary, because as a boy and young man I was extremely conflict-avoidant, but I thought to myself, "I can think of any number of species I'd eradicate in an instant, if I could."

"It's crap like this that is driving young people away from the church, and vitriol never won a single soul."

This foolish and absurd woman isn't concerned with saving souls -- she supports the Party of Baby-Murder, she supports the Party of Enforced Sexual Perversity, she supports the Party of Sexual Mutilation of Children, she supports the Party of Destroying the Working-Class (****), she supports the Hate America First Party.  I could go on, but you get the picture -- she supports the Party of The Lie; everything follows from The Lie.

In truth, it's only "crap like this" -- speaking the truth, no matter how loudly the leftists shriek -- which has any chance of drawing young people to Christ.

No, it's not me being "full of spite and meanness", to which this foolish and absurd woman objects, but rather that I mock the lies with which she chooses to swaddle her mind.

(*) when the presidential choice was between Trump (a '90s Democrat; a sort-of "pro-life" (***) lite adulterer) and Hillary Clinton (a Current Year Democrat, a rabid promoter of abortion, and an enthusiastic participant in the destroying of women who brought credible accusations of sexual assault/abuse against her husband).  As I've said a time or two, I voted for neither of them; I voted for the Constitution Party, a party whose platform was unashamedly Christian.  

What do you think are the odds that oh-so-Christianly-concerned Debra did likewise?  No, she voted for the Democratic Party, the same one she's trying to shame me for opposing.

(**) when the presidential choice was between Trump (a '90s Democrat; a sort-of "pro-life" (***) lite adulterer) and Joe Biden (a very pro-abortion adulterer, credibly accused of rape, who fondled women and children right out in public view, with the cameras running)

(***) As I've said before, I despise the label "pro-life": it's the sort of pablum served up by 5th Avenue to appeal to weak-minded women (and womanly men). I'm not "pro-life", I'm anti-murder.

(****) Her father was a university instructor, and I believe her husband is also; that is, she has lived most of her life in the sort of social and intellectual cocoon in which it doesn't affect you, personally, if your ideas and ideology are for shit.

===========
Edit:
By the way, I'm a bit mystified as to how she even saw that I'd posted the original semi-meme. I mean, it's not as though we are "friends" on FascistBook.

Also, have you ever noticed that these tone-police sorts are always such flaming hypocrites?

Exploding the Myth of "Three Co-Equal Branches of Government"

We all were taught in high school civic class that the US Constitution establishes "three co-equal branches of government".  This is a myth - it is both a lie and a pernicious lie.  It is a lie, because it is not true. It is a pernicious lie, because it is actually and intentionally a cover for the unconstitutional imperial over-reach of the judicial supremacists.

I have long argued that Article III (Section 2) of the US Constitution makes it clear that the Congress has the general power to limit the jurisdiction of all federal courts, including the highest-level court (you know, the one that judicial supremacists have trained us to think of as "THE Supreme Court")

I have long known that there are federal statues in which the Congress explicitly states that the courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate certain maters.  But, as I knew no way that I could find an example of such a statute, I have not previously made reference to Congress exercising that power.  However, seeming by chance, in reference to a recent example of judicial imperial over-reach by a "activist judge", the YouTuber Tim Pool real aloud a section of such a statue (see the last link, to the YouTube video). And so, having an example of the Congress exercising this power, I bring it to Gentle Reader's attention.

Below, I have quoted actual existing federal law: Section 221 (sub-sections  h and i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Notice that sub-section (h) explicitly establishes that no alien has a right to enter the US, even if a visa has been issued him.  

Notice that sub-section (i) gives the Executive branch discretionary authority to revoke and invalidate any alien's visa or other such documents and explicitly states that "There shall be no means of judicial review ... of a revocation under this subsection, except ..."

Understand this:

1) The "three co-equal branches of government" myth we were taught is a lie;

1a) In fact, the Legislative branch is supreme, notwithstanding that all three branches have powers into which the other two may not intrude;

2) The mere lower-court judge who has decreed that the Executive may not immediately deport a certain foreign agitator is violating the explicit language of this statute and is attempting, as "activist judges" always do, to set himself above both the Legislative and the Executive branches, and ultimately above the Constitution itself.

Section 221(H,I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

(h) Nonadmission upon arrival

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to entitle any alien, to whom a visa or other documentation has been issued, to be admitted the United States, if, upon arrival at a port of entry in the United States, he is found to be inadmissible under this chapter, or any other provision of law. The substance of this subsection shall appear upon every visa application.

(i) Revocation of visas or documents

After the issuance of a visa or other documentation to any alien, the consular officer or the Secretary of State may at any time, in his discretion, revoke such visa or other documentation. Notice of such revocation shall be communicated to the Attorney General, and such revocation shall invalidate the visa or other documentation from the date of issuance: Provided, That carriers or transportation companies, and masters, commanding officers, agents, owners, charterers, or consignees, shall not be penalized under section 1323(b) of this title for action taken in reliance on such visas or other documentation, unless they received due notice of such revocation prior to the alien's embarkation. There shall be no means of judicial review (including review pursuant to section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title) of a revocation under this subsection, except in the context of a removal proceeding if such revocation provides the sole ground for removal under section 1227(a)(1)(B) of this title.

Tim Pool, reading from Federal Statue -- Section 221(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act --  (@8:10 mark)

Commies ... and "Christian Nationalism"

Someone whom I have known for most of my life sent me a video clip of an advertisement for the leftist mockumentary "God and Country" with the assessment "ominous".  Below is my response; pray that it reaches his heart.
=====
I watched the clip, and my previous response was based on only what I heard the commie pretending to be a Christian say.  However, I had no idea what you thought is "ominous".  

But, after googling "God and Country", I think I understand -- you watch too much MSDNC, and they have you in a tizzy over something they are calling "Christian Nationalism" (*).  To put it another way, they have you in a tizzy over ... me.

If you'd care to *learn* something about what "Christian Nationalists" *really* say and aim for, might I suggest paying attention to Douglas Wilson.  He's a Calvinist and a pedobaptist, both of which I believe to be erroneous, but other than that, he's sound. 

"Blog & Mablog" is him reading the text of posts he writes for his "old-fashioned" written blog (also called "Blog and Mablog") -- YouTube search "Blog and Mablog"

"Cannon Press" is more a podcast, with guests and so forth -- Cannon Press (YouTube)

Also, Voddie Baucham is in the "Christian Nationalism" orbit -- Voddie Baucham SPEAKS UP About Trump, Wokeism, Growing Up Fatherless

(*) As best I understand it, it was the leftists/atheists who came up with the term "Christian Nationalism" -- both of which are boo-words to commies, and so doubly scary when paired -- and the people whom they were seeking to smear thereby decided that one name is as good as another, and so adopted it.

====== 

EDIT (2025/03/13): 

James Talarico (whom I'd never heard of until now); "Christian Nationalists have a Heart Full of Hate"

Douglas Wilson (@ 4:13 mark): "We will look over the fact that we have an elected representative, in a pulpit, talking about doctrine; telling us what we should and shouldn't do. This is just a variant form of 'Christian Nationalism'.  He wants to be a 'Christian Nationalist', it's just that his idea of Christianity is all screwed up."

I would phrase that last sentence as: "He wants to impose *his* idea of 'Christian Nationalist' on the rest of us, but his idea of Christianity is all screwed up."

"Christian Nationalists have a Heart Full of Hate" | Doug Reacts to James Talarico

There Is No "THE Supreme Court"

Sean Davis is off to a good start ... but hasn't yet freed his mind of the judicial supremacy (*) lies we all were taught in civic class.

1) There is no such thing as "THE Supreme Court" --

The Constitution uses the adjectives "supreme" and "inferior"(Note: capitalization as per the Constitution) to distinguish the singular highest-level court from the multiplicity of lower-level courts which the Congress may establish from time to time;

1a) That is, what we mistakenly call "THE Supreme Court" is "supreme" only with respect to the lower/inferior courts;

2) Except for some explicitly enumerated sorts of cases reserved to the high court, the jurisdiction of *all* the federal courts, including the high court, can be expanded, or curtailed, as the Congress sees fit;

2a) Far from establishing "3 co-equal branches of government" (*), the Constitution *actually* establishes the federal courts as creatures of Congress.

(*) The "3 co-equal branches of government" claim is a lie invented by lawyers to disguise their judicial supremacy power-grab.

A Counterfactual: US Citizenship, according to the Democrats --

An alternate history thought-experiment:

On December 8, 1941, the Empire of Japan invaded and occupied the US territory of Hawaii. During the following months, Japan stationed 100,000 soldiers and sailors in the islands, along with 5,000 Japanese civilian administrators.

At the time of the hard-fought US Liberation of Hawaii on July 4, 1944, there were living in Hawaii:
- 33,000 Japanese POWs;
- 4,000 Japanese civilian former administrators;

- 6,000 dependents of those civilian former administrators;

- including 1,000 who had been born in Hawaii.

According to the logic of the Democrats concerning the 14th Amendment, those 1000 Japanese children born in Hawaii are US citizens, and are not merely US citizens, but are indeed natural born US citizens, and thus eligible to be US President in about 35 years. And, moreover, they and their parents cannot be repatriated to Japan, For, after all, they were born in the de jure territory of the USA, irrespective of the illegality of their mothers being in US territory at the times of their births.

Obviously, this is absurd.

Likewise, the Democrats' assertion about "birthright citizenship" for "anchor babies" is absurd.

"No" to Civil War 2.0

Look, if California Dems want to secede from the Union, and they are able to convince the citizens (and not to be forgotten: the non-citizen voters) to go along with that suicidal move, it is their right to do so, despite the lie we all were taught in civics class since the falsely-named Civil War.

California Dems like to boast that if California were an independent nation-state, they would have the 5th-largest economy in the world. What they overlook is that California's economy is as large as it *precisely* because California is a State in the USA. As an independent nation-state, their economy would quickly contract.

Also -- and I'd bet you that the Dems haven't thought of this -- IF California were to secede from the US ... which is the state's right to do ... THEN the USA no longer has an obligation to send Colorado River water to California. And, without that water, California's economy would collapse.

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

Yes, The 19th Amendment Was a Mistake

The *reason* that some of the Western frontier States enacted female suffrage years/decades before the (evil) so-called Progressives convinced the country as a whole to enact female suffrage was that those frontier States had a lot of unmarried men ... who sometimes had political interests divergent from the interests of married men. THAT IS, female suffrage was initially enacted to double the political power of married men *as a class* over and against the political power of single man *as a class*.

And, of course, once the (evil) Progressives got their mitts on the levers of political power, the purpose of female suffrage became to convince women *as a class* that their interests diverged from the interests of men, and specifically from the interests of those men who have a vested interest in the *individual* welfare of those women: their fathers and husbands.

EDIT: At the same time, the 17th Amendment -- direct election of US Senators -- was a worse mistake than the 19th. And the 16th Amendment -- i.e. the one which established the principle that the US government *owns* your income (and thus owns you) -- was worse yet. Essentially, *all* the "Progressive Era" amendments had the effect of shrinking the citizen while growing the government.

The 19th Amendment Was A MISTAKE, Timcast Crew DEBATES Women Voting