vdare--2020-01-15--Faith Goldy Video: Immigration Moratorium Redux!

No sane person is holding their breath for the resurgence of flapper skirts or a Harlem Renaissance redux now that the globe ’ s hit the Roaring 20s 2.0 , but there is one movement from America ’ s 1920s that her 2020s would do well to imitate : An immigration moratorium .
Despite what the ‘ diversity is our strength ’ Democrats and the ‘ send us your cartels ’ Statue of Liberty might say , America actually has a long history of restricting immigration—and that history proves moratoriums work !
Take , for instance , the Immigration Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrictive immigration policy , which limited America ’ s overall number of immigrants and established quotas based on nationality .
Among other things , the 1924 Act sharply reduced immigrants from “ undesirable ” regions like Africa while completely restricting immigrants from Asia , with a few exceptions .
Congressional leaders at the time were concerned about the large influx of workers willing to do jobs on the cheap .
However , the Act also made more visas available to people from places like Britain and Western Europe .
The perception ( and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been settled primarily by Western European stock .
Fast-forward to the 1920 ’ s and nearly one-third of the American population consisted of immigrants .
Meantime , the birth rate among immigrants suggested that their proportion of the population would only continue to rise .
( Hmm… Undercutting homegrown wages while outbreeding America ’ s parent culture… Sound familiar ? )
The generation that immediately followed the Immigration Act—the 1940s and 50s—were met with only very minor immigration policy changes , and it was during this period that America 's Golden Age took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a single ballot being cast on the issue—an utterly transformative policy befell the American people .
Under pressure in part from the civil rights movement , Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act , a.k.a .
the Hart-Celler Act .
The Act eliminated the quota system based on nationality and instead prioritized immigrants who already had family members in the US , while also offering protection for so-called refugees .
Instead of sourcing immigrants from Europe , most immigrants to the US by the end of the 20th century originated from Latin America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greater numbers .
Despite assurances by Hart-Celler advocates that the bill would add little to the immigrant stream , more than seven million newcomers entered the country legally during the 1980s alone , while that trend has only increased up until today .
Meanwhile , illegal immigration began its decades-long surge , as culturally cancerous policies like : DACA , amnesty , dirt-right citizenship , tech overclass visas with pathways to Green Cards , and the diversity lottery , not to mention the lack of a substantial Southern Border Wall have only served @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And the effects of said demographic headstand have touched every corner of American life : • Color by numbers in her classrooms , where nonwhites now account for the majority of the nation ’ s K-12 students in public schools • America ’ s shrinking working class , no thanks to legal visa programs • Student visa recipients who overstay their welcome and compete with college-educated Americans for work • Rape , murder , and robbery at per capita rates double to quadruple that of whites • Demographically disproportionate love for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-Hispanic white Americans are forecasted to become a minority in America come 2050 .
Thus , should current trends continue , Republicans will never be able to win a presidential election ever again—thanks to legal ( not just illegal ) immigration !
Why are Republicans afraid to discuss this ?
Are they expected to just commit suicide ?
And don ’ t kid yourself : Trump ’ s Immigration Plan will only delay America ’ s demographic tailspin by a maximum of 5 years .
Which is precisely why only an immigration moratorium @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rapid reshaping of America ’ s character and culture .
And while Trump has breathed life into the cause of immigration skepticism in Washington , it ’ s unlikely that he ’ s going to be the guy to propose and push for a moratorium .
Luckily , a new generation of insurgent Republican Congressional candidates understand desperate times call for desperate measures .
Take Jarome Bell , of Virginia ’ s second congressional district , who ’ s calling for a complete moratorium on all immigration—including the legal variety !
Or Peter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tremendous success , taking his message of zero net immigration on to Fox News primetime , before North Carolina ’ s State Board egregiously had his name removed from the ballot .
And then there ’ s Joshua Foxworth , running in Texas ’ s 14th Congressional District .
Foxworth wants to end Guest Worker visa programs , build the wall , eliminate the diversity visa lottery and chain migration , and told VDARE.com that he , too , backs an immigration moratorium .
These pro-moratorium Congressional candidates aren ’ t racists or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking cues from their ancestors .
Americans throughout history have understood demographics is destiny and have taken muscular policy action to secure their future .
President Trump didn ’ t bring immigration skepticism to America , he just reminded folks of a conversation they ’ d already been having for over a century—before the political class told us it was forbidden .
Faith Goldy [ Email her | Tweet her ] is a Christian Canadian Nationalist independent commentator and investigative journalist .
Goldy hosts ‘ The National Question ’ on VDARE TV .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with : Toronto Sun , Sun News Network , National Post , Rebel News , The Blaze , Laura Ingraham Radio Show , Chorus Radio ’ s AM 640 , Bell Media ’ s Newstalk 1010 , Vision TV , Zoomer Radio , and The Catholic Register .
Goldy 's videos are featured regularly on her YouTube channel and right here at vdare.com .

Watch the latest video at bitchute.com
No sane person is holding their breath for the resurgence of flapper skirts or a Harlem Renaissance redux now that the globe’s hit the Roaring 20s 2.0, but there is one movement from America’s 1920s that her 2020s would do well to imitate: An immigration moratorium. Despite what the ‘diversity is our strength’ Democrats and the ‘send us your cartels’ Statue of Liberty might say, America actually has a long history of restricting immigration—and that history proves moratoriums work!
Take, for instance, the Immigration Act of 1924: America’s most restrictive immigration policy, which limited America’s overall number of immigrants and established quotas based on nationality. Among other things, the 1924 Act sharply reduced immigrants from “undesirable” regions like Africa while completely restricting immigrants from Asia, with a few exceptions.
Congressional leaders at the time were concerned about the large influx of workers willing to do jobs on the cheap. However, the Act also made more visas available to people from places like Britain and Western Europe. The perception (and reality) was that the US had been settled primarily by Western European stock. Fast-forward to the 1920’s and nearly one-third of the American population consisted of immigrants. Meantime, the birth rate among immigrants suggested that their proportion of the population would only continue to rise. (Hmm… Undercutting homegrown wages while outbreeding America’s parent culture… Sound familiar?)
The generation that immediately followed the Immigration Act—the 1940s and 50s—were met with only very minor immigration policy changes, and it was during this period that America's Golden Age took place.
But then, in 1965—without a single ballot being cast on the issue—an utterly transformative policy befell the American people. Under pressure in part from the civil rights movement, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act, a.k.a. the Hart-Celler Act. The Act eliminated the quota system based on nationality and instead prioritized immigrants who already had family members in the US, while also offering protection for so-called refugees. Instead of sourcing immigrants from Europe, most immigrants to the US by the end of the 20th century originated from Latin America, Asia, and Africa—and in far greater numbers.
Despite assurances by Hart-Celler advocates that the bill would add little to the immigrant stream, more than seven million newcomers entered the country legally during the 1980s alone, while that trend has only increased up until today. Meanwhile, illegal immigration began its decades-long surge, as culturally cancerous policies like: DACA, amnesty, dirt-right citizenship, tech overclass visas with pathways to Green Cards, and the diversity lottery, not to mention the lack of a substantial Southern Border Wall have only served to hasten America’s demographic headstand.
And the effects of said demographic headstand have touched every corner of American life:
Color by numbers in her classrooms, where nonwhites now account for the majority of the nation’s K-12 students in public schools
600 million dollars per day spent on illegal immigration
America’s shrinking working class, no thanks to legal visa programs
Student visa recipients who overstay their welcome and compete with college-educated Americans for work
Rape, murder, and robbery at per capita rates double to quadruple that of whites
Welfare dependency
Demographically disproportionate love for the Democrats, alone.
This, as non-Hispanic white Americans are forecasted to become a minority in America come 2050. Thus, should current trends continue, Republicans will never be able to win a presidential election ever again—thanks to legal (not just illegal) immigration!
Why are Republicans afraid to discuss this? Are they expected to just commit suicide?
And don’t kid yourself: Trump’s Immigration Plan will only delay America’s demographic tailspin by a maximum of 5 years. Which is precisely why only an immigration moratorium will yield meaningful results in the ongoing rapid reshaping of America’s character and culture. And while Trump has breathed life into the cause of immigration skepticism in Washington, it’s unlikely that he’s going to be the guy to propose and push for a moratorium.
Luckily, a new generation of insurgent Republican Congressional candidates understand desperate times call for desperate measures. Take Jarome Bell, of Virginia’s second congressional district, who’s calling for a complete moratorium on all immigration—including the legal variety! Or Peter D’Abrosca whose short campaign achieved tremendous success, taking his message of zero net immigration on to Fox News primetime, before North Carolina’s State Board egregiously had his name removed from the ballot. And then there’s Joshua Foxworth, running in Texas’s 14th Congressional District. Foxworth wants to end Guest Worker visa programs, build the wall, eliminate the diversity visa lottery and chain migration, and told VDARE.com that he, too, backs an immigration moratorium.
These pro-moratorium Congressional candidates aren’t racists or radicals. They’re patriots, taking cues from their ancestors. Americans throughout history have understood demographics is destiny and have taken muscular policy action to secure their future. President Trump didn’t bring immigration skepticism to America, he just reminded folks of a conversation they’d already been having for over a century—before the political class told us it was forbidden.
Faith Goldy [Email her | Tweet her] is a Christian Canadian Nationalist independent commentator and investigative journalist. Goldy hosts ‘The National Question’ on VDARE TV. Goldy's media career has included work with: Toronto Sun, Sun News Network, National Post, Rebel News, The Blaze, Laura Ingraham Radio Show, Chorus Radio’s AM 640, Bell Media’s Newstalk 1010, Vision TV, Zoomer Radio, and The Catholic Register. Goldy's videos are featured regularly on her YouTube channel and right here at vdare.com.


vdare--2020-01-15--Kritarchy Watch: Random Judge Overrules The President, Decides States Must Accept Refugees

Imagine believing this has anything to do with the Constitution , the intent of the Founders , or the `` @ @ @ @ @ Naturally , the people who brought the lawsuit are those the `` religious '' organizations @ @ @ @ @ to facilitate this replacement migration .
Of course , if local and state communities are @ @ @ @ @ , in what sense do they have any real control ?
What kind of self-government @ @ @ @ @ The invaluable Daniel Horowitz seemingly predicted this , arguing in a recent podcast that President @ @ @ @ @ duck '' unless he starts defying these lower courts , who have gone completely mad @ @ @ @ @ has President Jackson 's portrait hanging in the White House , honored his 250th birthday @ @ @ @ @ his admiration for Old Hickory .
It 's time for the man we thought would @ @ @ @ @ to follow his example .
They 've already impeached him .
What else can they @ @

Imagine believing this has anything to do with the Constitution, the intent of the Founders, or the "rule of law."
President Trump A federal judge in Maryland temporarily blocked an executive order signed bythat would allow state and local governments to refuse to accept refugees. Judge Peter J. Messitte of the Maryland District Court granted a motion from refugee groups to temporarily stay the order while their legal challenge against the president plays out. "By giving States and Local Governments the power to veto where refugees may be resettled — in the face of clear statutory text and structure, purpose, Congressional intent, executive practice, judicial holdings, and Constitutional doctrine to the contrary — Order 13888 does not appear to serve the overall public interest," Messitte, who was appointed by former President Clinton, wrote in his opinion. Federal judge blocks Trump order allowing states to refuse to settle refugees , by Harper Neidig, The Hill, January 15, 2020]
Naturally, the people who brought the lawsuit are those "religious" organizations that seem to exist purely to facilitate this replacement migration.
The lawsuit was brought by the refugee groups HIAS, Church World Service and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.
Of course, if local and state communities are not allowed to stop resettlement, in what sense do they have any real control? What kind of self-government does America really permit?
Arguably the right to include or exclude is the single most fundamental right that any political community can exercise.
That America’s elite (judges, in this case) has been at war with this principle for decades says something about whether we actually live in a free country. https://t.co/h5TyqdshVQ — Blair Nathan (@Blair_A_Nathan) January 15, 2020
The invaluable Daniel Horowitz seemingly predicted this, arguing in a recent podcast that President Trump is a "lame duck" unless he starts defying these lower courts, who have gone completely mad with power.
Contrary to what many conservatives think, we are not winning back the courts. I explain how the Left has adapted to new tactics and is winning more than ever before on immigration cases in the courts. I go through some insane rulings creating a right to immigrate and how, even after the Supreme Court sides with Trump, lower court judges still engage in civil disobedience. Trump has no choice but to refuse to give their acts of disobedience effect. As I explain, this is exactly what the Founders had in mind. Absent such a move, Trump will be a lame duck.
[Trump HAS to Exercise Power Against Lawless Lower Court Judges, by Daniel Horowitz, Conservative Review, January 10, 2020]
President Trump has President Jackson's portrait hanging in the White House, honored his 250th birthday, and has spoken about his admiration for Old Hickory. It's time for the man we thought would "drain the swamp" to follow his example.
They've already impeached him. What else can they do?


vdare--2020-01-15--Ann Coulter On Impeachment: Do Republicans Have More Fun?

Earlier , by Ann Coulter : Trump Vs .
The Clintons : Who Has ACTUALLY Been Abusing Women ?
Impeachments aren ’ t what they used to be .
Today , young people are supposed to be excited that the president withheld taxpayer money from Ukraine—a half-billion-dollar foreign aid package that ticks off most Americans under any circumstances , going to a country notable for not being our country , and for a purpose other than the wall .
Now , Bill Clinton—that was an impeachment !
First , there was the corpus delicti of the case—a White House intern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential kneepads ” by sexually servicing the president .
The telephonic evidence wasn ’ t about “ Burisma Holdings Limited ” or a Ukrainian prosecutor whose name no one can remember .
It was tapes of Monica blathering on and on about servicing the president , including such fascinating items as : • Clinton couldn ’ t remember Monica ’ s name after their first two sexual encounters ; • Monica ’ s suggestion to Clinton that she be named “ assistant to the president for b -- - jobs '' ; • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ think of a thumb ” ) .
On Jan. 17 , 1998 , The Drudge Report broke the intern story .
The following week , Clinton gave an impassioned , finger-wagging , squint-eyed address to the nation , saying : Clinton spent the next seven months dragging the country through his lies , followed by the unraveling of his lies , then more lies , followed by more unraveling .
By late summer , it turned out Monica had , in fact , kept the long-rumored “ blue dress ” with Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president was ordered to produce a sample of his DNA .
It was one of many presidential “ firsts '' under Clinton .
A few weeks after producing his DNA , Clinton addressed the nation : `` Indeed , I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate . ''
Contrary to the bilge put out by the legacy media ever since their baby boomer , draft-dodging , pot-smoking , Fleetwood Mac-listening president was caught committing numerous , serious felonies , Clinton was not impeached for having a sexual affair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He was impeached for his repeated perjuries and subornation of perjury in a citizen ’ s private civil rights suit against him .
In May 1994 , Paula Jones had brought a lawsuit against Clinton under the 1964 Civil Rights Act—once considered more sacred than any other legislation passed in the 20th century .
That law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex , including sexual harassment .
Jones alleged that , when Clinton was the governor of Arkansas—a phrase that still has a rather disreputable ring to it—he had summoned her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his hotel room , dropped his pants and said , “ Kiss it.
” To prove her case , Jones had a right to collect evidence to show that he had made similar sexual advances toward other female underlings .
This had been expressly confirmed by the Supreme Court ’ s May 27 , 1997 , unanimous ruling that her lawsuit could proceed without delay .
( The court ’ s 9-0 ruling surprised every TV lawyer , but one . )
So Clinton lied .
He lied to the country , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the court—under oath in a deposition presided over by federal judge Susan Webber Wright .
( I ’ d add “ to his wife , ” but no one thinks she was fooled . )
During his deposition on Jan. 17 , 1998 , for example , Clinton gave these answers to Jones ’ lawyers : The president had had Monica perform oral sex on him in the White House a half-dozen times , including while he was taking calls from members of Congress .
On Easter Sunday , he 'd sodomized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d just spent months orchestrating a massive campaign to ensure Monica would submit a perjurious affidavit to Jones ’ attorneys , such as asking Vernon Jordan to arrange a job for her at Revlon in New York City .
To say that he “ had no specific recollection ” of being alone with Monica is blinding , inarguable perjury .
Liberals sneer that Clinton merely “ lied about sex.
” If it ’ s OK to “ lie about sex , ” then we can ’ t have laws about sex .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ child molestation , human trafficking , prostitution .
( Oh sorry—I think I just listed the entire Democratic platform . )
Those are all “ just about sex ” !
That ’ s why Clinton heatedly insisted that his testimony was “ legally accurate , ” saying , “ It depends on what the meaning of ‘ is ’ is.
” Perjury is a very serious crime .
The Supreme Court sure thought so !
( This is in contrast to the entire Democratic Party : Not a single Democrat voted against Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his screamingly obvious perjuries . )
Clinton ’ s first State of the Union address following his Senate trial happened to be the last one of his presidency .
The entire Supreme Court boycotted the event .
Even the two justices he ’ d appointed !
The court ’ s gigantic message to the felon was conveyed to the sergeant-at-arms in a terse , two-sentence note expressing regrets .
We can ’ t have a legal system if people feel free to lie under oath .
Idiots keep announcing on TV that all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they understand to mean “ partisan.
” No—that ’ s not what it means .
As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 65 , impeachable offenses are “ political ” in the sense that they are attacks on the body politic— “ injuries done immediately to the society itself.
” It doesn ’ t get much more injurious to a “ nation of laws , not men ” than to have the president of the United States perjuring himself over and over and over again in a citizen ’ s Supreme Court-approved lawsuit against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That was an impeachment !
Ann Coulter is the author of THIRTEEN New York Times bestsellers—collect them here .
Her book , ¡Adios America !
The Left ’ s Plan To Turn Our Country Into A Third World Hell Hole , was released on June 1 , 2015 .
Her latest book , Resistance Is Futile !
: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind , was released on August 21 , 2018 .

Earlier, by Ann Coulter: Trump Vs. The Clintons: Who Has ACTUALLY Been Abusing Women?
Impeachments aren’t what they used to be. Today, young people are supposed to be excited that the president withheld taxpayer money from Ukraine—a half-billion-dollar foreign aid package that ticks off most Americans under any circumstances, going to a country notable for not being our country, and for a purpose other than the wall.
Now, Bill Clinton—that was an impeachment!
First, there was the corpus delicti of the case—a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, earning her “presidential kneepads” by sexually servicing the president.
The telephonic evidence wasn’t about “Burisma Holdings Limited” or a Ukrainian prosecutor whose name no one can remember. It was tapes of Monica blathering on and on about servicing the president, including such fascinating items as:
Clinton couldn’t remember Monica’s name after their first two sexual encounters;
Monica’s suggestion to Clinton that she be named “assistant to the president for b--- jobs";
Her description of the presidential member (“think of a thumb”).
On Jan. 17, 1998, The Drudge Report broke the intern story. The following week, Clinton gave an impassioned, finger-wagging, squint-eyed address to the nation, saying:
“I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman—Miss Lewinsky.”
Clinton spent the next seven months dragging the country through his lies, followed by the unraveling of his lies, then more lies, followed by more unraveling.
By late summer, it turned out Monica had, in fact, kept the long-rumored “blue dress” with Clinton’s semen on it. The president was ordered to produce a sample of his DNA. It was one of many presidential “firsts" under Clinton.
A few weeks after producing his DNA, Clinton addressed the nation: "Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate."
Contrary to the bilge put out by the legacy media ever since their baby boomer, draft-dodging, pot-smoking, Fleetwood Mac-listening president was caught committing numerous, serious felonies, Clinton was not impeached for having a sexual affair (as hilarious as that was).
He was impeached for his repeated perjuries and subornation of perjury in a citizen’s private civil rights suit against him.
In May 1994, Paula Jones had brought a lawsuit against Clinton under the 1964 Civil Rights Act—once considered more sacred than any other legislation passed in the 20th century. That law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, including sexual harassment.
Jones alleged that, when Clinton was the governor of Arkansas—a phrase that still has a rather disreputable ring to it—he had summoned her, a lowly state employee, to his hotel room, dropped his pants and said, “Kiss it.”
To prove her case, Jones had a right to collect evidence to show that he had made similar sexual advances toward other female underlings. This had been expressly confirmed by the Supreme Court’s May 27, 1997, unanimous ruling that her lawsuit could proceed without delay. (The court’s 9-0 ruling surprised every TV lawyer, but one.)
So Clinton lied. He lied to the country, to his Cabinet and, most important, to the court—under oath in a deposition presided over by federal judge Susan Webber Wright. (I’d add “to his wife,” but no one thinks she was fooled.)
During his deposition on Jan. 17, 1998, for example, Clinton gave these answers to Jones’ lawyers:
Q: At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone together in the Oval Office? A: I don’t recall. Q: At any time have you and Monica Lewinsky ever been alone together in any room in the White House? A: I have no specific recollection.
The president had had Monica perform oral sex on him in the White House a half-dozen times, including while he was taking calls from members of Congress. On Easter Sunday, he'd sodomized her with a cigar. He’d just spent months orchestrating a massive campaign to ensure Monica would submit a perjurious affidavit to Jones’ attorneys, such as asking Vernon Jordan to arrange a job for her at Revlon in New York City.
To say that he “had no specific recollection” of being alone with Monica is blinding, inarguable perjury.
Liberals sneer that Clinton merely “lied about sex.” If it’s OK to “lie about sex,” then we can’t have laws about sex. No laws against sexual harassment, rape, child molestation, human trafficking, prostitution. (Oh sorry—I think I just listed the entire Democratic platform.)
Those are all “just about sex”!
That’s why Clinton heatedly insisted that his testimony was “legally accurate,” saying, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” Perjury is a very serious crime.
The Supreme Court sure thought so! (This is in contrast to the entire Democratic Party: Not a single Democrat voted against Clinton in the Senate impeachment trial, despite his screamingly obvious perjuries.)
Clinton’s first State of the Union address following his Senate trial happened to be the last one of his presidency. The entire Supreme Court boycotted the event. Even the two justices he’d appointed! The court’s gigantic message to the felon was conveyed to the sergeant-at-arms in a terse, two-sentence note expressing regrets.
We can’t have a legal system if people feel free to lie under oath.
Idiots keep announcing on TV that all impeachments are “political,” which they understand to mean “partisan.” No—that’s not what it means.
As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 65, impeachable offenses are “political” in the sense that they are attacks on the body politic—“injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
It doesn’t get much more injurious to a “nation of laws, not men” than to have the president of the United States perjuring himself over and over and over again in a citizen’s Supreme Court-approved lawsuit against him.
You see, kids? That was an impeachment!
COPYRIGHT 2019 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION
Ann Coulter is the author of THIRTEEN New York Times bestsellers—collect them here.
Her book, ¡Adios America! The Left’s Plan To Turn Our Country Into A Third World Hell Hole, was released on June 1, 2015.
Her latest book, Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind, was released on August 21, 2018.


vdare--2020-01-15--Obama’s Scheming With Iran Shows Up After Soleimani Death

Evidence of President Obama ’ s dirty dealing continues to be uncovered .
Author Lee Smith appeared on the Ingraham Angle show recently to discuss odd reactions among Democrats regarding Trump ’ s removal of Iranian terrorist Qasem Soleimani after Smith published an article with details of Iran negotiations , posted below .
It seems Obama ’ s much touted arms deal with Iran was only a postponement until the next administration—which would have been a bad surprise for Hillary , although it didn ’ t work out that way .
Here ’ s a video of Smith explaining the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hanson : The zinger about Obama ’ s collusion with Iran occurs at around four minutes in : LAURA INGRAHAM : Now , before we get back to Victor , you said in this new piece of yours that the goal for the Obama administration was never to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon .
It was to stop them from building it during the Obama term .
That ’ s quite an accusation .
LEE SMITH : Well , I mean if you look at what happened — if you look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provisions built into the deal that were set to expire sometime after Barack Obama left the White House , that ’ s very clear .
It tells you what they were doing .
They were passing it on to the next administration .
The Lee Smith article that got Laura Ingraham ’ s interest is linked below : Obama Passed the Buck .
Trump Refused to Play .
by Lee Smith , Tabletmag.org , January 13 , 2020 The Iran deal was never meant to stop Iran from building a bomb—it was supposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone else ’ s watch In the wake of the targeted killing of Iranian terror master Qassem Soleimani , an interesting fight has broken out—after Donald Trump failed to brief them in advance of the strike , Democrats began fulsomely criticizing the president .
This led Republican lawmakers to accuse their counterparts across the aisle of pro-terrorist sympathies .
Maybe Republicans are still sore that Barack Obama compared them to Iranian hardliners like Soleimani for denouncing his signature foreign policy initiative , the Iran nuclear deal , officially known as the Joint Comprehensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or maybe it ’ s something else .
Because the fact is that the Democrats are not pro-terrorist .
They ’ re simply intent on protecting the historic agreement that legalized the nuclear weapons program of a terror state .
Democratic leadership is angry it wasn ’ t briefed before the operation , as were some Republican lawmakers critical of the scant information in the White House intelligence briefing on the attack .
But there is reason to believe senior Democrats would have leaked it to the press , as they ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prosecute their anti-Trump campaign .
In particular , House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff and his staff have used CNN as a platform to push the discredited Trump-Russia collusion narrative .
Why would Democrats endanger U.S. national security by leaking highly classified plans of a major operation against a terror leader ?
Because Soleimani was the centerpiece of the nuclear deal .
The JCPOA was the instrument Obama used to secure the administration ’ s ultimate goal—realigning U.S. interests with those of Iran .
For the U.S. to be able to minimize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Obama White House needed a proxy force—much like the Iranians use proxies to advance their interests .
Soleimani managed Iranian proxies and Obama , who praised the late commander , believed he was capable of stabilizing the region on behalf of America .
In 2015 , when the JCPOA went into effect , Soleimani was removed from the U.N. sanctions list , a provision that , according to press reports at the time , the Iranians saw as “ nonnegotiable.
” That ’ s how Obama wanted it , too .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama had subscribed to the myth that U.S. policymakers had built up around Iran over 40 years—that the third-world obscurantist regime was in fact a formidable power that the U.S. dare not challenge lest it risk an apocalyptic war .
Seen from Obama ’ s perspective , a nation this powerful was—unlike the incoherent Arabs , OR tiny Israel—singularly capable of maintaining order .
( Continues )

Evidence of President Obama’s dirty dealing continues to be uncovered. Author Lee Smith appeared on the Ingraham Angle show recently to discuss odd reactions among Democrats regarding Trump’s removal of Iranian terrorist Qasem Soleimani after Smith published an article with details of Iran negotiations, posted below.
It seems Obama’s much touted arms deal with Iran was only a postponement until the next administration—which would have been a bad surprise for Hillary, although it didn’t work out that way.
Here’s a video of Smith explaining the scheme with Laura Ingraham and Victor Davis Hanson:
The zinger about Obama’s collusion with Iran occurs at around four minutes in:
LAURA INGRAHAM: Now, before we get back to Victor, you said in this new piece of yours that the goal for the Obama administration was never to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. It was to stop them from building it during the Obama term. That’s quite an accusation. LEE SMITH: Well, I mean if you look at what happened — if you look at the sunset clauses meaning the different provisions built into the deal that were set to expire sometime after Barack Obama left the White House, that’s very clear. It tells you what they were doing. They were passing it on to the next administration.
The Lee Smith article that got Laura Ingraham’s interest is linked below:


vdare--2020-01-15--Faith Goldy Moratorium Video Goes Live At 6:30 PM Eastern Time

A video of me talking about the need for an immigration moratorium will go live at 6:30 PM .
No @ @ @ @ @ breath for the resurgence of flapper skirts or a Harlem Renaissance redux now that the @ @ @ @ @ Roaring 20s 2.0 , but there is one movement from America ’ s 1920s that @ @ @ @ @ to imitate : An immigration moratorium .
Despite what the ‘ diversity is our strength @ @ @ @ @ send us your cartels ’ Statue of Liberty might say , America actually has a @ @ @ @ @ -- and that history proves moratoriums work !

A video of me talking about the need for an immigration moratorium will go live at 6:30 PM.
Teaser:


vdare--2020-01-15--Sailer In TakiMag: Call of Duty: "1917"

Sailer In TakiMag: Call of Duty: "1917"

2019 turned out to be a good year for quality guy movies after all , as several veteran directors ignored @ @ @ @ @ shot the films they ’ ve long wanted to make , such as Joker , @ @ @ @ @ , The Irishman , and Ford v Ferrari .
Sam Mendes , for example , @ @ @ @ @ if gimmicky videogame-style World War I movie inspired by his beloved grandfather ’ s stories @ @ @ @ @ as a lance corporal in Flanders Fields.… The Corporal Scofield character is portrayed by George @ @ @ @ @ Buster Keaton in Dough Boys , with the kind of pale , immobile face that @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , much of the movie resembles an unfunny Buster Keaton movie in @ @ @ @ @ past catastrophes .

Here’s my movie review in Taki’s Magazine:
Call of Duty: ‘1917’
Steve Sailer
January 15, 2020
2019 turned out to be a good year for quality guy movies after all, as several veteran directors ignored the anti-male zeitgeist and just shot the films they’ve long wanted to make, such as Joker, Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood, The Irishman, and Ford v Ferrari. Sam Mendes, for example, delivers in 1917 an admirable if gimmicky videogame-style World War I movie inspired by his beloved grandfather’s stories of two years of fighting as a lance corporal in Flanders Fields.…
The Corporal Scofield character is portrayed by George MacKay, who looks like Buster Keaton in Dough Boys, with the kind of pale, immobile face that movies liked a century ago. In fact, much of the movie resembles an unfunny Buster Keaton movie in which Buster is constantly running past catastrophes.


vdare--2020-01-15--Job-Killing Automation Leads To Calls For Robot Taxation

It ’ s always nice to see serious thought given to dealing with the automated future , when millions of jobs are forecast to be lost .
The employment economy is outstanding today , but robots will be chipping away at the number of workers as the cost of smart machines decreases in coming years .
A fundamental problem with the automated future is that manufacturing will be going great but there won ’ t be enough employed shoppers to purchase the abundance of material items in stores to maintain the economy .
Sometimes it can be hard to spot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ floor today .
One suggestion has been to tax the robots , an idea which Microsoft founder Bill Gates supported in a 2017 interview : BILL GATES : Certainly there will be taxes that relate to automation .
Right now , the human worker who does , say , $ 50,000 worth of work in a factory , that income is taxed and you get income tax , social security tax , all those things .
If a robot comes in to do the same thing , you ’ d think that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar level .
Another strategy to mitigate the effect of automation on the economy would be to end immigration and stop admitting millions of unskilled persons who will be even more unemployable than they are now , because That includes the bloated family-based variety of immigration and all the Victim types like the U Visa for foreign crime victims and T Visa for non-American victims of human trafficking .
We can also get rid of the Diversity Visa since America is forecast to be majority minority by about 2045 .
When big automation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole immigration edifice will be understood by observant people as an unhelpful remnant of the previous century and a total drag on the challenging times ahead .
Here ’ s a review of expert opinion about how soon the axe will fall : Oxford researchers forecast in 2013 that nearly half of American jobs were vulnerable to machine or software replacement within 20 years .
Rice University computer scientist Moshe Vardi believes that in 30 years humans will become largely obsolete , and world joblessness will reach 50 percent .
The Gartner tech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be done by machines by 2025 .
The consultancy firm PwC published a report last year that forecast robots could take 38 percent of US jobs by 2030 .
In November 2017 , the McKinsey Global Institute reported that automation “ could displace up to 800 million workers — 30 percent of the global workforce — by 2030.
” Forrester Research estimates that robots and artificial intelligence could eliminate nearly 25 million jobs in the United States over the next decade , but it should create nearly 15 million positions , resulting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jobs .
Kai-Fu Lee , the venture capitalist and author of AI Superpowers : China , Silicon Valley , and the New World Order , forecast on CBS ’ Sixty Minutes about automation and artificial intelligence : “ in 15 years , that ’ s going to displace about 40 percent of the jobs in the world.
” A February 2018 paper from Bain & Company , Labor 2030 , predicted , “ By the end of the 2020s , automation may eliminate 20 % to 25 % of current jobs.
” So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of concerned citizens — and oblivious Washington .
The idea of a ‘ robot tax ’ is gaining steam as a way of dealing with automation that ’ s killing jobs , Business Insider , January 9 , 2020 ● The idea of taxing robots has gained steam in recent years as a possible way of curbing the spread of automation and better protecting American workers .
● A decent chunk of jobs are at risk of being automated in the US .
● Bill Gates called for the tax in 2017 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laid out a plan for it during his short 2020 presidential run .
● But a so-called “ robot tax ” faces significant hurdles in design and implementation .
“ Tax the rich ” is now a common refrain in American politics .
But could “ tax the robots ” ever become popular as well ?
The idea of a so-called “ robot tax ” has gained steam in recent years , particularly after a barrage of studies that suggested automation threatens the future of a substantial chunk of jobs in the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within manufacturing , and increasingly those in white-collar positions .
One estimate from researchers at the Brookings Institution found that one in four US jobs are at high risk of being automated .
Bill Gates famously called for the tax back in 2017 .
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio also laid out the framework for a type of robot taxation during his brief presidential run , calling for companies to pay five years ’ of payroll taxes for every job automated .
Both believed a robot tax could curb the spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protection for American workers .
Orly Mazur , a tax law professor at Southern Methodist University who has researched the robot tax , says it could be used to stymie automation , though only temporarily .
“ I believe an appropriately designed robot tax can hinder the progress of the development of automation that kills jobs , ” Mazur told Business Insider in an email , though noting she believes it ’ s the wrong approach to deal with automation .
Such a tax could also conceivably create another source of federal revenue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and fewer workers — reducing the possible disruption to the funding structures of Social Security and Medicare , which rely on payroll taxes paid by every worker and to help people find or train for new jobs .
( Continues )

It’s always nice to see serious thought given to dealing with the automated future, when millions of jobs are forecast to be lost. The employment economy is outstanding today, but robots will be chipping away at the number of workers as the cost of smart machines decreases in coming years.
A fundamental problem with the automated future is that manufacturing will be going great but there won’t be enough employed shoppers to purchase the abundance of material items in stores to maintain the economy.
Sometimes it can be hard to spot a human worker on a modern manufacturing floor today.
One suggestion has been to tax the robots, an idea which Microsoft founder Bill Gates supported in a 2017 interview:
BILL GATES: Certainly there will be taxes that relate to automation. Right now, the human worker who does, say, $50,000 worth of work in a factory, that income is taxed and you get income tax, social security tax, all those things. If a robot comes in to do the same thing, you’d think that we’d tax the robot at a similar level.
Another strategy to mitigate the effect of automation on the economy would be to end immigration and stop admitting millions of unskilled persons who will be even more unemployable than they are now, because
Automation Makes Immigration Obsolete
That includes the bloated family-based variety of immigration and all the Victim types like the U Visa for foreign crime victims and T Visa for non-American victims of human trafficking. We can also get rid of the Diversity Visa since America is forecast to be majority minority by about 2045.
When big automation hits in a few years, the whole immigration edifice will be understood by observant people as an unhelpful remnant of the previous century and a total drag on the challenging times ahead.
Here’s a review of expert opinion about how soon the axe will fall: Oxford researchers forecast in 2013 that nearly half of American jobs were vulnerable to machine or software replacement within 20 years. Rice University computer scientist Moshe Vardi believes that in 30 years humans will become largely obsolete, and world joblessness will reach 50 percent. The Gartner tech advising company believes that one-third of jobs will be done by machines by 2025. The consultancy firm PwC published a report last year that forecast robots could take 38 percent of US jobs by 2030. In November 2017, the McKinsey Global Institute reported that automation “could displace up to 800 million workers — 30 percent of the global workforce — by 2030.” Forrester Research estimates that robots and artificial intelligence could eliminate nearly 25 million jobs in the United States over the next decade, but it should create nearly 15 million positions, resulting in a loss of 10 million US jobs. Kai-Fu Lee, the venture capitalist and author of AI Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order, forecast on CBS’ Sixty Minutes about automation and artificial intelligence: “in 15 years, that’s going to displace about 40 percent of the jobs in the world.” A February 2018 paper from Bain & Company, Labor 2030, predicted, “By the end of the 2020s, automation may eliminate 20% to 25% of current jobs.”
So the robot taxation strategy deserves the attention of concerned citizens — and oblivious Washington.


vdare--2020-01-15--His Name Is Bob Long: Prolific White Male Chess Author, 70, Murdered in His Iowa Home by 19-Year-Old

His Name Is Bob Long: Prolific White Male Chess Author, 70, Murdered in His Iowa Home by 19-Year-Old Black Male

He had no “ white privilege ” .
He was a septuagenarian , a man of modest means , living in Davenport , Iowa .
His name is Bob Long .
He was a prolific author of books dealing with chess .
He was a white man .
You ’ ll never hear his name , unless you read one of his many books on chess , or live in Davenport , Iowa and learn about how he was strangled to death in a botched car robbery .
Mind you , his murderer was a black teenager .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gary III , 19 , of Davenport is facing battery , theft , and robbery charges stemming from a case in October .
This is in addition to the homicide case where a 74-year-old man was strangled to death and found dead Tuesday evening in Davenport .
According to the criminal complaint , on October 27 , 2019 , Gary assaulted a 63-year-old man of Rock Island , striking him in the head with a TV and a lamp .
The complaint also shows Gary reportedly stole the man ’ s vehicle and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Davenport police tell TV6 there is no information that would indicate a cause for concern for community safety after the Davenport victim , Robert Long , 74 , was killed .
Police say while the investigation is ongoing at this time , preliminary information shows the victim knew 19-year-old Charlie Gary III .
Police say that information also shows they believe this was not a random incident .
Police say on Tuesday , just before 5:45 p.m. , they were called to the 1500 block of LeClaire Street in reference to an unresponsive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Long , was pronounced dead at the scene .
Police say Gary III , of Davenport , admitted to police that he went into the man ’ s home forcibly with the intent to steal the man ’ s car .
Police say Gary III strangled Long , killing him and then stole property and his car and left the scene .
Police say they later located Gary in Long ’ s vehicle when he was arrested .
Gary III has been charged with 1st-degree murder , 1st-degree robbery and 1st-degree burglary in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s currently being held at the Scott County Jail .
Gary III made his first appearance in Scott County Thursday morning via video arraignment .
The judge ordered Gary III to be held without bond and they set a preliminary hearing for January 17 .
The judge also informed Gary III that he was wanted out of Rock Island County on charges of robbery , theft and aggravated battery .
The judge did not take any action on the extradition matter and said the bond in the Illinois case is $ 100,000 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ chess enthusiasts , who will even remember the life of Bob Long , a white man strangled to death in his home by a black career criminal who had spent less than a score on earth ?
You weren ’ t just a pawn in the game of life , but a white man whose murder ( and racial circumstances surrounding it ) deserves a wider audience .

He had no “white privilege”.
He was a septuagenarian, a man of modest means, living in Davenport, Iowa.
His name is Bob Long. He was a prolific author of books dealing with chess.
He was a white man. You’ll never hear his name, unless you read one of his many books on chess, or live in Davenport, Iowa and learn about how he was strangled to death in a botched car robbery.
Mind you, his murderer was a black teenager.
UPDATE: Davenport murder suspect charged with assaulting, robbing Rock Island County man in October 2019, KWQC.com, January 9, 2020 According to Rock Island County Court documents, Charlie Gary III, 19, of Davenport is facing battery, theft, and robbery charges stemming from a case in October. This is in addition to the homicide case where a 74-year-old man was strangled to death and found dead Tuesday evening in Davenport. According to the criminal complaint, on October 27, 2019, Gary assaulted a 63-year-old man of Rock Island, striking him in the head with a TV and a lamp. The complaint also shows Gary reportedly stole the man’s vehicle and a 55′ flat-screen television. Meanwhile, Davenport police tell TV6 there is no information that would indicate a cause for concern for community safety after the Davenport victim, Robert Long, 74, was killed. Police say while the investigation is ongoing at this time, preliminary information shows the victim knew 19-year-old Charlie Gary III. Police say that information also shows they believe this was not a random incident. Police say on Tuesday, just before 5:45 p.m., they were called to the 1500 block of LeClaire Street in reference to an unresponsive person. That man, 74-year-old Robert Long, was pronounced dead at the scene. Police say Gary III, of Davenport, admitted to police that he went into the man’s home forcibly with the intent to steal the man’s car. Police say Gary III strangled Long, killing him and then stole property and his car and left the scene. Police say they later located Gary in Long’s vehicle when he was arrested. Gary III has been charged with 1st-degree murder, 1st-degree robbery and 1st-degree burglary in reference to the incident. He’s currently being held at the Scott County Jail. Gary III made his first appearance in Scott County Thursday morning via video arraignment. The judge ordered Gary III to be held without bond and they set a preliminary hearing for January 17. The judge also informed Gary III that he was wanted out of Rock Island County on charges of robbery, theft and aggravated battery. The judge did not take any action on the extradition matter and said the bond in the Illinois case is $100,000.
Outside of an incredibly niche community of chess enthusiasts, who will even remember the life of Bob Long, a white man strangled to death in his home by a black career criminal who had spent less than a score on earth?
Check-mate, bigot.
Rest in peace, Bob.
You weren’t just a pawn in the game of life, but a white man whose murder (and racial circumstances surrounding it) deserves a wider audience.


vdare--2020-01-15--Deep State Saboteurs In EOIR Immigration “Courts” Can't Even Keep Out Illegal Alien LAWYERS

The Deep State is real , especially with regards to illegal aliens and immigration law enforcement .
While the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) is charged with the investigation and arrest of illegal aliens , other Federal agencies have a role .
One of the roles of the Department of Justice ( DOJ ) is the criminal prosecution of illegal aliens and the defense of actions by DHS in the enforcement of immigration laws .
The other responsibility of the DOJ in immigration enforcement is the administration of the so-called immigration courts , really the Executive Office for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EOIR provides administrative hearings for certain classes of aliens in removal proceedings or other administrative action , such as recission of legal permanent residency or fraudulently obtained citizenship documents .
DOJ employees , including EOIR employees , take an oath of office to see that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed .
Among the responsibilities of a Federal employee , including an employee of the EOIR is to report Federal crimes that come to their attention .
But many in the bureaucracy think themselves above the law , mostly because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Resistance , the Deep State , the saboteurs .
And in immigration law administration at the EOIR they think they are real Federal judges , rather than administrative employees like any other Federal employee .
And these Deep State saboteurs are quite open for their contempt for President Trump and his immigration enforcement policy , so contemptuous that they are openly working with an illegal alien in their courts .
This is not an illegal alien brought before the court , but an illegal who represents other illegal aliens as an attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an attorney or be a member of the State Bar if they are an ongoing crimina ( it is an ethical violation ) nor are they eligible to represent an alien before the EOIR , as their status is inherently in conflict with the very laws at issue .
But that is all fine with the EOIR office in Los Angeles , they routinely allow an illegal alien into their courts , also a violation of law , as no one may enter Federal property without legal identification , and this illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have valid identification under the Real ID Act , which is required to enter a Federal facility .
On Friday morning , attorney Lizbeth Mateo went to immigration court in downtown Los Angeles to represent a client with whom she has something in common .
She ’ s undocumented , too .
Mateo wore a navy blue suit , carried a binder stuffed with court records and announced herself to the immigration judge conducting a hearing .
She has no more protection from arrest and deportation than any of her clients , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about on the job… Mateo says her own status does not come up in court , and she ’ s never sure whether judges or other lawyers know that the polished , savvy 34-year-old woman advocating on behalf of her clients does not have legal status herself .
“ I ’ m a walking contradiction , ” Mateo had told me a day earlier in her Wilmington law office .
[ This Immigration Attorney Understands Her Clients .
She ’ s Undocumented , Too , by Steve Lopez , LAT , January 11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the court employees do not know about her status is a lie .
She would have to reveal that status to represent clients in immigration court as that would be a material fact .
And she has long been a public illegal alien , so most likely , everyone knows .
Another question is what is up with her status ?
She has been arrested when she re-entered , is she in removal proceedings ?
Is she a fugitive from removal ?
Was she paroled and has the parole lapsed ?
Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so , why ?
Is ICE SVU just ignoring her ?
Has she won the Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty from ICE SVU ?
But more importantly , she physically can not enter a Federal building or office without identification under the REAL ID Act .
At every EOIR office there are guards there , either Federal Protective Service ( FPS ) Officers or contract guards that are required to check identification .
While illegal alien defendants do not need that identification , all others do , including counsel for illegal alien defendants .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ their job , or , more likely , the Chief Immigration Judge has ordered guards to allow Mateo entry .
I think this is most likely .
But in any event , why is Rodin Rooyani , Assistant Chief Immigration Judge , EOIR , Los Angeles , after this very public and voluntary outing of Mateo as an illegal alien , allowing Mateo to appear in court and not ordered her arrest ?
You can reach Rooyani here : You can also report misconduct by the FPS security staff for allowing an illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a Federal facility here : You can also report Mateo to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement here : You can report Rooyani here to the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General ( DOJ OIG ) for aiding an illegal alien .
Let us see what the EOIR , FPS , DOJ OIG , and ICE do about this illegal alien .
This is blatant insubordination and typical Deep State defiance of the President .
Please , Stephen Miller , do something !
Please , Ken The Knife , do something !

The Deep State is real, especially with regards to illegal aliens and immigration law enforcement. While the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is charged with the investigation and arrest of illegal aliens, other Federal agencies have a role. One of the roles of the Department of Justice (DOJ) is the criminal prosecution of illegal aliens and the defense of actions by DHS in the enforcement of immigration laws.
The other responsibility of the DOJ in immigration enforcement is the administration of the so-called immigration courts, really the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
The EOIR provides administrative hearings for certain classes of aliens in removal proceedings or other administrative action, such as recission of legal permanent residency or fraudulently obtained citizenship documents. DOJ employees, including EOIR employees, take an oath of office to see that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. Among the responsibilities of a Federal employee, including an employee of the EOIR is to report Federal crimes that come to their attention.
But many in the bureaucracy think themselves above the law, mostly because of Orange Man Bad; they are the Resistance, the Deep State, the saboteurs. And in immigration law administration at the EOIR they think they are real Federal judges, rather than administrative employees like any other Federal employee. And these Deep State saboteurs are quite open for their contempt for President Trump and his immigration enforcement policy, so contemptuous that they are openly working with an illegal alien in their courts.
This is not an illegal alien brought before the court, but an illegal who represents other illegal aliens as an attorney. Now, no one can serve as an attorney or be a member of the State Bar if they are an ongoing crimina (it is an ethical violation) nor are they eligible to represent an alien before the EOIR, as their status is inherently in conflict with the very laws at issue.
But that is all fine with the EOIR office in Los Angeles, they routinely allow an illegal alien into their courts, also a violation of law, as no one may enter Federal property without legal identification, and this illegal alien, Lizbeth Mateo, does not have valid identification under the Real ID Act, which is required to enter a Federal facility.
On Friday morning, attorney Lizbeth Mateo went to immigration court in downtown Los Angeles to represent a client with whom she has something in common.
She’s undocumented, too. Mateo wore a navy blue suit, carried a binder stuffed with court records and announced herself to the immigration judge conducting a hearing. She has no more protection from arrest and deportation than any of her clients, but that’s not something she thinks about on the job… Mateo says her own status does not come up in court, and she’s never sure whether judges or other lawyers know that the polished, savvy 34-year-old woman advocating on behalf of her clients does not have legal status herself. “I’m a walking contradiction,” Mateo had told me a day earlier in her Wilmington law office. [This Immigration Attorney Understands Her Clients. She’s Undocumented, Too, by Steve Lopez, LAT, January 11, 2020]
Now, the idea that the court employees do not know about her status is a lie. She would have to reveal that status to represent clients in immigration court as that would be a material fact. And she has long been a public illegal alien, so most likely, everyone knows.
In 2013, Mateo and eight other activists — they were known as the Dream 9 — made headlines by traveling south of the border and then coming back north to protest immigration policy and 9 million deportations during the Obama administration.
Some immigration reform activists cheered, while others feared the tactic could sabotage the chances of reform. Mateo and the others were arrested and Mateo was locked up for two weeks before being released back into the U.S.
Another question is what is up with her status? She has been arrested when she re-entered, is she in removal proceedings? Is she a fugitive from removal? Was she paroled and has the parole lapsed? Is she still in parole status, if so, why? Is ICE SVU just ignoring her? Has she won the Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty from ICE SVU?
But more importantly, she physically cannot enter a Federal building or office without identification under the REAL ID Act. At every EOIR office there are guards there, either Federal Protective Service (FPS) Officers or contract guards that are required to check identification. While illegal alien defendants do not need that identification, all others do, including counsel for illegal alien defendants.
Here we have the FPS not doing their job, or, more likely, the Chief Immigration Judge has ordered guards to allow Mateo entry. I think this is most likely.
But in any event, why is Rodin Rooyani, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, EOIR, Los Angeles, after this very public and voluntary outing of Mateo as an illegal alien, allowing Mateo to appear in court and not ordered her arrest?
You can reach Rooyani here:
606 S. Olive Street, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014 (213) 894-2811
You can also report misconduct by the FPS security staff for allowing an illegal alien without proper REAL ID compliant identification into a Federal facility here:
Regional Director Pacific Rim Region IX 450 Golden Gate Boulevard San Francisco, CA 94102 1-877-4FPS-411
You can also report Mateo to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement here:
(866) 347-2423 ICE SVU SAC Los Angeles
300 N. Los Angeles Street, Room 6075
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
Phone: (213) 830-5599 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Los Angeles Field Office
300 North Los Angeles St. Room 7631
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
Phone: (213) 830-7911
You can report Rooyani here to the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (DOJ OIG) for aiding an illegal alien.
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Los Angeles Field Office
330 North Brand Blvd., Suite 1000
Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 863-1901 Fax: (818) 863-1919 Email
Let us see what the EOIR, FPS, DOJ OIG, and ICE do about this illegal alien. This is blatant insubordination and typical Deep State defiance of the President. Please, Stephen Miller, do something! Please, Ken The Knife, do something!


vdare--2020-01-10--Harvey On Trial, Joe Biden's Plan, Legalizing Jaywalking, And Banning "Illegal," Etc.

09m21s Vagabonds and strumpets .
( Unwittingly into the bathroom . )
18m02s The order-liberty cycle .
( Swinging from @ @ @ @ @ ) 25m13s When Joe Biden was right .
( And when Stalin died . )
@ @ @ @ @ .
( ARE YOU KIDDING ME ? )

00m47s Emmanuel Weinstein. (Harvey on trial.)
09m21s Vagabonds and strumpets. (Unwittingly into the bathroom.)
18m02s The order-liberty cycle. (Swinging from one to the other.)
25m13s When Joe Biden was right. (And when Stalin died.)
32m43s Flagrant racism in de Blasio's New York. (Ticketing jaywalkers.)
34m52s Those triggering capital letters. (ARE YOU KIDDING ME?)
36m05s Banning "illegal alien." (Get yourself a prejudometer.)
38m52s Signoff. (With the British Coolidge.)
[Music clip: Haydn's Derbyshire March No. 1, organ version]
01—Intro. And Radio Derb is on the air! Greetings, listeners, from your glibly genial host John Derbyshire.
This has been one of those weeks when the main political news, domestic and foreign, didn't much stir my interest. I am therefore going to take an aimless ramble though the broader cultural scene
[Permalink]
02—Emmanuel Weinstein. As I'm recording this podcast on Friday, it's Day Five of the trial of movie producer Harvey Weinstein. Weinstein faces five charges: two counts of predatory sexual assault, two of rape, and one more of a criminal sex act. Altogether he could get 28 years in prison. He's 67 years old.
Weinstein is actually a Goldstein. I mean, he's being put in front of us the way Emmanuel Goldstein was put in front of the workers at the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four: as an Enemy of the People, whose image was to be cursed and spat at during the Two Minutes Hate.
Looking up the relevant passage in that novel just now, to make sure I got Goldstein's name right—the fact-checkers here at VDARE.com can be pretty ferocious, let me tell you—I found myself reading this passage from Chapter One. Everyone is seated in the conference hall and the Two Minutes Hate has just started. Quote:
As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. The little sandy-haired woman gave a squeak of mingled fear and disgust.
End quote.
It so happened that just half an hour before reading that, I had been enjoying my breakfast over this morning's copy of the New York Post. Here's a quote from page 14 of the Post. The story is about events on Thursday in the Weinstein trial. That was the third day of jury selection. Quote from the New York Post:
After Justice James Burke summoned 120 jurors into the courtroom, packing the gallery and jury box, he announced the name of the case: "The People of the State of New York Against Harvey Weinstein."
"Oh, s—t!" exclaimed one female juror, seated in the jury box, as she glanced at the fallen Hollywood titan at the defense table. ["Juror says 'Oh, s—t!' after learning she may be on Harvey Weinstein case" by Rebecca Rosenberg; NY Post, January 10th 2020.]
End quote.
Obviously this is the little sandy-haired woman from Orwell's novel, escaped somehow from the realm of fiction into the so-called "real world." Or if not anything so metaphysically improbable, it is surely at least a very exquisite instance of life imitating art.
You may infer from all that that my sympathies—you can say "prejudices," if you like—are with Harvey Weinstein here. Well, yes, they are.
I don't know Weinstein personally—never met him. I do know him very slightly at one remove. I mean, I know someone who knows him. That would be Taki Theodoracopulos, who I worked for in the decade we just left—who, indeed, once granted a full 38-minute interview to Radio Derb. Taki was friends with Weinstein, and so far as I know still is. He speaks well of him.
So I have trouble getting on board with this particular Two Minutes Hate. In fact I have double trouble. I was strongly impressed by Dorothy Rabinowitz's 2003 book No Crueler Tyrannies, about the child sex-abuse hysteria of the 1990s. I was so strongly impressed, I see on a site search that I have mentioned the book six times over the years. At fifty podcasts a year over fifteen years that's not obsessive, but it tells you how well the Rabinowitz book sensitized me to the weird mass hysterias that sweep over the American public from time to time.
The MeToo movement is, according to me, one of those hysterias. It has all the components: fantasizing plaintiffs coached by avaricious trial lawyers, jurors carefully selected for ignorance and gullibility, politically ambitious prosecutors, trial judges steeped in the Cultural Marxism of lefty law schools … it's all there.
And the real driving force, the energizing principle behind these hysterias, is the CultMarx loathing of some aspect of normal human life. In the child sex abuse hysteria it was loathing of the family; in MeToo it's loathing of male sexuality—or, as the Social Justice Warriors say, "toxic masculinity."
I see I'm going to need another segment on the Harvey Weinstein case. Before I go to it, let me just give you another quote from this morning's New York Post story.
This quote follows immediately on from the previous one. So the little sandy-haired woman, a prospective juror, just cursed out loud on discovering that she's being considered for the Weinstein case. Now the judge, James Burke, reacts to that. Quote:
[Inner quote.] "Now I noticed that there was some reaction when the defendant's name was read," Burke said mildly. "I heard a gasp from my left, over here, so I have to tell you that having heard of Harvey Weinstein or even being familiar with the allegations made against him in the press or elsewhere are not by themselves disqualifying." [End inner quote.]
End quote.
So I guess I should revisit what I said about jurors being selected for ignorance and gullibility. Ignorance is not essential to qualify as a juror. Knowledge of Weinstein and the charges against him is not by itself—note that emphasis—is not by itself disqualifying for jury service in the case, Judge Burke instructs us.
You can know who Weinstein is, and you can even know the charges against him; just so long as you understand that he's an Enemy of the People, the court is fine with you.
[Permalink]
03—Vagabonds and strumpets. I'm not precisely clear how the charges against Harvey Weinstein align with things we've heard about what he's supposed to have done.
What precisely, for example, is the "criminal sex act," listed as separate from the rape and assault charges? If it's not rape and it's not sexual assault, why is it criminal?
Sure; I know that back in the dark, hateful past of forty or fifty years ago, when Americans groaned under the iron heel of puritanical heteronormative oppression, all kinds of sex acts were criminalized. But wasn't that all swept away in the glorious dawn of late-twentieth-century enlightenment?
One of the plaintiffs, name of Mimi Haleyi, accuses Weinstein of performing oral sex on her against her will. Was that the "criminal sex act"? It's not clear.
And—I'm sorry to be indelicate here, but it's germane to my argument—I'm struggling with the idea of nonconsensual cunnilingus. Weinstein's a big guy, but it seems to me some determined wriggling and leg-crossing, with some well-aimed slaps to his head, perhaps with the assist of a table lamp or some such, would have made the whole engagement highly unrewarding from Weinstein's point of view.
Similar skepticism applies to the rape charges, as I've seen them reported. Rape is certainly a real thing, but I don't see how it can be carried out between two adults without serious violence or the threat of violence. Here are some scenarios I can imagine where rape actually happened.
Scenario One: The man is holding a knife to the woman's throat, and she believes he'll use it.
Scenario Two: The man has accomplices who hold the woman down and cover her mouth to muffle screams.
Scenario Three: The man comes upon the woman in some remote location, beyond the sight and hearing of other people, and knocks her out or somehow overpowers her.
Scenario Four: The man gets the woman alone, slips her a Micky Finn, and does the deed while she's unconscious.
I'll certainly allow those as genuine rape scenarios. A man convicted on sound evidence in any of Scenarios One, Two, or Three should, in my opinion, go to the chair. Scenario Four is more debatable …
None of the charges I've seen against Weinstein look like any of those scenarios, though. None of them, to my eyes, look like anything worse than gross bad manners.
And what's with all the helpless passivity on display from the "victims" here? My dating days are decades behind me, I'll allow; but I don't remember women being such trembling, shrinking violets.
Yo, ladies: Scream, break something, throw some large object through a window. The thing he's intending to do to you involves exposing his most sensitive parts to your nails, your teeth, your feet, the shards of any dish or bottle you can break. If he doesn't have a knife to your throat, doesn't have a couple of buddies holding you down and stuffing a towel in your mouth, and the room you're in isn't scientifically soundproofed, the advantage is all yours.
Sample story from the Weinstein case. Quote:
Prosecutors allege that Weinstein met Jane Doe 2 during a business meeting at a restaurant inside a hotel. They were with a female acquaintance. After that, the three spoke in the lobby and eventually went to Weinstein's hotel suite, prosecutors allege. Jane Doe 2 said she unwittingly made it into Weinstein's hotel bathroom, and the female acquaintance shut the door behind her.
At that point, Weinstein allegedly took off his clothes and took a brief shower, the court papers allege.
"While naked he moved towards her keeping himself between her and the door and preventing her from leaving. She laughed from shock as the defendant took down her dress. He turned her around and held her in place by her breast as he masturbated until he ejaculated on the floor," wrote prosecutor Paul Thompson.
He then let her leave, the documents say. [Trapped in bathroom, held down by Weinstein: Woman's horrifying allegations laid out by prosecutors, by Richard Winton; L.A. Times, January 6 2020.]
End quote.
All my previous remarks apply. "He took a brief shower"? What, while she stood and watched? Hotel bathroom fixtures come apart with a good pull. You then have a weapon in your hands in a room rapidly flooding and a naked guy trying to protect his family jewels. She'd "unwittingly" made it into the bathroom? What, she mistook it for an elevator? And who's this "female acquaintance"? Is she charged with being an accomplice to sexual assault? Shall we hear courtroom testimony from her?
And all this is within the larger world of showbiz. I said in the last segment I am double skeptical: first from knowledge at one remove of Weinstein the person, then second from reading about a previous mass hysteria in Dorothy Rabinowitz's book.
The environment here being showbiz, you can make that triple skeptical. Flocks of pretty young women desperate for a movie part; rich old guys who can make it come true for them; what does anyone think is going to happen? Are we really now so deep into denial of our own human nature?
Showbiz is the province of vagabonds and strumpets, just as much today as in Shakespeare's time. If vagabondage and strumpetry aren't your choice of society, stay away from showbiz people. Find some other line of work.
The Harvey Weinstein case? Mass hysteria, pumped up by unscrupulous lawyers, delusional showbiz airheads, and CultMarx media ideologues. That's my verdict. Case dismissed!
[Permalink]
04—The order-liberty cycle. A listener has chidden me for saying, in my December 27th podcast, quote: "If voting made a difference, they wouldn't allow it." That was in reference to the many cases where a referendum or ballot initiative was voted one way by the people, then squashed, reversed, or gutted by judges and/or politicians.
My listener, quote:
This is the sort of slogan that we might have believed in when we were teenagers. We're a long way from being stupid teenagers now, and you should know better than to simplify the world into bumper stickers.
Here's an example. You are a great fan of the late Margaret Thatcher. (I'm not, but that's a topic for a different letter.) Thatcher undoubtedly made many changes in British domestic and foreign policy. Do you think these changes would have been made if Labour had stayed in power? I don't think so. Voting for Thatcher made a difference.
Neither of us knows how Boris Johnson will play out, but do you think his laws and policies will be the same as Jeremy Corbin's? Voting for Johnson made a difference …
If voting made no difference, why are tyrants so afraid of it? Why do dictators either eliminate or rig elections? Why do so many heroes sacrifice their lives to achieve democracy?
Being glib doesn't become you.
End quote.
Hm. I don't know; I kind of like the glib look … That itself is glib, though, so I'm sliding into an infinite regress there—whoa!
My correspondent of course has a point. Sometimes voting does make a difference. I have a point too, though: all too often it doesn't. That was the case in the examples I cited: Oregon giving driver licenses to illegal aliens in defiance of Ballot Measure 88, and the crushing of California Proposition 187 back in 1994, when Californians voted to deny welfare benefits to illegal aliens.
Those of us afflicted with Trump Disappointment Syndrome often find ourselves wondering what good our Presidential vote did in 2016. America is still inviting the world and invading the world. Would things really have been much different in a Hillary Clinton administration?
So voting doesn't make any difference, except when it does. I'd argue that the doesn'ts way outnumber the doeses, and we ought to be thinking hard what we can do to improve on that.
We, along with all the other developed democracies, have a huge administrative state managed by a vast, entrenched nomenklatura of bureaucrats, time-servers, ideologues, and political seat-warmers. That's a mighty big ship, and she doesn't turn easily.
On the general subject of political change in a democracy, there is also what I call the order-justice cycle.
It's a cliché of course that there is a tension in any society between order and liberty. You can have too much order, by stifling liberty altogether: think of North Korea. And then, you can have too much liberty, where antisocial people run wild without restraint. For a fair and happy society, you need to find the point of balance.
Bertrand Russell visited Lenin's Russia in 1920. The following year he went to warlord China. Commenting on these trips, he said: "I went to Russia, where I found too much government. Then I went to China, where I found too little."
We are not actually very good at finding that point of balance, as we see right now with all this prison reform in the air. Our rulers have made a collective decision that too many people are going to jail and too many of those we arrest are being asked to post bail. I bloviated about this last week, speculating that white race guilt is driving all that liberalization.
So the lever is getting pushed all the way over to maximum liberty, with the corresponding decline in order. That only goes on, though, until public unhappiness about the decline of order rises to some critical mass. Then, yes, democracy works its magic. We vote in a Rudy Giuliani to push the lever back towards more order.
Can't we just find the right point of balance and lock that lever in place? On the historical evidence, no we can't. Voters just aren't that active or attentive. They adjust, put up with a decaying state of affairs, until it gets to be too much for them.
Compulsory voting might help. New York City has a crazy communist mayor because hardly anyone in the city bothers to vote in mayoral elections. Turnout in the two elections de Blasio won were thirteen percent and eighteen percent. In New York, you get what you don't vote for.
So democracy, yes; but our current system has problems we should be thinking hard about … and we're not.
[Permalink]
05—Joe Biden was right! Big news of the week was the arm-wrestling bout with Iran. Again, as I said last week, there is no market here at Radio Derb for Great Game strategizing. I'd like for us to tip over the chess-board and walk away.
The whole thing just fills me with despair and disgust at the sheer colossal stupidity of American foreign policy. Trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, tens of thousands of maimed and disfigured, for what?
Doesn't anyone have to answer for it all? Doesn't anyone at least get reduced to the ranks of ordinary citizens with ordinary jobs, instead of wallowing in extravagant government pensions, corporate directorships, and six-figure speaking fees?
I guess not. They're the nomenklatura. They can do as they please. I more and more find myself thinking there are tumbrils and guillotines in our future, and not minding the thought very much.
I have a couple of sidebar points about the Iran business, though.
First sidebar point. I read with interest that there were mass casualties from a crowd stampede at the funeral for General What's-his-name, the Iranian bigshot we blew up with a drone last week. Apparently the streets of the general's home town were too narrow for the crowds to be properly managed. Quote from the New York Times:
For us Cold War babies, that brings to mind Stalin's funeral in Moscow, March 1953. Again, crowds overwhelmed the crowd control measures and many people were crushed or trampled to death. Nobody knows the numbers: estimates start at a few dozen.
So, one for the memo file: If you're in a totalitarian dictatorship when someone really important dies, stay away from the funeral procession. It'll be on TV anyway.
(If you're in a civilized country, the issue doesn't arise. I followed Winston Churchill's funeral cortege all through the streets of 1965 London without mishap. That was when Britain was a civilized country. Nowadays things might be different.)
Second sidebar point. I know, Joe Biden is a figure of fun. I enjoy laughing at the seat-warming old fool just as much as you do.
Stopped clocks are right twice a day, though, and Joe Biden has occasionally been right. I'm looking at the op-ed cosigned by Joe Biden and Leslie Gelb, a Council on Foreign Relations panjandrum, back on May 1st 2006.
That op-ed makes melancholy reading thirteen years and eight months later. Sample:
It is increasingly clear that President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq. Rather, he hopes to prevent defeat and pass the problem along to his successor. Meanwhile, the frustration of Americans is mounting so fast that Congress might end up mandating a rapid pullout, even at the risk of precipitating chaos and a civil war that becomes a regional war.
End quote.
Our frustration was mounting so fast! Thirteen years and eight months ago! That's precisely five thousand days ago this Wednesday, if my calculator has not deceived me. Five thousand days! Imagine how much more frustrated we must be now!
And: "Congress might end up mandating a rapid pullout." Congress! [Laugh.]
That's not my man point, though. My main point is a bit further down in Joe and Leslie's op-ed. After noting the ineffectual nature of Iraq's so-called "governments of national unity," Joe writes, or agrees with Gelb writing, the following, quote:
The alternative path out of this terrible trap has five elements.
The first is to establish three largely autonomous regions with a viable central government in Baghdad. The Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security. ["Unity Through Autonomy in Iraq" by Joe Biden and Leslie Gelb; NY Times, May 1 2006.]
Yesssss! Partition! Iraq is a bogus country. It should be three countries. All right, that's not precisely what Joe wrote, but he and Gelb were headed in the right direction.
The rest of the foreign policy establishment was of course aghast. Iraq's borders are sacrosanct! they swooned. If only they'd felt the same way about America's.
So yes, sure, Joe's a clown. Even a clown is right once in a while, though.
[Permalink]
06—Miscellany. And now, our closing miscellany of brief items.
Imprimis: Race-denialist item of the week comes from a website called StreetsBlog, which bills itself as, quote, "Informing The Movement To Improve Walking, Biking, And Transit." Oh, you didn't know there is such a movement? Me neither; but as someone who walks a lot, bikes a bit, and rides New York City public transit, I have no objection at all to there being one.
Headline from them, January 8th, headline: NYPD Targets Blacks and Latinos for "Jaywalking" Tickets. There are scare quotes around "jaywalking."
It turns out, you see, that 89.5 percent of summonses for walking against a traffic light, or crossing mid-block, that's just short of ninety percent, went to blacks and Hispanics, who are together only 55 percent of city residents. That's flagrant racism, obviously.
And as if that isn't bad enough, 44 percent of the tickets go to people aged 18 to 25, even though that group comprises just 7 percent of the population. So New York City cops are not only racist, they're also ageist.
When will there finally be justice and equal outcomes for all? How long, O Lord, how long?
[Permalink]
Item: On the snowflake front, National Review reports that Lecturers at a college in Britain—in the journalism department, yet—have been warned that when writing, texting, or emailing to students, they should not use all capital letters. Apparently students find all-caps scary and … what's the cant word?—triggering?
The best reaction to that came from our own Steve Sailer on twitter. Tweet:
I was in an email group with a Nobel Laureate who always typed in all caps.
I suggested to him that he could try typing in all lower case because the all caps made him appear to be shouting.
He replied, [in all caps] BUT I AM SHOUTING!
End tweet.
[Permalink]
Item: Back to New York City: This Latino guy on the City Council—a body that I can tell you, from years of reading about it, has way too much time on its hands—this Latino guy Francisco Moya wants to pass a bill that will ban the use of the terms "alien," "illegal alien," or "illegal immigrant" in official municipal documents.
Wait a minute: Didn't New York do that already? Not precisely. Checking back, I see that back in September last a directive from the city's Commission on Human Rights made it illegal to refer to someone as an "illegal alien" when motivated by hate. Violations can be punished by fines of up to $250,000 per offense.
Has that ever been tested in a court of law? How would it be?
What we need is some objective way to measure the degree of hate in someone's heart when they say "illegal alien." But again, we already have one: the prejudometer, as advertised by British newspaper columnist Michael Wharton twenty years ago. Quote from his column, April 13 2001:
Inexpensive and handy for pocket or handbag, you simply point [the prejudometer] at any person (including yourself) you suspect of "racism," press the easy-to-find "action" button and read off the result in prejudons, the internationally recognised scientific unit of racial prejudice.
Plainly I'm going to need one of those for my occasional jaunts into New York City. I'd better get on Amazon looking for a reasonably-priced prejudometer—or, as I suspect it is nowadays called, hate-ometer. You'll have to excuse me …
[Permalink]
07—Signoff. That's it, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for listening and for your emails, including those that chide. A little chiding now and then keeps a writer on his toes.
For our sign-out, here's something new. We've had music, both instrumental and vocal, and we've had poetry. Here for a change is some plain spoken English.
In my December Diary I mentioned the British politician Stanley Baldwin, whose first spells as Prime Minister coincided quite closely with Calvin Coolidge's Presidency, and whose governing style was Coolidgean. I noted that unlike Silent Cal, Baldwin was not wise enough to quit while he was ahead. He was Prime Minister again in the mid-1930s, with unhappy results.
Still, Stanley Baldwin seems to me to have been a pretty good egg. Curious to hear the man's voice, I went looking for sound recordings. Here, from a CD that's been gathering dust on my bookshelves, is a bit of his last speech as Prime Minister, May 18th 1937. It touches on some of what I said earlier about order, freedom, and the point of balance.
Baldwin was addressing the Empire Rally of Youth here. And yes, that's the British Empire [sigh].
More from Radio Derb next week.
[Permalink]
[Music clip: Stanley Baldwin, Address to the Empire Rally of Youth.]
Let me end in this, the last speech I shall make before a great audience as Prime Minister of this country. Let me proclaim my faith, which is the faith of millions of all races from end to end of the British Empire. Here we have ceased to be an island, but we are still an Empire.
And what is her secret? Freedom, ordered freedom, within the law, with force in the background and not in the foreground: a society in which authority and freedom are blended in due proportion, in which state and citizen are both ends and means. It is an empire organised for peace and for the free development of the individual in and through an infinite variety of voluntary associations. It neither deifies the state nor its rulers …


vdare--2020-01-16--Radio Derb Transcript Up For January 10: Harvey On Trial, Joe Biden's Plan, Legalizing Jaywalking, A

Radio Derb Transcript Up For January 10: Harvey On Trial, Joe Biden's Plan, Legalizing Jaywalking, And Banning "Illegal," Etc.

The Radio Derb transcript is up for January 10 .
Go here to read or listen .
09m21s Vagabonds and @ @ @ @ @ the bathroom . )
18m02s The order-liberty cycle .
( Swinging from one to the @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden was right .
( And when Stalin died . )
34m52s Those triggering @ @ @ @ @ YOU KIDDING ME ? )

The Radio Derb transcript is up for January 10. Go here to read or listen.
00m47s Emmanuel Weinstein. (Harvey on trial.)
09m21s Vagabonds and strumpets. (Unwittingly into the bathroom.)
18m02s The order-liberty cycle. (Swinging from one to the other.)
25m13s When Joe Biden was right. (And when Stalin died.)
32m43s Flagrant racism in de Blasio's New York. (Ticketing jaywalkers.)
34m52s Those triggering capital letters. (ARE YOU KIDDING ME?)
36m05s Banning "illegal alien." (Get yourself a prejudometer.)
38m52s Signoff. (With the British Coolidge.)