Thanks, white men!

The Guardian put out this piece after the landmark decision in Alabama to ban abortion outright (other than serious threats to the woman’s health).  As if they are fighting for some grave injustice here.

Alabama’s new law mandating an almost blanket ban on abortion, the strictest in the United States, was passed by this group of exclusively white, male politicians.

The Alabama law will disproportionately affect black and poor women, because they are more likely to seek abortions, and less likely to have resources to obtain an abortion out-of-state.

Of the 27 Republicans, all white men, that dominate the 35-seat Alabama senate, 25 voted to pass the bill late on Tuesday.

This is what the Republican leadership group in the senate looks like, as presented on their caucus’s website:

<insert picture of heroic white men saving babies here>

There are only four women in the Alabama senate, who are among the eight-strong Democratic party minority in the upper chamber of the state legislature.

Two Republicans did not vote.

The legislation makes abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy, with the only exception for a serious threat to the health of the woman.

This is how far we’ve come, where this rag of a news outlet can publish this article as if they are the heroes here by outing the white men who voted to ban abortion in Alabama.  As if you needed a diverse constituent of people to agree that killing babies is a bad thing.  Somehow I don’t think these feral leftists would have blamed Hillary Clinton, had she been elected president, to make a decision to start World War III with Russia given that all those men, fighting because of her decision, would die because of the decision of a woman.  But what do I know.

We need to stop cowering anytime the abortion question comes up in conversation.  We are not in the wrong for being pro-life.  They’re fighting to have the right to kill unborn children.  As someone reminded me recently, we are fighting against people who want to kill unborn children, who never had any say in life, but they will fight to abolish the death penalty for people who made conscious decisions to destroy other people’s lives.  Welcome to clown world.  Honk honk.  The next time you hear the “her body, her choice” argument calmly remind them that they made a choice to give their body away to somebody.  They made their choice.  Now they should act like adults and deal with the consequences.  I know, I know.  You may not be able to party all night and get blackout drunk once you have a kid.  What a Greek tragedy.

States trying to keep Trump off the ballot

Stupid.  These people really have zero self-awareness.  There is nothing democratic about the democrats.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The California Legislature is trying again to force presidential candidates to publicly disclose their tax returns, hoping a new Democratic governor known for his clashes with President Donald Trump won’t block them this time.

The state Senate voted 27-10 on Thursday to require anyone appearing on the state’s presidential primary ballot to publicly release five years’ worth of income tax returns. The proposal is in response to Trump, who bucked 40 years of tradition by refusing to release his tax returns prior to his election in 2016.

California’s presidential primary is scheduled for March 3. If the bill becomes law, Trump could not appear on the state’s primary ballot without filing his tax returns with the California secretary of state.

“We believe that President Trump, if he truly doesn’t have anything to hide, should step up and release his tax returns,” said Sen. Mike McGuire, a Democrat from Healdsburg and the co-author of the bill along with Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat.

These scumbags really want us to keep taking them seriously, huh?  Dude, the (Democratic) Obama Administration illegally spied on Trump during the campaign process.  If he had anything to hide you would have already known about it when he was unaware he was being spied on.

We need to exercise a zero tolerance policy to anyone who continues to disparage our president or any leftist who thinks we should still take their opinion seriously on anything.  Like most totalitarians, they are perfectly okay with using the system illegally to serve their goals.  They will justify their bad behavior for some “greater good” every single time.  It’s time to start pushing back.  The days of politely ignoring need to end.  These people need to be called out on their BS whenever they bring it up.  We have the high ground, they do not.  Remind them A COUP was attempted on a democratically elected President.  Use whatever rhetoric is necessary to trigger these people.

I don’t care if it’s misplaced naivety or if they truly have darker goals.  They are a danger at this point and need to be called on their bad behavior.  Shame them for supporting politicians who illegally spy, kill babies, and now try to rig elections.  Enough.  If there is any shred of a chance of saving this country we need to start pushing back hard.  Frankly, it may be better to let things take their course and let the Empire crumble.  It’s time to build a new nation with Christian, nationalist, principles.  Let them build their shitty paradise of free everything for everyone and see how long that lasts.  It won’t take long for the rats to start devouring each other in their utopian shithole.

r/K Theory

If you’re not familiar with r/K theory it is well worth picking up Anonymous Conservative’s book on the subject.  Viewing politics, or many aspects of life for that matter, through this prism can be helpful.  This may alleviate some of the frustration you may have when trying to understand why the other “side” does not understand your position at all.  This is a small sample of the theory as laid out in chapter 1 of his book.  His blog is worth checking out too.  He posts daily examples of this linked to news stories.

The theory of this book is that there is a simple explanation for the origins of political ideology.  Put most simply, our two main political ideologies are merely intellectual outgrowths of the two main reproductive strategies that have been described in the field of Evolutionary Biology for decades.

Biologists have long recognized that two different psychologies exist in nature.  These two psychologies each guide the organisms which hold them to pursue behaviors which will be most likely to yield survival and reproduction.  These psychologies are referred to as reproductive strategies, but they are really deeply imbued psychologies.  They frame how an organism views the world, how it views its peers, and how it behaves as it moves through life.

The study of these psychologies is often described using the shorthand “r/K Selection Theory.”  Both the “r-strategy” and the “K-strategy,” as they are referred to within the field, are psychologies which yield behavior that is custom tailored to a specific environment.  In humans, as in nature, the r-psychology is primarily an adaptation to the presence of copious resources, which do not require out-competing peers.  This is a condition which reduces the advantages of producing fit offspring, in turn favoring the fastest and most prolific reproducers, regardless of offspring quality.  By contrast, the K-psychology is an adaptation to a relative scarcity of resources, where only the fittest compete and survive.  This produces an increased selective pressure favoring the survival of more advanced and fit specimens.  It also reduces the advantages of producing copious numbers of less fit offspring.

Although the presence of absence of resources may vary within a population over the short term, over the long term these two environmental conditions will usually accompany either the presence or absence of a constant, high mortality, most frequently predation.  Predation lowers population numbers and prevents overcrowding, thereby increasing the per-capita resources available to each individual.  This prevents the onset of resource shortage due to overpopulation.

It is for this reason that the r-strategy, which is the evolutionary origin of liberalism, is most often seen in nature within prey species.  Meanwhile the K-strategy, which underlies conservatism, is most often seen in species which are not preyed upon.  This is in fact, the biological “Conservatives think like lions, liberals think like lambs.”  Lions are a K-selected species which exists sans predation.  As a result, each new lion must compete with its peers to acquire a share of the limited resources available to the population.  As a result, lions evolved to exhibit a K-type, competitive/aggressive psychology that intensively rears offspring to compete.  Sheep, by contrast, are a more r-selected prey species, surrounded by fields of grass they will rarely, if ever, fully consume.  This is reflected in their less belligerent, more pacifistic, more freely promiscuous nature.

One species exhibits a psychology which is belligerent, competitive, and sexually restricted and selective, so as to compete for limited resources and produce the fittest offspring.  The other exists as the exact opposite, simply trying to turn resources into offspring as quickly as possible, regardless of fitness.  Each is perfectly designed to compete with peers in their respective environment.

The r-strategy entails five main psychological traits.  Each trait is designed to help an organism out-compete peers in the r-selected environment of free resource availability.  This psychology exhibits a psychological aversion to both, competition with peers and the competitive environment.  It also exhibits a tolerance for, or embrace of, promiscuity, low-investment single-parenting, and early onset sexual behavior among offspring.  It will also tend to not exhibit any group-centric urges, such as loyalty to in-group, or hostility to out-group.

Of these five traits, (competition aversion, promiscuity, single parenting, early onset sexuality, and aversion to group-centrism/ethnocentrism), political leftists exhibit a tolerance of, or an embrace of, all five.  Indeed, as we will show, these five urges explain the entire liberal platform of issue positions.

Liberalism seeks to quash competitions between men (from capitalism, to war, to citizens killing criminal attackers with privately owned firearms).  Liberalism also adopts a lax attitude towards rampant promiscuity, if it is not actively embracing it.  Liberals tend to support single parenting, such as was seen in the debate over the TV show Murphy Brown’s glorification of single motherhood.  Liberalism exhibits a tolerance for, or an embrace of, ever earlier sexual education for children as well as an ever more serialized media environment to which children are exposed.  Liberals tend to rejecte ethnocentrism, and view a tendency towards a pack mentality as an odd and foolish evolutionary throwback.

On top of all of this, at the heart of most liberal policy is a fundamental perception that resources exist in limitless quantities, and that any shortage is not inherent to the finite nature of the world.  Rather, any shortage must be due to some specific individual’s greed altering the world’s nature state of plenty, which would otherwise be able to easily provision everyone with a comfortably high level of resources.  This is a psychology designed to avoid danger, and focus the individual on reproducing as fast as possible.  In our ancient evolutionary environment, absent birth control and abortion, this would produce large numbers of offspring, beginning early in life, and it would be perfectly adapted to r-selection, where every offspring would have food and survive.

The K-strategy entails an embrace of five opposite psychological traits.  K-selection favors an aggressive embrace of competition, and the competitive environment, where some individuals succeed, and others fail, based on their inherent abilities and merits.  It tends to reject promiscuity in favor of sexual selectivity and monogamy, and it will strongly favor high-investment, two-parent offspring-rearing.  The K-strategy also favors delaying sexual activity among offspring until later in life, when maximally fit.  Finally, in its most evolved form, K-selection will tend to imbue individuals with a fierce loyalty to their in-group, to facilitate success in group-competitions.  Competition, shortage, and conflict are the evolutionary origins of the pack mentality, and they are ever present in the extreme K-selected environment.

Clearly, conservatives favor competition, from capitalism, to war, to armed citizens fighting off criminals with personally owned firearms.  Conservatives accept that such competitions will produce disparate outcomes which will be based on inherent ability and effort.  Conservatives favor a culture of monogamy over promiscuity, and they tend to desire a culture which favors high-investment, two-parent child-rearing, as evidence by the conservative uproar over Murphy Brown, as well as the growing debate over “family values” within our culture.  Conservatives also tend to want to see children protected from sexually stimulating themes or sexual education until later in life, so they will be more likely to delay the onset of sexual activity until they are mature.  Of course conservatives have always viewed liberals as exhibiting diminished loyalty to their nation and its people because to a conservative, patriotism, and support for “one’s own,” is a vital moral quality in peers and its expression can never be too exaggerated.

Again, this is a psychology, designed to house one’s genes in carefully reared, highly fit, competitive machines.  It is perfectly adapted to confront conditions of resource limitation, where one’s only means of acquiring resources is to be better at competition than your peers, and to do whatever it takes to not be the individual who failed to succeed.

Why do the r and K reproductive strategies exist?  How exactly does each strategy offer advantage to the individual who exhibits it?  Let’s take a closer look at r and K in nature.  Suppose you have a field, and it produces enough grass to support 100 r-selected rabbits.  A group of owls moves in however, and keeps the rabbit population at only 20 rabbits, in a field which produces enough food to support 100.

Now this environment offers specific advantages and disadvantages to each rabbit.  The owls will shorten each rabbit’s average lifespan.  As a result, Darwinian selection will favor rabbits which reproduce fast and early.  If a rabbit waits to mate, it will be eaten, and that sexually procrastinating trait will be culled.  As a result, those rabbits that produce the next generation will have no compunction about mating as early as possible.  In this environment, “teenagers” and “children” mating is simply normal, as anyone who feels otherwise is eaten prior to reproducing.  Mating earlier also offers a numerical advantage in offspring production, which is advantageous when the competition is about producing as many offspring as possible.

Conflict is an unnecessary risk, since each rabbit already has vastly more food than it can eat.  Those who compete will waste time and energy fighting for something which is already freely available elsewhere.  Those who fight will risk injury and death, while those who do not fight will enjoy the same freely available food, absent any risk, simply by fleeing to another green pasture.  The fighters and competitors will produce fewer offspring than those who avoid competition’s risk and will find themselves numerically out-reproduced by the more prolific individuals who avoid conflict and competition.

Under r-selection, monogamy is disadvantageous, since to impregnate only one mate, and then see the few offspring you have with her eaten, is to see yourself fail, in Darwinian terms.  Monogamy will only produce so many young.  Thus in this environment, one is best served by producing as many offspring as possible, by as many mates as possible, beginning as early as possible.  IN that way, it becomes likely statistically that come of your numerous children will survive to reproduce.  Since under conditions of r-selection, these are the traits Darwin rewards, these are the traits which will emerge within a species placed within an r-selecting environment.

Since producing high numbers of offspring is the goal, it is also advantageous to not waste too much time on rearing any one offspring.  The goal in r-selection is mass production, as early and as often as possible.  Those who produce more offspring, even less fit offspring, out-compete those who do not, since fitness is unimportant when resources are free and there is no competition.  As a result, high-investment parenting for extended periods will give way to investing as little as possible in each offspring’s rearing, so one may dedicate oneself to the actual act of reproduction, and produce as many offspring as possible.  Since resources are freely available, and aggression an competitions are rare, offspring do not require much education or protection anyway, and they may be turned out of the home relatively early to fend for themselves.  Males will also abandon impregnated females with offspring so as to pursue their highly promiscuous mating strategy.  You see how free resources can actually devolve a population, reducing greatness.

Since there is no competition, there is no need to ally with anyone else to compete for resources.  As a result, these rabbits will not evolve any group-centric urges, or emotional connections to their peers.  Indeed, the very notion of in-group or out-group would be puzzling to them, if you could communicate the concept.  Each rabbit is wholly on their own – at most a part of a global rabbit warren.

As a result of all of this, in this environment a population will evolve to avoid conflict and competition, mate with as many partners as possible, mate early, and not invest highly in any one child, while feeling loyalty to no one.  The emphasis, as so many biology textbooks will assert, is to produce quantity over quality when producing offspring in an r-selective environment.

Now supposed we zoom out from the field, and zoom in to a nearby forest.  There, several packs of K-selected wolves exist in harmonious balance with a deer population.  Once these wolves reproduce, there will not be enough food to support the entire population of wolves, so some wolves will die due to starvation.  This creates a different selective pressure entirely.  Here, to survive, a wolf must aggressively compete with his peers for a share of the limited food available.  Those who avoid conflict and competition, in hopes of stumbling on non-existent food elsewhere, will die from starvation.  The wolves who survive will be those who go after any food they see, even if they have to try and take it from another wolf by force of violence.  Thus, such a K-type psychology will evolve to exhibit a more aggressive, competitive nature, more accepting of violence, and more accepting of inevitable disparities in competitive outcomes between individuals.

Of course a wolf’s success, in Darwinian terms, will revolve not just around surviving and mating, but also around producing offspring who survive and reproduce themselves.  From a Darwinian perspective, if a parent survives and mates, but all of their offspring die due to competitive failure, the parent may as well have no bothered reproducing at all.  As a result, K-selected wolves will evolve a psychology designed to invest heavily in a few, highly competitive offspring.  This will produce a small number of offspring that are likely to outcompete their peers, rather than a larger number of lower quality, competitively incompetent offspring.  Those wolves who mate randomly and often, with any mate they happen across, will see their numerous haphazardly produced offspring killed off by the fitter offspring of those parents who carefully sought out the fittest mate possible, and then competitively monopolized their mate’s genetic fitness through monogamy.  As a result, this K-trait of careful mate selection, and competitive monopolization, will emerge spontaneously as Darwin works his magic.

Young wolves will evolve to wait before entering the competition for a mate, so as to make sure they are as competitive as possible and are not simply killed by their older competition due to their immaturity.  Parents will also evolve to discourage such early sexual precociousness in their young, so their young will be maximally mature (and maximally attractive to highly fit mates) when pursuing their own lifetime mate.  Likewise, parents will evolve towards high investment, two-parent (or even pack) rearing, so as to better protect their offspring until they are ready to compete, and to carefully prepare them for the rigorous competition with peers which awaits them.

Intense K-selection often evolves into groups of individuals competing with other groups, since this is a more effective way to acquire limited resources than working along.  As a result, K-type organisms will tend to evolve into groups of individuals who exhibit pro-social traits, such as loyalty to in-group and disregard for out-group interests.  This is why K-selection produces packs of wolves, family groups of elephants, pods of dolphins, and prides of lions, all of whom care deeply for each other, while mice, antelope, deer, rabbits, and any other r-selected species will not exhibit any sadness should one of their ranks fall prey to a predator.

Since rabbits exist at the bottom of the food pyramid in nature, and are preyed upon fairly consistently by a wide range of predators (from owls, to hawks, to foxes), rabbits never truly experience the K-selected environment for any extended period.  As a result of eons of fairly consistent r-selection pressures, they express a consistently r-type psychology throughout their species.  Other species, which have existed for long periods under conditions of limited resources, will be highly K-selected in their psychology and behavior.  Still other species can exhibit a mix of r and K-type psychologies, due to a variety of unique environmental conditions, among them having a history of living in varying environments with periodic resource abundances and resource shortages.

Man is a higher level species on the r/K spectrum, but it is easy to see historically how groups and individuals could shift on the spectrum depending on the conditions of the time.  Looking through this filter, it is easier to understand the shift towards r-strategy for some when we introduced the welfare program into the United States, for example, which in some ways acted like the “unlimited resources” spoken about specific to r-type selection.  Once you understand the theory you will start to see examples of it all over the place.  I highly recommend checking out his book.  As always, people will point out exceptions to the rule and think they’ve somehow debunked an entire area of study that on the macro generally works out very well.  Think of it as a useful heuristic.  If nothing else you may become less frustrated if you can ascribe one’s behavior to a deeper biological mechanism.

Oh how far we have fallen

Newsweek reported last week of an incident at the southern border wherein two US Army soldiers were disarmed by Mexican soldiers….in the US.

Two U.S. Army soldiers sat in an unmarked Chevrolet Tahoe owned by U.S. Customs and Border Protection on the west side of an El Paso County, Texas, colonia known as Las Pampas.

It was April 13, and the Army sergeant and private had set up a hasty observation post north of the Rio Grande but south of the border fence in U.S. territory. The soldiers were members of B Battery, 1st Battalion, 37th Field Artillery Regiment, out of Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state. The unit, part of the Southwest border mission President Donald Trump first ordered in October 2018, recently had its deployment extended to September.

At roughly 2 p.m. local time, the soldiers observed five to six individuals dressed in green pixelated military camouflage uniforms and carrying weapons, which appeared to be the FX-05 Xiuhcoatl, an assault rifle designed and built for the Mexican armed forces.

The armed men swiftly approached the U.S. service members, crossing over from the Mexican side of the Rio Grande into U.S. territory and ordering the soldiers out of their vehicle at gunpoint.

And further down:

The U.S. soldiers said the Mexican soldiers moved tactically fast on their U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) vehicle, which was unmarked. The Army soldiers did not have enough reaction time to activate a 911 emergency on their Shout Nano, a cellphone-sized, two-way GPS tracking device that also doubles as an emergency beacon when soldiers are in need of additional military units.

Speaking in Spanish, the Mexican soldiers instructed the sergeant and the private to move to the front of their vehicle, where they were “gently searched,” according to the incident report. The sergeant’s service pistol, the Beretta M9, was removed from his hip by the soldiers and thrown inside the U.S. government vehicle.

The U.S. soldiers reported they did not see “any identifiable seals or symbols” on the Mexicans’ vehicle and “could not identify any patches or name tapes on the uniform except for the Mexican flags.”

The deputy director of public affairs for NORAD and U.S. Northern Command, John Cornelio, said in a statement to Newsweek on Friday that a joint inquiry by CBP and the Defense Department revealed the gunmen to be Mexican military members who believed the U.S. soldiers were south of the Mexican border.

“After a brief discussion between the soldiers from the two nations, the Mexican military members departed the area. The U.S. soldiers immediately contacted CBP, who responded quickly. Throughout the incident, the U.S. soldiers followed all established procedures and protocols,” the statement said.

“Throughout the incident, the U.S. soldiers followed all established procedures and protocols.”  If allowing unidentifiable Mexicans disarm you and police you on your own soil is what passes for following procedures and protocols then our military is in an even worse state than previously thought.  Seriously, this just as easily could’ve been cartel members instead of alleged Mexican soldiers.  For all we know it actually was cartel that realized they had stopped soldiers and didn’t want to start an all-out war and both governments are saying it was soldiers to cover this point up.

Observe how we handle defending our actual borders, on actual US soil, compared to how fast and loose we fight and defend on foreign lands.  Our priorities have been so inverted that the vast majority of the public doesn’t even blink an eye about how ass backwards this is.  The Empire is crumbling.  China runs roughshod on the waters knowing we aren’t the Naval power we once were.  Central and South America laugh at us as they allow more migrants to pour into our country.  We draw red lines in the sand threatening these countries with sanctions and then back off when they walk right over them.  As the main character of HBO’s “Succession” once said, “sometimes it is a big dick contest”.  All of this capitulation and backing down and drawing red lines that aren’t hard stops make us weaker.  Countries notice when we do not project strength.  And constant capitulation and backing down will not bode well in future encounters.

Assange Arrested

Julian Assange, one of the last true journalists left in the world, and probably the bravest given that he has literally risked his life to report the truth, was arrested in London after being kicked out of the Ecuadorian embassy.

WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange was arrested in London on Thursday morning, after Ecuadorian diplomatic officials invited British police into the country’s embassy to apprehend the Australian.

Assange had been living in the embassy of Ecuador in London under diplomatic asylum since 2012, and was granted citizenship by Ecuador in 2017.

Ruptly journalist Barnaby Nerberka has been broadcasting live from the embassy since tensions escalated between WikiLeaks and the Ecuadorian government of Lenin Moreno last week, and captured the arrest on camera.

Last week, WikiLeaks said sources within the Ecuadorian government told them that Assange was due to be expelled from the embassy “within hours to days,” an allegation the Ecuadorians were quick to deny. It now seems those reports were accurate.

WikiLeaks has maintained that Assange is likely to be extradited to the United States if expelled from the embassy, and was mocked as paranoid by some in the mainstream media for repeated claims that sealed charges existed in the U.S. against the journalist. WikiLeaks was eventually vindicated, as the existence of those sealed charges was revealed in November last year.

In June last year, Vice President Mike Pence pressured the Ecuadorian government on the status of Assange following demands from Senate Democrats that he do so. The New York Times reported in December that Ecuador has been offered debt relief by the U.S. in exchange for handing over Assange.

Assange was monumental in the email dumps that largely contributed to Hillary Clinton losing the 2016 election.  The DNC screamed and shouted that they were hacked.  The smart money is the DNC having had one of their own, Seth Rich, having leaked the emails instead.  He was murdered in an apparent robbery, though none of his possessions were actually taken.  Kinda strange for an alleged robbery, no?  And why else would WikiLeaks offer a reward for information?

Ecuador had every right to expel him from their embassy.  He had been there seven years.  But why now?  Q folks speculate his extradition to America is to really get his testimony into the official record.  Whether that’s true or not, time will tell.  But one thing is true, Julian Assange is a true journalist, who sought the truth and had the cajones to publish it, literally risking his life to do so.  Given that he had published information at one time or another that damaged both Democrats and Republicans he clearly wasn’t in it for political points from one side or the other.  How many journalists today take the hard road, the road that will pit you against the Clinton death machine?  A road that would keep you trapped in an embassy for seven years.  We shall see what happens to the man, but his contribution to preventing Clinton from taking office and the heinous crimes she and the Deep State committed against America cannot be understated.  None of what is going on right now, “the storm” that is brewing, would have been possible if she had won, and her odds of winning would have been much higher had Assange taken the easier road, one that nobody could really fault him for taking.

President Trump cleared

As expected, President Trump was exonerated of any wrongdoing in the waste of time that was the Russia investigation.  Now, observe your liberal friends.  Here is where you’ll find those who want the best for the country and those who secretly want it to devolve into a socialist shithole.  Someone with America’s best interests in mind would be delighted and relieved to know their President is not a Russian puppet.  They would be reassured that their President has been scrutinized perhaps more than any person ever (both legally and illegally) and they came up with exactly NOTHING.  Shouldn’t this make them happy?  Rest assured, most of these globalists will be disappointed rather than relieved.  And that should tell you a lot about their character and their thought process, and how little they really care about this country or its citizens.  And this is the saddest part.  They would rather be right; they would rather have found their President to be a Russian puppet than be wrong.  SAD!  I can honestly say suffering through the Obama years I never once wished him to be doing something illegal.  I wanted him to be doing the best for the country.  I supported him, even though I completely disagreed with him and his atrocious policies.

Most nationalists have patiently let their childish globalist friends bitch and moan and complain and yell like little children for more than two years now.  Do not let them off the hook.  All the hysteria from this almost tore the country apart.  They were supporting a side who broke the law multiple times to try and find dirt on the President.  They were willing to do this.  They do not respect the rule of law and it is obvious they do not want the best for this country.  Remind them of this constantly.  All too often we let their hysteria fade into the background as if it never happened (Kavanaugh hysteria, anyone?).

Of course this won’t stop them from bitching and moaning and complaining, but we can dream.

Welcome to Minnesota

So much for that whole assimilation thing, huh?

One commentator makes a good point wondering whether these were refugees who were placed in Minnesota or if they were legal immigrants.  Generally speaking legal immigrants do take more pride in being American.

This is just a microcosm of what will be happening all over the country.  Multiculturalism doesn’t work.  Rather than get one fluid “American” community you will see more and more enclaves of every part of the world speaking their own languages, practicing their own customs, and making their small part of America just like home.  Their real home.

Uniparty passes bill to end border national emergency

This is what I’m talking about with how deep the rot is.  Republicans are no better than Democrats.  They are all the same.  A nice analogy I’ve heard is that the Republicans are the Washington Generals playing the Globetrotters.  They are controlled opposition.  President Trump will now have to veto this to keep the national emergency at the border.

The Senate passed a resolution on Thursday that would end President Donald Trump’s national emergency on the border with less than a veto-proof majority; however, the president has already threatened to veto the legislation.

The Senate passed on a resolution Thursday, 59-41, that would end President Donald Trump’s national emergency. The vote featured strong Democrat support for the bill and a surprising amount of Republicans voting for it. The House passed its version of the resolution in February with the help of 13 Republicans.

Several Senate Republicans voted against President Trump’s national emergency..

Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Mitt Romney (R-UT), Mike Lee (R-UT), Rand Paul (R-KY), Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Rob Portman (R-OH), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Roy Blunt (R-MO) voted in favor of eliminating Trump’s national emergency, which would make it harder to secure America’s southern border.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who previously signaled he would vote to end the emergency, said he will back Trump’s emergency after Trump said he will work with Republicans on a president’s national emergency authority. Tillis is up for re-election in 2020.

Sens. Cory Gardner (R-CO), Mike Braun (R-IN), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Joni Ernst (R-IA), and Pat Roberts (R-KS) voted in favor of the national emergency.

Conservatives conserve nothing.  They just forfeit more and more territory.  Spineless.  Hopefully this is the last nail in the coffin for anyone thinking anybody in Congress is working for them.  Of all the BS national emergencies put forth by clowns like Obama or Bush, the one that they strike down is one protecting our own border.  If tens of thousands of illegals trying to cross our border (read: invade) every month isn’t a national emergency then I don’t know what is.

The rot runs so deep you need to blow up the whole system.  It seems the best way to fix it at this point is appoint Trump as some kind of dictator.  Seriously.  He can’t do anything with Congress.  They block him every single time.  And if they don’t the courts do.  There is no way off this ride.

Tear it all down

It is becoming abundantly clear at this point that the rot is too deep to salvage anything.  It is like a stage 4 cancer patient with metastasis everywhere.  By trying to resect each tumor you leave nothing left.  Here’s the latest treason going on in the 9th district courts.

While everyone sleeps, the courts are abolishing all immigration enforcement

· March 11, 2019

Congress could never get away with creating constitutional rights for illegal aliens to remain here, yet a single lower court just did so on Thursday. And where Congress would face deep reprisal in the next election, faceless judges will never feel the heat.

Conservatives fear that extreme Democrats might actually abolish ICE and all immigration enforcement, but the lower courts are already systematically abolishing ICE’s authority, nullifying immigration enforcement statutes, violating separation of powers, and constantly increasing the wave of bogus asylum-seekers that they originally spawned with other radical rulings. The latest ruling from the Ninth Circuit demonstrates that unless Republicans and the president begin pushing back against these radical judges and delegitimizing their rulings, Democrats will get everything they want without ever facing electoral backlash or even the need to win elections.

It’s truly hard to overstate the outrageously harmful effects of Thursday’s Ninth Circuit ruling. For the first time in our history, the courts have fabricated a constitutional right for those denied asylum to appeal to federal courts for any reason.

Here’s the background.

Hundreds of thousands of migrants are flooding our border, claiming the formula of “credible fear” of persecution. They get to stay indefinitely while they ignore their court dates in immigration court. Because of an amalgamation of several prior activist court rulings, mainly by this very circuit, roughly 90 percent of credible fear claims are approved by asylum officers and the claimants shielded from deportation, even though asylum status is ultimately rejected almost every time by an immigration judge. Unfortunately, by that point it’s too late for the American people, who are stuck with the vast majority of these claimants remaining indefinitely in the country. Yet rather than ending this sham incentive, the Ninth Circuit drove a truck through immigration law by asserting that there is now a constitutional right for even the few who are denied initial credible fear status and are placed in deportation proceedings to appeal their denials, not just to an administrative immigration judge but to a federal Article III judge for any reason.

In past cases, the courts merely twisted statutes and contorted their plain meaning. In this case, for the first time ever and in direct contrast to a ruling by the Third Circuit in 2016, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the immigration statute that denies the federal courts jurisdiction to hear such appeals is unconstitutional under the constitutional requirement of habeas corpus, thereby giving 7.8 billion people in the world habeas corpus access to our courts. This will allow numerous illegal aliens, including the brand-new ones entering now, to stay indefinitely while they litigate themselves into status. The ACLU, which of course led this lawsuit on behalf of a Sri Lankan migrant denied asylum, wasn’t kidding when it proclaimed, “The historical and practical importance of this ruling cannot be overstated.”

And lastly, further down:

Justice Robert Jackson, the great champion of due process and the dissenter in the Japanese internment case, described it this way: “Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will.” Due process for aliens in the context of immigration decisions is whatever Congress says it is. As the court said in Lem Moon Sing v. United States, “The decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law.” Liberals have been trying to attack this for decades and ensure that even the aliens we successfully deport expeditiously (increasingly a small number) can remain here indefinitely and tie up our courts with lawsuits. If we allow this game to continue, the flow at our border will make what Europe is dealing with look like child’s play.

The entire article is worth a read.  But I really fear our government is stage 4 at this point.  I have no doubt President Trump is trying to salvage what he can, but when the entire system is rotten to the core, Congress, the courts, the ABC agencies, if he just mass arrested everyone now there would be nothing left and functionally probably an unviable government for the time being.  And I think he is still in the mindset that he wants to ease us into the pain as softly as possible.

The reality is this is going to be an ugly fall all around.  President Trump has done some amazing things, but it is definitely too little too late.  All of these parts are interconnected.  And while he is doing a great job with the economy, that will suffer hard too along with everything else.  The best thing at this point is to pull the plug, expose everything, and rebuild our institutions from the ground up.  Before that can even be done there will likely be civil war in this country.  America as we once knew it is effectively dead.  It is better to face and acknowledge that reality rather than cover our ears and sing to ourselves that everything is okay.

We have lost the rule of law.  We have lost the will to prosecute those violating said laws.  We have even lost the moral imperative.  The wizards want you to think that everything is subjective; that there is no objective truth.  When you accept that you also implicitly accept that evil can be acceptable and rationalized.  All of these are connected with turning away from Christianity as a society.  Evil has woven itself so tightly into our government and our institutions that to combat the evil means destroying the very institutions we are trying to save.

At this point, just do what you can to protect your family.  You will not want to be living in a big city when the proverbial shit hits the fan.  Try and become self-sufficient.  Learn actual skills that can be applied off the internet.  Grow a garden.  Arm up.  We didn’t want it to end this way but we would be fools to see the writing on the wall and not do anything to prepare for it.  And pray.  A lot.

Right on time

You should check out unz.com if it is not in your regular rotation of websites.  Ron Unz and Steve Sailer are great.  This piece posted by Philip Giraldi today echoes something I alluded to in this post yesterday, mainly, why is dual citizenship legal and how do we know where one’s loyalties lie when they have it?

The Solons on Capitol Hill are terrified of the expression “dual loyalty.” They are afraid because dual loyalty means that one is not completely a loyal citizen of the country where one was born, raised and, presumably, prospered. It also suggests something more perverse, and that is dual citizenship, which in its present historic and social context particularly refers to the Jewish congressmen and women who just might be citizens of both the United States and Israel. There is particular concern over the issue at the moment because a freshman congresswoman Ilhan Omar has let the proverbial cat out of the bag by alluding to American-Jewish money buying uncritical support for a foreign country which is Israel without any regard to broader U.S. interests, something that everyone in Washington knows is true and has been the case for decades but is afraid to discuss due to inevitable punishment by the Israel Lobby.

Certainly, the voting record in Congress would suggest that there are a lot of congress critters who embrace dual loyalty, with evidence that the loyalty is not so much dual as skewed in favor of Israel. Any bill relating to Israel or to Jewish collective interests, like the currently fashionable topic of anti-Semitism, is guaranteed a 90% plus approval rating no matter what it says or how much it damages actual U.S. interests. Thursday’s 407 to 23 vote in the House of Representatives on a meaningless and almost unreadable “anti-hate” resolution was primarily intended to punish Ilhan Omar and to demonstrate that the Democratic Party is indeed fully committed to sustaining the exclusive prerogatives of the domestic Jewish community and the Jewish state.

The voting on the resolution was far from unusual and would have been unanimous but for the fact that twenty-three Republicans voted “no” because they wanted a document that was only focused on anti-Semitism, without any references to Muslims or other groups that might be encountering hatred in America. That the congress should be wasting its time with such nonsense is little more than a manifestation of Jewish power in the United States, part of a long-sought goal of making any criticism of Israel a “hate” crime punishable by fining and imprisonment. And congress is always willing to play its part. Famously, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) official Steven Rosen once boasted that he could take a napkin and within 24 hours have the signatures of 70 Senators on it, reflective of the ability of the leading pro-Israel organization to impel the U.S. legislature to respond uncritically to its concerns.

The problem with topics like these in the current year are that they are by and large verboten to speak about.  If we cannot speak and openly debate topics that make people uncomfortable, people will skulk back to their echo chambers and only read and watch stuff that support their position.

It is not anti-Semitic to question the loyalty of those we have elected to Congress, and whether said loyalties align with the interests of the people who elected them in the first place.  The list posted below is a little outdated, but you get the idea.  There are a LOT of people with dual US/Israeli citizenship in Congress.  And it seems like the only things that get unilateral approval are those policies that benefit Israel first and foremost.  The key words there being FIRST and FOREMOST.  Why are people okay with this?  Something tells me people would have a hard time if a large portion of our Congress shared dual US/Chinese citizenship or US/Russian citizenship, no?

us-senators-and-represntatives-dual-israel-citizens

It is telling that the first thing to pass Congress after the mid-terms was a bill that penalized companies who chose to boycott Israel.  Because we don’t have any other pressing matters in this country, right?  Why is it only with matters concerning Israel does anything get done in Congress?  We give Israel on average over $3 billion a year in foreign aid, which hardly anyone in Congress bats an eye at, but President Trump can’t squeeze a paltry $5 billion out of a deadlocked Congress for a wall to protect our own citizens.  Why?  When’s the last time you heard Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi criticize Israel’s wall?  Have you heard them lobbying to have it torn down?  Of course not.

IsraelForeignAid

And why is it that again, during a deadlocked Congress, the only time people rush to do anything is to quickly put out a statement condemning hatred when someone, a Muslim Democrat, asks a legitimate question with relation to the US and Israel?  Isn’t that telling?

Enough already.  You are entirely allowed to criticize a country, Israel in this case, without being anti-Semitic.  And you should question the motives of those who would rather shut you up altogether and attack you with baseless slurs rather than debate the topic at hand.

Abolish dual citizenship.  There should be no room for wondering whether our Congresspeople have our best interests at heart or the best interests of their other country prioritized first.  It is somewhat absurd we even have to have this debate.  American citizens want leaders who will put America first, period.

%d bloggers like this: