The four impeachment experts

The four testifying impeachment experts were unbearable:

Here’s a look at all four:
Noah Feldman

Feldman is Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where he’s also the director of the Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law.

Really? Couldn't they find some non-Jew who studies American law?

All four were Trump-hater Democrats.

Then there was Pamela S. Karlan. She is an obnoxious Jewish lesbian.

They had nothing, except hatred for Trump, and a smug know-it-all attitude. The Nadler hearings are even worse than the Schiff hearings.

Danish immigrant wants multi-ethnic Denmark

From a NY Times op-ed:

I would be contacted shortly by the Danish police; the university had just learned I was facing criminal charges for violating my work and residence permit. ...

A month before, I’d been on top of the world and ready to apply for permanent residence in Denmark, the country that had been my home for nearly eight years.

It is amazing how this guy can think that he can move to Denmark and violate its laws.

Long before the Trump administration, the populist Danish People’s Party formed a bloc in Parliament in the early 2000s and influenced a shift in the laws of a country formerly known for its warm welcome to outsiders. The party didn’t want to just eliminate immigration; it sought to return Denmark to an imaginary past of racial and ethnic “purity.” As the party platform states: “Denmark is not an immigrant country and never has been. Thus we will not accept transformation to a multiethnic society.”

This is more or less what Mr. Trump’s immigration adviser, Stephen Miller, wants for the United States, which is why it is important for Americans to understand where such policies lead.

It makes sense to me that Denmark would not want to be transformed into something else.

The kind of xenophobia that afflicted Denmark appeared last month, during impeachment hearings, in commentary questioning the loyalty of public servants like Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and Fiona Hill because they are immigrants. Their contributions — including a willingness to risk death in the name of duty — don’t matter to their critics, who saw and heard only one thing: not one of us.

Yes, I thought "not one of us", and that was because of they disloyality. They wanted to carry our their own foreign policy, based on what they thought was good for Ukraine, instead of following their elected superiors.

On top of the staggering moral failure this represents — alongside the Muslim travel ban and the horrors of caged Central American children — this is just unfathomably self-defeating. Immigrants helped Americans win World War II and put Americans on the moon; ...

So becaue Werner von Braun helped us design rockets, we need to take Muslim terrorists and Honduran child traffickers? This is crazy.

This is nutty. Maybe Denmark should have jailed him for teaching stupidity to his students.

The Left is destructive

Dennis Prager writes:

Yet, leftists -- most especially LGBTQ groups, which spread a remarkable amount of hate in the name of "love" -- seek to crush The Salvation Army. They threaten and pressure whoever supports The Salvation Army. ...

One of the great puzzles in contemporary American life is whether there is anything the left could do to make Americans understand how destructive it is. If suppressing free speech at colleges and on the internet, fomenting interracial anger, supporting those who wish to annihilate Israel, allowing (and even encouraging) teenage girls to have their healthy breasts surgically removed if they think they are a boy and trying to crush The Salvation Army don't do it, probably nothing will.

Prager is an Orthodox Jew, and not a leftist. The Salvation Army is Christian. Prager doesn't want to say it, but his enemies are really the secular Jews.

Subjective motivations should be irrelevant

A law professor attacks this Bill Barr opinion:

The Supreme Court has traditionally refused, across a wide variety of contexts, to inquire into the subjective motivation behind governmental action. To take the classic example, if a police officer has probable cause to initiate a traffic stop, his subjective motivations are irrelevant. And just last term, the Supreme Court appropriately shut the door to claims that otherwise-lawful redistricting can violate the Constitution if the legislators who drew the lines were actually motivated by political partisanship.

What is true of police officers and gerrymanderers is equally true of the President and senior Executive officials. With very few exceptions, neither the Constitution, nor the Administrative Procedure Act or any other relevant statute, calls for judicial review of executive motive. They apply only to executive action. Attempts by courts to act like amateur psychiatrists attempting to discern an Executive official's "real motive" — often after ordering invasive discovery into the Executive Branch's privileged decision-making process — have no more foundation in the law than a subpoena to a court to try to determine a judge's real motive for issuing its decision. And courts' indulgence of such claims, even if they are ultimately rejected, represents a serious intrusion on the President's constitutional prerogatives.

Reframing history as slavery and DNA

The World Socialist Web Site posts this essay:

“The 1619 Project,” published by the New York Times as a special 100-page edition of its Sunday magazine on August 19, presents and interprets American history entirely through the prism of race and racial conflict. The occasion for this publication is the 400th anniversary of the initial arrival of 20 African slaves at Port Comfort in Virginia, a British colony in North America. On the very next day, the slaves were traded for food.

The Project, according to the Times, intends to “reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.”

Despite the pretense of establishing the United States’ “true” foundation, the 1619 Project is a politically motivated falsification of history. Its aim is to create a historical narrative that legitimizes the effort of the Democratic Party to construct an electoral coalition based on the prioritizing of personal “identities” — i.e., gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, and, above all, race.

The Times is promoting the Project with an unprecedented and lavishly financed publicity blitz. It is working with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, which has developed a proposed teaching curriculum that will be sent to schools for teachers to use in their classes. Hundreds of thousands of extra copies of the magazine and a special supplement have been printed for free distribution at schools, libraries and museums across the country. Nikole Hannah-Jones, the staff writer and New America Foundation fellow who first pitched the idea for the Project, oversaw its production and authored the introduction, will be sent on a national lecture tour of schools.

The essays featured in the magazine are organized around the central premise that all of American history is rooted in race hatred — specifically, the uncontrollable hatred of “black people” by “white people.” Hannah-Jones writes in the series’ introduction: “Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country.”

Glad to see that even some leftists see what absurd propaganda the NY Times is peddling. The NY Times will do anything to promote racial antagonisms.

In yet another article, published in the current edition of Foreign Affairs, the neurologist Robert Sapolsky argues that the antagonism between human groups is rooted in biology. Extrapolating from bloody territorial conflicts between chimpanzees, with whom humans “share more than 98 percent of their DNA,” Sapolsky asserts that understanding “the dynamics of human group identity, including the resurgence of nationalism — that potentially most destructive form of in-group bias — requires grasping the biological and cognitive underpinnings that shape them.”

Sapolsky’s simplistic dissolution of history into biology recalls not only the reactionary invocation of “Social Darwinism” to legitimize imperialist conquest by the late nineteen and early twentieth century imperialists, but also the efforts of German geneticists to provide a pseudo-scientific justification for Nazi anti-Semitism and racism.

Dangerous and reactionary ideas are wafting about in bourgeois academic and political circles. No doubt, the authors of the Project 1619 essays would deny that they are predicting race war, let alone justifying fascism. But ideas have a logic; and authors bear responsibility for the political conclusions and consequences of their false and misguided arguments.

I guess that he is trying to say that if racial groups have an innate hatred of each other, then we would be led to policies that separate those groups.

The essay goes on to give some interesting historical info, from a leftist perspective.

Transcendent moral order antecedent

The NY Times has an article attacking this Barr quote:

in the Framers’ view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people — a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order antecedent to both the state and man-made law and who had the discipline to control themselves according to those enduring principles. ...

This is not decay; it is organized destruction. Secularists, and their allies among the “progressives,” have marshaled all the force of mass communications, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values.

It is a strange article. The writer does a lot of research to get expert opinion against this, but the comments hardly have anything to do with the Barr quote.

AP reports:

PHOENIX (AP) — Presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg said Tuesday that the United States needs “an awful lot more immigrants rather than less.” …

“We need immigrants to take all the different kinds of jobs that the country needs — improve our culture, our cuisine, our religion, our dialogue and certainly improve our economy,” the billionaire told reporters at a Mexican restaurant in Phoenix.

So a Jewish billionaire is running for President so he can flood America with millions of immigrants to improve our religion!

If I said this myself, I would have readers accusing me of anti-semitism. This is Bloomberg, saying it himself, and confirming the worst suspicions about Jews. He hates Christians, and wants to replace them with non-Christians from Third World countries. And he is supposed to be the moderate Democrat candidate.

Future technology shaped by White Men

Facebook Inc. Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg completed his 2019 “personal challenge” on Monday, his version of a New Year’s resolution. This year he pledged to “host a series of public discussions about the future of technology in society -- the opportunities, the challenges, the hopes, and the anxieties.”

The problem? Almost all of Zuckerberg’s discussions were with fellow white men -- who have always dominated the technology industry.

In the six discussion videos Facebook posted throughout the year, 8 of Zuckerberg’s 9 guests were male, and almost all of them were white. Seven were professors or doctors -- and all but one were over the age of 40.

The group’s homogeneity speaks to one of the biggest criticisms of Silicon Valley: That tech is primarily driven and shaped by the decisions of white men, a reality evident in the employee demographics for almost all major technology companies.

Actually those Silicon Valley companies have a preference for hiring Asian immigrants over Whites.

But of course future technology is being shaped by White men. That is how it has been for 500 years, and it might be that way for the next 500 years.

These articles are just expressions of White male hatred.

If Zuckerberg make poor choices, then maybe the article could suggest some black women who might have insights into future technology. But it doesn't do that. It just complains about their race and sex.

It used to be that such an article was almost the definition of racism -- attacking people for the color of their skin, and nothing else. Now the mainstream press is filled with articles that just attack Whites for being white.

NY Times tells big lies about Trump

Michelle Goldberg, following a Jewish preoccupation with the Big Lie, writes in the NY Times:

The first big lie is that “the people” elected Trump, and that the constitutional provision of impeachment would invalidate their choice. In fact, Trump is president only because a constitutional provision invalidated the choice of the American people. Trump lost the popular vote and might have lost the Electoral College without Russian interference, and yet many Democrats and pundits have been bullied into accepting the fiction that he has democratic, and not just constitutional, legitimacy.

The second big lie is that Russia didn’t help elect Trump, and that the president has been absolved of collusion. It’s true that the report by Robert Mueller, the former special counsel, did not find enough evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Russian state actors.

This is just crazy stuff. The only Russian help that was ever proved was that Russian RT TV had a few broadcasts critical of Hillary Clinton. They criticize whomever is the President or likely President.

Mueller said there was no collusion. He did say that a grand jury alleged that Russians stole some DNC emails, but he admits that it was never proven.

Claiming that the people did not really elect Trump is just Jewish propaganda. Trump was absolutely elected by the people. She seems to be referring to the fact that Clinton got enough excess votes in California that she could have won if our Constitution had some provision to make those excess California votes meaningful. But Trump did not even campaign in California, because they are not. Trump won a majority the way votes are counted in our system.

Goldberg and the NY Times just make it clear that their real beef with Trump is not the Ukraine phone call, but unhappiness that he got elected by the people in 2016.

See this YouTube video showing that the impeach Trump movement is a Jew coup, before it gets removed. As the video shows, Jewish publications acknowledge this.


The NY Times also announces that news of an atomic spy has just been released:

The world’s first atomic bomb was detonated on July 16, 1945, in the New Mexican desert — a result of a highly secretive effort code-named the Manhattan Project, whose nerve center lay nearby in Los Alamos. Just 49 months later, the Soviets detonated a nearly identical device in Central Asia, and Washington’s monopoly on nuclear arms abruptly ended.

How Moscow managed to make such quick progress has long fascinated scientists, federal agents and historians. The work of three spies eventually came to light. Now atomic sleuths have found a fourth. Oscar Seborer, like the other spies, worked at wartime Los Alamos, a remote site ringed by tall fences and armed guards. Mr. Seborer nonetheless managed to pass sensitive information about the design of the American weapon to Soviet agents.

The spy fled to the Soviet Union some years later; ...

Mr. Seborer was born in New York City in 1921, the youngest child of Jewish immigrants from Poland, ...

In 1951, Mr. Seborer fled the United States with his older brother Stuart, as well as his brother’s wife and mother-in-law, and defected to the Soviet Union, where, in 1964, he received the Order of the Red Star, a prestigious military award.

Jews were pro-Russian back then, because Russia was Communist. Now they push weirdo anti-Russian conspiracy theories.

Among Adam Schiff and the other Jews testifying at his hearings, it is clear that they do not even believe in the American political system. They seem to regret that Russia is no longer Communist, and wish that America were more Communist.

Extraordinary character of the Deep State

Susan E. Rice, a former Obama advisor, writes in NY Times:

Second, these hearings have amply demonstrated the extraordinary caliber and character of our nonpartisan career Foreign Service officers, civil servants and uniformed military personnel. The intellect, integrity, selflessness and sense of duty displayed by each of the officials who testified — even in the face of harsh personal attacks and efforts at witness intimidation orchestrated by the president — are extraordinary. ...

Yet Mr. Trump and Republicans in Congress have denigrated and demeaned these public servants, ...

In rhetoric that recalls the darkest days of McCarthyism, Republican leaders will seemingly stop at nothing to destroy public faith in our public servants.

No, none of the impeachment witnesses have impressed me as being anything but disloyal scum.

Many were foreign born. Many seemed to have allegiances to foreign countries. They all had agendas where they did not want to be accountable to the elected officials.

For example, anything from the White House was considered to be an "irregular channel" that was to be subverted if possible. They talked about the necessity of sending weapons to Ukraine, as if the desire to get Ukrainians killing Russians was more important than American interests.

Another NY Times op-ed:

In anticipation of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s recent public testimony in the House’s impeachment inquiry, the Fox News host Laura Ingraham and a guest concocted an insulting fantasy on her show: the idea that Colonel Vindman might be a Ukrainian spy.

It may have shocked a lot of Americans that Fox News televangelists and establishment conservatives like John Yoo are spinning the “narrative” of the courageous Colonel Vindman — a man who put his country’s interests ahead of his own — into one that suggests, as an immigrant, he wasn’t loyal to the United States.

That is just a lie. Neither Yoo nor anyone else at Fox News said that Vindman was a spy. Vindman is suing Fox News, and he is going to lose.

However, after listening to Vindman's testimony, he is obvious not a loyal American with American values. He is a traiterous creep who put his Ukrainian political agenda ahead of carrying out American policy. He used every opportunity to attack the President, even when he did not have the necessary facts.

Essay supports Incel Pride

Andrew Anglin writes about incel pride:

I get messages from sluts nonstop. And I do not engage. I will not engage in sexual relations with a non-prostitute, under any circumstances, unless that circumstance is with the clear intent to use her to produce children.

And because I have not found a woman worthy of that great honor, I am an incel and I am a proud incel. ...

According to the laws of God and nature, there are seven options for dealing with the sexual drive.

These are, from best to worst:

Marriage with children
Celibacy
Whore-mongering
Lechery (Slut-hunting)
Rape
Being a boyfriend (i.e., human pet)
Masturbation

In my view, only the first three should ever be considered valid options for a dignified and self-respecting man. ...

Ultimately, all of what I have just written here is political. It is a result of the political situation which has been created by the Jews. It is a society-scale problem that none of us can change, until the time comes when God allows us to change it by taking a series of necessary actions. ...

Until then, be an incel. And be proud of it.

This is funny. I don't agree with it. I am just posting it because it is funny. I think he put that line about Jews in, because his policy is to blame everything on the Jews.

Anglin used to be the most hated right-winger, but now that appears to be Nick Fuentes. There is a systematic effort by leftists and cuckservatives to ostracize him. He is just a kid with a YouTube following for his America First opinions.

I am not in favor of cancel culture. If you don't agree with someone's opinions, explain why he is wrong.

Ta-Nehisi Coates writes in a NY Times op-ed:

We are being told of the evils of “cancel culture,” a new scourge that enforces purity, banishes dissent and squelches sober and reasoned debate. But cancel culture is not new. ... What were the detention camps during World War II but the racist muting of Japanese-Americans and their basic rights? ...

For the past three years, this sacred trust has executed, with brutal efficiency, the cancellation of Colin Kaepernick. This is curious given the N.F.L.’s moral libertinism; the league has, at various points, been a home for domestic abusers, child abusers and open racists.

And yet it seems Mr. Kaepernick’s sin — refusing to stand for the national anthem — offends the N.F.L.’s suddenly delicate sensibilities.

No that was not Kaepernick's sin.

His first sin was being a lousy quarterback. In his last season, he lost nearly every game for what was otherwise a very good team.

His second sin was explaining his reasons for disrespecting the anthem. He said that it was to protest the police in Ferguson Missouri. In other words, he was supporting black thugs trying to kill white cops.

As I said, I do not favor cancel culture. Let him play, if he can make the team somewhere. But be clear about what he is. He is much worse than a racist or a Holocaust denier. He is someone who actively supports blacks killing white cops.

Bill Gates is evil

There is a popular debate on whether Bill Gates is evil, with his defenders posting here and here.

In short, people hate him for being excessively rich and monopolizing PC software, and praise him for his charitable work.

I think this is backwards. His monopolization tactics were not as bad as some other tech companies. The charitable work is the problem.

His foundation has been a gigantic transfer of wealth from America to Africa. They say that he has saved a lot of lives, but he has really increased African fertility to where it is now a giant ticking population bomb. If trends continue, Africa will be a far greater disaster than global warming or any of the other environmental concerns.

NY Times promotes White Genocide again

The NY Times reports:

SYRACUSE, N.Y. — It was an ordinary cram session, around midnight, when the screed appeared on students’ phones. A racist manifesto, sent to a small clutch of people sitting at a Syracuse University library on Tuesday morning, warned of “the great replacement,” a right-wing conspiracy theory that predicts white genocide at the hands of minority groups.

If it is a right-wing conspiracy theory, then why does the NY Times print so many stories about it? Maybe once a week it has a story about Whites being displaced by non-whites.

On Sunday, the university suspended all social activities at fraternities for the rest of the semester, after a group of students, including members of one fraternity, accosted a female African-American student on Saturday night and used a racial slur.

But Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said on Tuesday that the university’s response was not enough.

Really? Just one word is all it takes to shut down all the fraternities?!

On Tuesday, state and federal law enforcement officials descended on the university, just east of downtown, looking for evidence as to who had sent the manifesto, an anti-Muslim screed previously circulated by the suspect accused of a mass killing at two New Zealand mosques in March.

The manifesto was posted online late Monday night on a forum geared to those interested in Greek life at Syracuse University, according to the city’s police chief, and was then sent or shared via a file-transfer service to the phones of several students who were inside Bird Library.

The manifesto was a widely reported news story. It should be available to everyone. It was quoted in this Wash. Post story. A typical quote is "We are experiencing an invasion on a level never seen before in history. Millions of people pouring across our borders, legally." University students should learn both sides of the immigration issue.

I am already bored with impeachment. Yesterday was just some disloyal creeps expressing opinions of disagreement with their superiors. The most serious allegation was an opinion that something seemed "improper" to someone pushing for a different policy.

Update: There is a possibility that the NY Times, Cuomo, Syracuse, etc. are perpetrating a hoax. Parts of this story appear to be completely false, and part of an effort to malign White people.

West Bank settlements are not illegal

Michelle Goldberg writes in the NY Times:

[Jewish organizations] sent a letter to the White House demanding Miller’s removal, writing, “Supporters of white supremacists and neo-Nazis should not be allowed to serve at any level of government.”

Miller is Jewish, and obviously now a white supremacist or a neo-Nazi. But for the NY Times, stupid name-calling is the order of the day.

The lede story in the paper is

The Trump administration declared on Monday that the United States does not consider Israeli settlements in the West Bank a violation of international law, reversing four decades of American policy and removing what has been an important barrier to annexation of Palestinian territory.

Pres. Trump is the most pro-Jewish president we have ever had, and yet the Jews complain endlessly with idiotic name-calling and false accusations.

Obviously the Israeli Jews want to have their own people in their own territory. And this two-state solution propaganda is never going to work because Israel has offered land for peace to the Palestinian Arabs many times, and it has always been refused.

There was never anything illegal about the settlements. I think that the "illegal" notion comes from either being contrary to some UN General Assembly resolution, or against some international convention against moving civilians into occupied territory in time of war. But the war is over, and Israel won. Get used to it.

Jefferson and Lincoln were white supremacists

Leftists sometimes argue that the USA has long history of white supremacism, and it is amusing to note that this 2006 article by a pro-white group says essentially the same thing:

For today’s Americans it is an embarrassment to discover that their heroes were “bigots.” Historians usually ignore this or gloss over it. Most Americans have no idea Jefferson and Lincoln were “white supremacists,” perhaps because there have been deliberate attempts to conceal their views. For example, the Jefferson Memorial falsifies the third president’s views of blacks. Inscribed on the marble interior are the words: “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [the Negroes] shall be free.” When Jefferson wrote these words, he did not end them with a period, but with a semicolon, after which he wrote: “nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live under the same government.” ...

What of twentieth century presidents? Theodore Roosevelt thought blacks were “a perfectly stupid race,’ and blamed Southerners for bringing them to America. ...

Woodrow Wilson was a confirmed segregationist and as president of Princeton prevented blacks from enrolling. ...

Harry Truman is remembered for having integrated the armed services by executive order. Yet, in his private correspondence he was as much a separatist as Jefferson: “I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America.” In a letter to his daughter he described waiters at the White House as “an army of coons.”

Revenge of the Deep State

NY Times opinion headline:

Trump Demeaned Bureaucrats. This Is Their Revenge.

Ahh, that is what impeachment is all about. Deep State bureaucrats with foreign ethnic allegiances seemed to have gotten authority over policy with Ukraine, but Pres. Trump upset their plans. A female Russian-American had her feelings hurt when she was reassigned. Now they are getting their revenge by testifying against Trump at the Schiff hearings. From a NY Times editorial:

Representative Adam Schiff, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, interrupted the questioning to let the ambassador know that the president was attacking her.

After reading Ms. Yovanovitch one of the belligerent tweets, Mr. Schiff asked: “What effect do you think that has on other witnesses’ willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing?”

“Well, it’s very intimidating,” she said, visibly shaken.

Mr. Schiff assured her that “some of us here take witness intimidation very, very seriously.”

Translation: The president may just have earned himself an article of impeachment.

Really? Trump tweets a criticism of a traitorous incompetent Democrat stooge, Schiff reads it to her during her testimony, and the NY Times says that this is grounds for impeaching Trump!

News reports of this criticism cited other examples of Trump criticizing his enemies, as if there is something wrong with that.

If Trump has erred, it has been in tolerating his enemies much more than he should. Apparently his administration is filled with swamp-dwellers who actively work to undermine his agenda.

NY Times versus Western Civ

The NY Times token bisexual black opinion columnist writes:

“When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears.” ...

VDARE is preoccupied with “white genocide” — the myth that nonwhites are working to destroy white people through immigration and intermarriage ...

“the parallels” between Pope Francis’s pro-refugee statements and “The Camp of the Saints,” a 1973 novel by the French author Jean Raspail. In the book, an influx of Indian refugees — described as subhuman and led by a feces-eating demagogue — storm France, killing, stealing and rampaging until they’ve completely occupied the country. Other migrants follow and eventually overrun western Europe, turning white Europeans into a subject class. The book is popular with white nationalists and is mentioned frequently on VDARE and the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website. ...

Republicans stuck with President Trump in 2017 when he defended the “Unite the Right” protesters in Charlottesville, Va., and they stuck with him in 2018 when he denounced “shithole” countries. They stuck with him through family separation, and they’re sticking with him as he keeps thousands of children in detention.

Black people do not read the NY Times. This guy has a job because he is attacking Pres. Trump, and Western Civ.

It is amusing to see the NY Times publish plugs for Daily Stormer and VDARE, and calling White Genocide a myth.

Of course the lede stories in the paper are on how some pathetic Russian-American diplomat had her feelings hurt when some Ukrainians spread some rumors that she was disloyal to the President. I don't know whether someone was being mean to her, but her testimonty leaves no doubt that she is disloyal. Again and again she found ways to badmouth Trump when she never met him or had any first-hand knowledge about him. She admitted that she has no actual knowledge of any wrongdoing by Trump, and does not even know why she was reassigned to a different job.

This attempted coup is a national disgrace. All sensible people are sticking with Trump.

Impeachment testimony is fourth-hand

Here is the lead NY Times impeachment story from the top of page 1:

Impeachment Hearings Open With Revelation on Trump’s Ukraine Pressure

As public hearings began, William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Ukraine, said he was told President Trump cared more about investigating Joe Biden than he did about Ukraine.

WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives opened historic impeachment hearings on Wednesday and took startling new testimony from a senior American diplomat that further implicated President Trump ...

Mr. Taylor testified to the House Intelligence Committee that he learned only recently of a July telephone call overheard by one of his aides in which the president was preoccupied with Ukraine’s willingness to say it would look into Mr. Biden and work by his son Hunter Biden for a Ukrainian energy firm. Immediately afterward, Mr. Taylor said, the aide had been informed that Mr. Trump cared more about “investigations of Biden” than he did about Ukraine.

A powerful witness for Democrats, Mr. Taylor appeared as Congress embarked on the third set of presidential impeachment hearings in modern times.

Got that? The best evidence is fourth-hand hearsay.

Tayloy said that he had "authority" over the "regular channel" of communications to Ukraine, but was unhappy that Trump had used others for informal communications. Last week, one of Taylor's aides said that he heard Sondland express an opinion in July about Trump cares more about exposing Biden's corruption than advancing the Deep State agenda for reviving the Cold War.

Let's hope so. Some polls have indicated that Joe Biden is the frontrunner to be elected President in 2020. If he is a crook, we need to know that before he gets back into the White House.

Taylor has spent much of his career trying to revive the Cold War by putting troops on the Russian border in order to justify State Dept. budgets. Let's hope that Trump does not care to agree.

But only Trump knows what he cares about. Unless Sondland is a mindreader, he does not know Trump's state of mind. Any such opinion from Sondland is just second-hand hearsay. Taylor's aide is third-hand, and Taylor's testimony is fourth-hand.

If I went to the White House or anywhere else to push for some pet project of him, and didn't get what I wanted, then I might very well grumble that someone cares more about something else. Such grumbling could not possibly be evidence of wrongdoing.

And the pro-impeachment NY Times gushes that this is "startling new testimony"!

This is just a coup by Schiff-Nadler-Schumer, NYTimes-WashPost-CNN, and the Deep State Cold Warriors.

Schiff now claims that he doesn't know who the so-called whistleblower is, even tho Eric Ciaramella's name seems to be known to everyone else, and Schiff is known to have helped him write the complaint.

YouTube and Facebook said they would block people from identifying the government official thought to be the whistle-blower, so I may have to edit the previous paragraph. This is very strange, as I have never heard of a political accuser being protected in this way.

This will go down as the lamest impeachment attempt in American history.

The NY Times has a couple of articles that exemplify Jewish thinking.

David Brooks writes In Praise of Washington Insiders. He is an authoritarian of a sort that is common among Jews. He praises institutions making policy without much public accountability. He gives the impression that his ideal form of government is the Communist politburo.

We don’t celebrate these people. Trumpian conservatives say that Washington insiders are unelected bureaucrats, denizens of the swamp, the cesspool or a snake pit. Some progressives call Washington insiders the establishment, the power elite, the privileged structures of the status quo. ...

In reality, institutions are the only vehicles for legislative change. That’s because they are the way to wield power safely.

He is a Trump-hater, and he thinks it was great that Taylor and Kent were part of an institutional effort to undermine Presidential policy.

I am not sure what makes these views so common among Jews, but they are essential to impeachment. The whole basis for impeachment is the ideology that the President should submit to the Cold War policies of the Deep State instead of the voters who do not want to provoke war with Russia.

A NY Times op-ed exhibits such crazy Jewish thinking that it appears to be a parody:

I am a young, gay, left-wing Jew. Yet I am called an “apartheid-enabler,” a “baby killer” and a “colonial apologist.” ...

so many young Jews, myself included, can’t imagine being anything other than political progressives. As a gay abortion rights advocate and environmentalist, my place in such circles has always been welcomed and accepted. ...

I am a Zionist. It is because I, like 95 percent of American Jews, support Israel. ...

I viewed — and still view — the establishment of the state of Israel as a fundamentally just cause: the most persecuted people in human history finally gaining the right of self-determination after centuries of displacement, intimidation, violence and genocide. ...

At many American universities, mine included, it is now normal for student organizations to freely call Israel an imperialist power and an outpost of white colonialism with little pushback or discussion ...

While white supremacists plot to murder Jews across this country, “anti-Zionists” on college campuses seek to marginalize us as white supremacists. Consider the fact that at the University of Virginia — where white supremacists marched through campus shouting “Jews will not replace us!” — it was Jewish students who were barred from joining a minority student coalition to fight white supremacy (that decision is under review).

This is so sick, I don't know where to start. Why does someone identify himself as "a gay abortion rights advocate"? Gays don't get pregnant.

How can he think that Jews are "the most persecuted people in human history". Jews are the least persecuted people. Jews have more power, money, and influence that any other group, per capita.

While he spreads myths about white supremacists, he is obviously a Jewish supremacist. He believes Jews should advance policies to replace whites with non-whites.

His main annoyance is that other leftists lump together Jewish supremacists with White supremacists, while he an anti-White Jew. His distinctions don't make any sense to his fellow non-Jewish students.

Anyway, I post this as an example of Jewish thinking. There are no non-Jews who say stuff like this.

Mention Coolidge, get branded a Nazi

A popular leftist law professor blogger writes

So the architect of Trump's immigration policies, Stephen Miller, is a Nazi after all

Miller is Jewish, and is engaged to a Jewish woman. So I am pretty sure he is not a Nazi.

Here is the Nazi connection:

Miller refers to President Calvin Coolidge multiple times in emails to Breitbart. Coolidge signed the Immigration Act of 1924. ... In “Mein Kampf,” Hitler portrayed the U.S. law as a potential model for the Nazis in Germany.

Wow, the leftist pro-immigration lobby has gone nuts.

Daily Wire editor and Ben Shapiro employee Josh Hammer writes:

Jew-hatred is inherent in European DNA.

Really? How does that work? Is this like sexual preference is supposed to be, and innate?

How America Ends

Atlantic article:

“Our radical Democrat opponents are driven by hatred, prejudice, and rage,” Trump told the crowd at his reelection kickoff event in Orlando in June. “They want to destroy you and they want to destroy our country as we know it.” This is the core of the president’s pitch to his supporters: He is all that stands between them and the abyss.

In October, with the specter of impeachment looming, he fumed on Twitter, “What is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP, intended to take away the Power of the People, their VOTE, their Freedoms, their Second Amendment, Religion, Military, Border Wall, and their God-given rights as a Citizen of The United States of America!” For good measure, he also quoted a supporter’s dark prediction that impeachment “will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.”

Trump’s apocalyptic rhetoric matches the tenor of the times.

Yes, the rhetoric on the Left is even more apocalyptic.

The impeachment is just a Deep State coup. Victor Davis Hanson explains Ten Reasons Why Impeachment Is Illegitimate.

Within the living memory of most Americans, a majority of the country’s residents were white Christians. That is no longer the case, and voters are not insensate to the change—nearly a third of conservatives say they face “a lot” of discrimination for their beliefs, as do more than half of white evangelicals. But more epochal than the change that has already happened is the change that is yet to come: Sometime in the next quarter century or so, depending on immigration rates and the vagaries of ethnic and racial identification, nonwhites will become a majority in the U.S. For some Americans, that change will be cause for celebration; for others, it may pass unnoticed.

Yes, various leftists, non-whites, and non-Christians are celebrating the demise of White Americans.

Those are the only publicly acceptable positions -- to either celebrate the change, or pretend not to notice.

Do the White-Christian-haters have the power to oust President Trump today? Or will they have to wait a few years before executing their plan to destroy America? We shall soon see.

Voices for dignity, intelligence and gravitas

Sometimes it is hard to tell whether the news media is serious with its anti-Trump bias. This NY Times op-ed letter has me stumped:

To the Editor:

A plea from 33 writers: Please use language that will clarify the issues at hand.

Please stop using the Latin phrase “quid pro quo” regarding the impeachment inquiry. Most people don’t understand what it means, and in any case it doesn’t refer only to a crime. Asking for a favor is not a criminal act; we frequently demand things from foreign countries before giving them aid, like asking them to improve their human rights record.

That is not a crime; ... But using this neutral phrase — which means simply “this for that” ... Please use words that refer only to criminal behavior here. ...

Please also stop using the phrase “dig up dirt.” This slang has unsavory connotations. ... Words make a difference.

These are parlous times, and we look to public voices for dignity, intelligence and gravitas. Please use precise and forceful language that reveals the struggle in which we now find ourselves. It’s a matter of survival.

Is this letter a spoof or not?

It is almost as if the letter read: "Please stop calling him President Trump, as that gives him too much respect, and start calling him the criminal-in-chief! Also, Deep State has unsavory connotations."

This is from 33 writers showing off their writing skills. Okay, I am impressed that they fooled the NY Times.

Democrats trying to destroy America

Shikha Dalmia writes at Reason.com:lslws;?"aaaaaaaa'/as'a''''

California Sen. Kamala Harris' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination is imploding even before President Donald Trump could think up an insulting nickname for her. Once regarded as the Democrats' best hope to take down Trump, Harris has seen her polls collapse, her donations tumble, and her campaign in shambles. She claims her woes show that the country is just "not ready for a woman of color" to be president. ...

What kind of "quality of life" crimes did she crack down on? Panhandling, prostitution, graffiti, loitering, driving under the influence, and living in an unapproved homeless encampment. ...

Her most notorious "quality of life" crusade was against school truancy. She first launched it as the district attorney of San Francisco, an office she won after defeating her truly progressive boss, who had alienated police unions with his alleged softness on crime, and then scaled it up when she became California's attorney general.

On the theory that high school dropouts are more likely to become criminals, Harris personally championed a 2011 state law that made it a criminal misdemeanor for parents to let kids in kindergarten through eighth grade miss more than 10 percent of school days without a valid excuse. As if that was not bad enough, she also persuaded the state legislature to back the law with such harsh penalties as a minimum of $2,500 in fines and a one-year jail sentence. To prevent criminality in the future, she criminalized parents here and now. ...

If Harris didn't spare parents, there was no way she was going to go easy on less sympathetic offenders, such as sex workers. In fact, on the pretext of stopping human trafficking, she ramped up stings in immigrant communities and aggressively targeted websites such as Backpage on trumped up charges of child sex trafficking—even though Backpage, Brown reports, was one of the few venues where sex workers could seek clients without having to roam the streets. And although Harris now says she's in favor of decriminalizing sex work, she doggedly opposed the idea previously.

Support for Harris was almost entirely based on her being a woman with an unusual racial background, as the Democrat Party is all identity politics, all the time. She made a big deal in an early debate about how she was for forced racial school busing. She looks somewhat black, but she isn't. Her father is Jamaican, and his mother Hindu. She was a mistress to a black politician, but now she is married to a Jewish man, and has no kids.

She also wants to expand the public schools into all-day day-care centers. She is a creep with no appeal outside California.

Bernie Sanders used to be the most anti-immigrant of all the Democrat candidates. He personally moved to Vermont to get away from non-white immigrants. But now he has signed onto the Democrat open borders platform.

Fox News reports:

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on Thursday released a sweeping immigration plan that would impose a moratorium on deportations, "break up" existing immigration enforcement agencies, grant full welfare access to illegal immigrants and welcome a minimum of 50,000 “climate migrants” in the first year of a Sanders administration.

The plan effectively establishes Sanders at the far left of the immigration debate, as he aims to energize a base that helped drive his 2016 primary campaign amid competition from other liberal candidates in the field this time around. ...

The plan was written in conjunction with several illegal immigrants who were shielded from deportation by former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

In the plan, Sanders pledges to extend legal status to those eligible under the DACA program, as well as to grant relief for their parents. He also promises to use executive authority to allow illegal immigrants who have lived in the country for five or more years to stay “free from threat of deportation.”

On day one of a Sanders presidency, he would also place a moratorium on deportations until there was a full audit of "current and past practices and policies." He would also end the so-called Trump travel ban, as well as other Trump policies such as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), action against sanctuary cities and the public charge rule that restricts green cards to those immigrants deemed likely to rely on welfare.

Sanders is a Jewish Leftist, ie, Commie, so what do you expect?

He obviously hates blacks, Moslems, latinos, etc, but he is ideologically committed to destroying White Christian America. Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden are Whites, but they have signed onto the same program to get Democrat votes and Jewish donors.

Bogus research on divorce finances

Nelson Rosit writes a critique of sociology:

One result of this groupthink is falsified research that takes years to uncover and decades to refute. An egregious example is Lenore Weitzman’s study on the economic consequences of divorce. Weitzman, a radical Jewish feminist, published a study that reported a 73 percent decline in women’s standard of living after a divorce while men’s standard of living increased by 42 percent.[4] “Her study won the ASA 1986 Book Award for ‘Distinguish Contribution to Scholarship.’ It was reviewed in at least 22 social science journals and 11 law reviews. Weitzman’s findings were cited in more than 170 newspapers and magazine articles, 348 social science articles, 250 law review articles, 24 state court cases, and one US Supreme Court decision” (100).

At least one sociologist, Richard Peterson, remained highly skeptical of Weitzman’s findings and wanted to review her data which she refused to make available. After nearly 10 years of stonewalling “the National Science Foundation, which had funded Weitzman’s research, finally threatened to list her as ineligible for future research funding if she did not release her dataset to Peterson – so she did” (98). What Peterson found was a mess of ‘inaccuracies,” “inconsistencies,” and a large amount of missing data. He replicated the study as best he could and found only a 27 percent decrease in standard of living for women and only a 10 percent increase for men. Meanwhile, another larger, better designed study found that both women and men suffered economic decline after a divorce.

Smith points out that this research on divorce was not merely an academic debate. It had real-world consequences. Weitzman’s findings were used by courts and legislatures to rewrite divorce laws, and men suffered real financial losses as a result. “In the end, the admitted huge errors in her research – which helped shape major legal and cultural changes on divorce, including some that profoundly affected divorced men – have not hurt Weitzman’s career. She is currently the Clarence J. Robinson Professor of Sociology and Law at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia” (101). And here the final kicker, nearly twenty years after they were discredited, “Weitzman’s erroneous findings continue to be cited today in the best-selling Introduction to Sociology textbook on the market” (104).

I remember reading about that study, incredulous that people accepted it as fact.

In most cases of divorce, especially when there are kids, the couple suddenly has to support two households on the same income that previously supported one. Of course they suffer an economic decline. Only a radical Jewish feminist could get some other conclusion.

The problem is not just bad research. It is an academic culture that promotes radical Jewish feminists writing fraudulent papers.

This particular Weitzman erroneous finding probably caused many billions in damages.

The real test of the integrity of an academic field is not whether it has charlatans. The test is what happens to those charlatans once they get exposed.

How the Church made Europe great

What made Western Europe leapfrog ahead of all the other world civilizations in the last millennium?

There is a theory that the Roman Catholic Church played a crucial role, as it could make decisions about what was good for society as a whole, as no one makes today.

The top science journal, AAAS Science, published research endorsing the theory:

We test these predictions at three levels. Globally, we show that countries with longer historical exposure to the medieval Western Church or less intensive kinship (e.g., lower rates of cousin marriage) are more individualistic and independent, less conforming and obedient, and more inclined toward trust and cooperation with strangers (see figure). Focusing on Europe, where we compare regions within countries, we show that longer exposure to the Western Church is associated with less intensive kinship, greater individualism, less conformity, and more fairness and trust toward strangers. ...

This research suggests that contemporary psychological patterns, ranging from individualism and trust to conformity and analytical thinking, have been influenced by deep cultural evolutionary processes, including the Church’s peculiar incest taboos, family policies, and enduring kin-based institutions.

It is still the case today that nuclear families are primarily found among those of Western European Christian descent.

Update: I await the studies on how Chinese, African, Hindu, and other groups were genetically influenced by the religious and cultural forces that shaped them over the last millennia.

Midst of a vast social experiment

NY Times columnist and Trump-hater David Brooks writes:

The short answer is: immigration. Trump, like global populists everywhere, understands that we’re in the middle of a vast social experiment. Waves of migration are transforming societies across the globe. The U.S. will have no majority group in three decades. Sweden could be between 20 and 30 percent Muslim by 2050, according to Pew Research projections.

As the saying goes, everybody is now everywhere. ...

91.3 percent of white Hillary Clinton voters with graduate degrees said it’s racist to want less immigration for ethnic and cultural reasons.

Yes, we are in the midst of a vast social experiment to replace Whites with non-whites. And if you object, then you are a racist, according to those who are in on the plan.

Okay, all immigration opinions are racist. The various sides of the issue are looking to preserve or destroy various ethnic and cultural groups. There is no way around that fact. The natural reaction of most people is to stick up for their own group, when it runs into conflict with others. Whites are the least racist people in the world, but there are limits to what they will tolerate.

Brooks is Jewish, so of course he spends the rest of the column arguing that Trump is wrong to want to limit immigration, and that non-Jewish Whites should just "enjoy the adventure of pluralism" and accept that "God’s truth is radically dispersed." As for Jews, he is very pro-Israel.

Your opinions can lose your medical services

Paul Joseph Watson reports:

A National Health Service (NHS) trust in the UK has announced that it will deny treatment to patients it deems are ‘racists’ or ‘sexists’.

No, this is not the Onion.

The North Bristol NHS Trust said that “threatening and offensive language,” as well as “racist or sexist language, gestures or behaviour” and “malicious allegations” would all be punishable offenses.

Patients who commit such an infraction will be subject to a “sports-style disciplinary yellow card and then final red card in which treatment would be withdrawn as soon as is safe.”

“We have staff from many different backgrounds, from all over the world, and we pride ourselves on our commitment to equality which is a fundamental value of the NHS,” said Andrea Young, Chief Executive for North Bristol NHS Trust.

“We’re sending a strong signal that any racism or discrimination is completely unacceptable – we want staff to challenge and report it and we want everyone to know that it will have consequences,” she added.

The problem here of course is that the definition of what constitutes ‘racism’ or ‘sexism’ gets broader with each passing day.

As Jack Montgomery highlights, “In late 2017 an NHS patient who requested a female nurse to carry out a cervical smear complained when the hospital sent a person with “an obviously male appearance… close-cropped hair, a male facial appearance and voice, large number of tattoos and facial stubble” who insisted “My gender is not male. I’m a transsexual”.

Foster parents have also had children removed from their care by the state because they were supporters of UKIP and not vehement supporters of “multiculturalism.”

The University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust also ordered that the British flag be removed from security staff stab vests after one person complained that it was “offensive.”

This is even worse than China’s social credit score, which to my knowledge doesn’t yet punish people by withdrawing medical treatment if they engage in wrongthink.

I cannot confirm that, but this is where the Ctrl-Left is headed, if not there already.

Women are the ones who request female gynecologists. What used to be a feminist statement is now a bigoted opinion deserving of punishment.

I think that the only solution is for as many people as possible to say many offensive things.

The Daily Stormer just posted a rant about Watson. I don't know if that makes him a good guy or a bad guy, but I am in favor of free speech.

Mormons want fairness for foreigners, not Americans

I have criticized some religious groups that are working to destroy America, but I don't want to overlook the Mormons. Here is a Senate immigration bill, sponsored by Senators from Mormon states:

Summary: S.386 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)

Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2019

This bill increases the per-country cap on family-based immigrant visas from 7% of the total number of such visas available that year to 15%, and eliminates the 7% cap for employment-based immigrant visas. It also removes an offset that reduced the number of visas for individuals from China.

It is also co-sponsored by creeps like Kamala Harris.

Why are Mormons so eager for "fairness" for foreigners?

Mormons used to be pro-American, but not anymore. Congress used to be pro-American.

America now has a whole set of policies that are systematically replacing its high-tech workforce with foreigners. Why?

I am not sure what it is about the Mormon religion that makes them all cuckservatives. Not literally all, of course, but a very large percentage of them are never-Trump Republicans.

Not Replace Us, explained

Sam Harris interviewed NY Times columnist Bari Weiss on anti-semitism for his Making Sense podcast. Weiss explained why Jews are so offended by the Charlottesville chant, "Jews will not replace us."

It does not refer to Jews taking jobs from Whites. The "us" means Americans, and "replace" means deliberately changing American demographics by importing Third World migrants and refugees. Weiss said that she and other Jews very much believe in doing just that. So yes, Jews plan to replace us Americans with foreign non-whites. In the interview, she makes a big deal out of belonging to a synagogue that actively works to import non-white foreigners.

She wrote a whole book in anti-semitism, but her gripes consisted of (1) NY city blacks who commit crimes against whomever they find, notably orthodox Jews; (2) leftists who have become anti-Israel; (3) Moslems who follow teachings that Jews are monkeys and pigs; and (4) right-wingers who oppose Jewish policies of demographic replacement of Americans.

Harris is a leftist atheist Jew, and often denounces right-wingers, but he has to admit that the right-wingers are not really his enemies. Right-wingers are mostly pro-Jewish, and differ from Jews on only a few policy issues, such as whether Whites should be systematically replaced with non-whites.

Harris is often accused of being a closet white-supremacist. So is Steven Pinker, a Jewish psychology professor who writes against the Ctrl-Left:

Still worse, intolerance on campus is corroding the credibility of university research on vital topics ...

A final danger to allowing universities to repress open debate is that it sets off equal and opposite backlashes. The regressive left is an incubator of the alt-right. I’ve seen it happen, including to former students. When they see that certain opinions are unexpressable, when they see speakers being deplatformed and people being assaulted or demonized for citing certain facts or advancing certain ideas, they conclude, “You can’t handle the truth!” ...

So we must safeguard the truth and rationality promoting mission of universities precisely because we are not living in a post-truth era. Humans indeed are often irrational, but not always and everywhere. The rational angels of our nature can and must be encouraged by truth-promoting norms and institutions.

Harris, Weiss, and Pinker say they oppose the Alt-Right, but they are exposing the Ctrl-Left, and that is the main thing the Alt-Right wants to do.

It is funny how Harris, Weiss, and Pinker are all pre-occupied with religion.

Weiss never mentioned God or expressed any belief in spiritual values, but every single opinion of her is explicitly based on what is good for the Jews, and bad for gentiles. She is a Jewish supremacist. Maintaining her Jewish racial identity is more important than anything else.

She is more explicitly supremacist than any White supremacist I have heard.

Harris is really a convert to Buddhism. He writes books on the evils of Christianity and Islam, and on the virtues of Buddhist meditation. He still identifies as a Jew, and very much promotes a Jewish style of thinking.

Pinker is also active in exposing the supposed evils of Christianity, and in pushing Jewish ideas about what is good for the world.

They are all Trump-haters, of course. Much as I disagree with most of what they say, it is refreshing to listen to them. They are like the Jewish equivalents of David Duke.

Bisexual congresswoman resigns after sex scandal

NY Post reports:

Presidential candidate Kamala Harris has come out swinging for “throuple” Rep. Katie Hill — saying her intense “public shaming” highlights a double standard for female politicians.

Sen. Harris told Buzzfeed News that Hill, a close political ally, was the victim of a “campaign of harassment and intimidation” and “cyber exploitation” after naked photos of her were released to the media.

“It was clearly meant to embarrass her,” Harris told the outlet.

“There’s so much that people do about women and their sexuality that’s about shaming them.”

“It just sends a signal to other women that’s discouraging them from running for office.”

Harris revealed that she had a “personal conversation” with Hill since the scandal broke over alleged trysts with staffers.

She told the site that she “respected” Hill’s decision to resign from Congress because “she has to do what’s best for her and her constituents.”

“But, you know, let’s also speak the truth that men and women are not held to the same standards,” she said.

Of course men and women are not held to the same standards. Harris got her political start by being a mistress to a married man, who was a very powerful politician.

Harris and Hill participated in false accusations against Brett Kavanaugh.

National Review reports:

Steven Wilson said all students should find ‘intellectual joy’ at school. An online mob slammed his ‘white supremacist rhetoric,’ and he lost his job.

The definition of white supremacism keeps expanding. Now anyone seeking academic excellence is a white supremacist.

The Wash. Post reports:

[Lt. Col. Vindman] told lawmakers that he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy …

I guess the Wash. Post is now admitting that this is all a Jewish coup.

The President was elected by the people, and he sets foreign policy until his term expires. It is impossible for the President to subvert foreign policy. Only some anti-American Jewish ideologue would say anything else. I don't doubt that Vindman has some sincere beliefs about what Ukraine policy ought to be, but he was not elected President.

NY Times is working for genocide

Along with the sharply partisan impeachment resolution, the House just passed a resolution to recognize the Armenian genocide, and to resist all other genocide denial.

So no one should be denying White Genocide anymore?

In case you doubt it, read about the efforts to eliminate majority-white towns in the USA.

Breitbart reports:

More refugees must be resettled across the United States to fill a “void of cultural diversity” in towns that are made up of a majority of white Americans, a New York Times report states.

As President Trump is set to lower refugee admissions for the third year, keeping his 2o16 campaign promise to significantly reform the program after almost four decades, the New York Times published a report this week detailing how Congolese refugees already living in the U.S. are looking to bring their foreign relatives to the country through the refugee resettlement program.

Those who support expanding refugee resettlement, the New York Times reports, say doing so is necessary for bringing “cultural diversity” to majority-white American towns like Missoula, Montana, which is more than 89 percent white and three percent Hispanic.

The New York Times reports:

To supporters like Mr. Engen, the Congolese are filling a void of cultural diversity in a town that is nearly 90 percent white. In the 1980s, Hmong refugees from Laos settled in Missoula. The children of immigrant families are usually the few students of color in city classrooms, while their parents work long hours at businesses eager for the help. [Emphasis added]

The New York Times has previously claimed that “nearly all white” states like New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine pose “an array of problems for new arrivals” to the U.S., as Breitbart News noted.

There is something sick about searching out mostly White towns in Montana, and then flooding them with Congolese refugees.

White people need to realize that there is a systematic effort to replace them, just as there are attempts at ethnic cleansing in Tibet and other parts of the world.

Jewish columnist proud to be human scum

The Intercept posts a rant against Trump:

Take Trump’s tweet on September 28:

Can you imagine if these Do Nothing Democrat Savages, people like Nadler, Schiff, AOC Plus 3, and many more, had a Republican Party who would have done to Obama what the Do Nothings are doing to me. Oh well, maybe next time!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 28, 2019

To be clear: More than 200 House Democrats have signed onto an impeachment inquiry and yet the president chose to target only three of them by name, two of whom are Jewish: Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler, chairs of the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees. The third target was — surprise! — a woman of color, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Shamefully, he attacked all of them as “savages.”

How is such rhetoric not racist?

On October 2, Trump escalated his brazenly anti-Semitic attack on Schiff. “We don’t call him ‘Shifty Schiff’ for nothing,” the president told reporters in the Oval Office. “He’s a shifty, dishonest guy.” ...

(Can you imagine the reaction if Omar had called, say, Trump’s Jewish Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin “shifty” or a “savage”?) ... There’s nothing funny or cute about the president’s mocking of “shifty” Schiff or his mainstreaming of crazy conspiracy theories.

Those two Jewish congressmen are the two House impeachment leaders. Schumer in the leader in the Senate.

AOC is known mostly for things besides "color". She is a light-skinned Puerto Rican American.

It is really bizarre that the Trump-haters can't find anything Trump did wrong, and instead complain that he criticizes those who are trying to destroy him.

Schiff has been holding secret hearings in order to try to frame Trump on impeachment charges. He lied about his handling of Eric Ciaramella, the supposed CIA whistleblower. This is not something that any Christian congressman has ever done. "Shifty" is a mild word for it.

Jewish (and Israeli) NY Times columnist Bret Stephens says he is proud to be called "human scum" for being a Republican never-Trumper, but I don't think that term was aimed at Jews. Mormons or feminists, maybe. He says Trump will be morally defeated if four Republican Trump-hater senators join an entirely partisan impeachment effort.

They are human scum if they vote, as Stephens suggests, against Trump out of pure hatred for Trump. Stephens doesn't even mention the possibility of evidence of Trump committing a crime. His main gripe against Trump is "the coarseness of speech and crudeness of character".

Again, are there any non-Jews with such ridiculous reasoning? This is a Jewish coup in progress.

If the NY Times and CNN were run by Mormons, and Mormons were chairing the committees to impeach Trump, and if a Mormon ideology were the basis for impeachment, then I would be complaining about a Mormon coup. But the Mormon Trump-haters are just spectators, and Jews are running the impeachment show.

The above Intercept article starts with this joke:

“Prime Directive: Always Blame the Jews for Everything.”

That was one of the especially disturbing headlines in a 17-page “style guide” written by Andrew Anglin, editor of the neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer.

“As Hitler says, people will become confused and disheartened if they feel there are multiple enemies,” Anglin argued, according to a copy of the document obtained by HuffPost in December 2017. “As such, all enemies should be combined into one enemy, which is the Jews.”

Anglin is a troll, and he says stuff like that to be funny. It is not meant to be taken literally. Obviously there are also non-Jews trying to impeach Trump, and not every stupid impeachment argument originated with Jews. Trump's ex-lawyer Cohen is obviously Jewish, and so are the lawyers who wrote the Mueller report. Alan Dershowitz is very Jewish, and he says the impeachment is bogus.

Update: To give an insight to what is euphemistically called "the New York media clique", see this NY Times article about ostracizing anyone not conforming to the Ctrl-Left:

In May 2016, Mandy Stadtmiller wrote a first-person essay about her husband being a supporter of Donald Trump. She was inundated with messages urging her to divorce him. She lost a couple of “close” friends. She grew increasingly disillusioned from the New York media clique she was once eager to join.

“It was crazy-making to have a lot of people telling me, ‘You’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong,’” Ms. Stadtmiller said.

She also experienced a “chill in work,” she said.

She wasn't even supporting Trump, but merely choosing to remain married to a Trump supporter. The NY Times makes Anglin seem broad-minded.

Update: Here is another Jewish conservative never-Trumper. He says that Trump is innocent of any crime, but should apologize anyway. Is that some kind of a weirdo Jewish thing, to force gentiles to apologize? That Jews want to subjugate him to the Deep State? Strange.

Update: Here is a Trump-hater immigrant presenting Jewish opinion as it it were evidence against Trump:

First, as discussed below, Vindman’s testimony about the July 25 call between the two presidents does not add any new facts. So, what does he say? He offers his opinions about the wisdom of the call. That’s it. His testimony about the substance of that call consists of five sentences at the end of his prepared testimony. Those five sentences basically comprise two opinions.

Here is what he said: “I was concerned by the call. [1] I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine. [2] I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation ...

Vindman is in on the Jewish coup. We should be using loyal Americans in these jobs.

End of California as We Know It

NY Times opinion columnist Farhad Manjoo writes:

It’s the End of California as We Know It

The fires and the blackouts are connected to a larger problem in this state: a failure to live sustainably.

But lately my affinity for my home state has soured. Maybe it’s the smoke and the blackouts, but a very un-Californian nihilism has been creeping into my thinking. I’m starting to suspect we’re over. It’s the end of California as we know it. I don’t feel fine.

It isn’t just the fires — although, my God, the fires. ...

Now choking under the smoke of a changing climate, California feels stuck. We are BlackBerry after the iPhone, Blockbuster after Netflix: We’ve got the wrong design, we bet on the wrong technologies, we’ve got the wrong incentives, and we’re saddled with the wrong culture. The founding idea of this place is infinitude — mile after endless mile of cute houses connected by freeways and uninsulated power lines stretching out far into the forested hills. Our whole way of life is built on a series of myths — the myth of endless space, endless fuel, endless water, endless optimism, endless outward reach and endless free parking.

One by one, those myths are bursting into flame. We are running out of land, housing, water, road space and now electricity. Fixing all this requires systemic change, but we aren’t up to the task.

Yes, California is doomed. He does not even mention the biggest problems.

He is an Indian from South Africa. California has the wrong culture, in part, because it imported millions of people like him.

Some people might call that espionage

Jewish publications get all upset when a Jew's loyalty is questions. Here is an example from Forward:

Refugee Jewish Vet Testifying On Impeachment Has Loyalty Questioned On Fox, CNN

After reports emerged that National Security Council member Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was set to testify to Congress about his discomfort with President Trump’s Ukraine policy and actions, conservative commentators began implying that Vindman, a Jewish former refugee from Ukraine, was disloyal to the United States.

“Here we have a U.S. national security official, who is advising Ukraine while working inside the White House, apparently against the president’s interests, and usually they spoke in English,” Fox News Channel host Laura Ingraham said on Monday, referring to Vindman’s interactions with Ukrainian officials who asked him for advice on how to handle Trump. “Isn’t that kind of an interesting angle on the story?”

“I find that astounding,” replied former George W. Bush administration official John Yoo. “And some people might call that espionage.”

I am still figuring out all the players here, as the impeachment hearing are being held by Democrats in secret.

Impeachment is being led by Schiff, Nadler, and Schumer. There is not even a pretense of fair play, or following rule of law.

Hating Trump is good for business

Two NY Times columnists admit:

Bret Stephens: Hi, Gail. Bad news: The White House has canceled its subscriptions to The Times and The Washington Post. Will our business survive? Will the Republic?

Gail Collins: Bret, the one lonely good thing I can say about our president is that he’s been good for business.

Bret: At last count, we’re at 4.7 million subscribers, up from three million when Donald Trump was elected. Thank you, Mr. President!

Okay, I get it now. This is the why the NY Times lies about Pres. Trump on a daily basis. It has a subscriber base of Jewish Trump haters.

Warren needs approval from 9yo mentally ill girl

A Quillette essay says It’s Time for ‘LGB’ and ‘T’ to Go Their Separate Ways. There is a logic to this, but I doubt it.

The social justice warriors require that all other SJWs be fully onboard with all of their causes. They won't stop until they have changes all our pronouns and and subjected us to their sick ideologies.

A gay mag reports

Warren got the most response, though, for her interactions with 9-year-old trans boy Jacob Lemay, attending with his mother, Mimi. “What will you do in your first week as president to make sure that kids like me feel safer in schools?” asked Jacob, who became an immediate hit with the audience and on the internet. “And what do you think schools need to do better to make sure that I don't have to worry about anything but my homework?”

The senator replied that she’d pick a good secretary of Education, someone who’s not Betsy DeVos, Trump’s appointee, but she’d have her nominee meet with Jacob and get his approval. “Does that sound good?” she said. Jacob seemed satisfied.

Really? Pres. Warren will have to get approval from a 9-year-old girl being raised as a trans boy for her cabinet appointment.

If you told me 5 years ago that a presidential candidate would say something so silly, I would not have believed it. But Warren leads in some polls, and such statements now seem normal for those owned by the Ctrl-Left. The Dems are on their way to nominating a lunatic. Reelecting Trump will be the only sane course of action.

Ignore hyphenated names and celebrate Holloween

There are a lot of people who don't like Halloween, from Christians who think that it is Satanic, to parents who think that it is unsafe. But NPR Radio complains that it is too offensive for other reasons:

MIA MOODY-RAMIREZ: They wonder, what's the big deal? Why are people getting upset over this?

FADEL: She's the chair of Baylor University's Department of Journalism, Public Relations and New Media. She says people might think a costume is funny or beautiful. The big deal, though, is it's a dominant culture taking elements of a minority culture with disregard.

MOODY-RAMIREZ: So it's the idea of people wearing something without really knowing the history of whatever it is that they're wearing. Or also, if it's something that's from an oppressed group and people are benefiting financially from using that product or wearing that attire but they're not actually showing respect for that culture.

No, this is crazy.

Halloween is celebrated in White Christian countries. If there is any cultural appropriation going on, it is non-whites celebrating Halloween. Those people should celebrate their own holidays instead of complaining about ours.

Baylor U. is paying Mia Moody-R. to teach White hatred. She should learn to respect White culture.

Zizek appears to be a nut

Jordan Peterson debated an eastern European leftist intellectual named Zizek. I never heard of him. It turns out that he has a substantial following, altho many others believe that he is either evil or a phony. I am referring to Zizek, altho the same could be said of Peterson.

Read this leftist critique of Zizek, and you probably won't read any more. Here is a sample:

In short, Žižek’s views on (Muslim) immigrants and refugees can be roughly summarized as follows: despite the fact that the majority of immigrants are inherently predisposed towards fascism, pedophilia, the subordination of women and the hatred of free speech, Europe should, nevertheless, open its doors to them and guarantee their “dignified survival”.

It is amazing how many distinguished academic scholars are really crackpots.

Wacky Jewish ideas on sovereignty

It is anti-Semitic to say that Jews are taking over the world, but it is also anti-Semitic to oppose Jews taking over the world. Here is a Jewish opinion:

Sovereignism is nothing but the new name of anti-Semitism. Jews and Muslims, who are both threatened by it, must unite against the fantasies of the great replacement.

Having sovereign nations makes it harder for Jews and Muslims to take over, I guess. And while Jews hate the Muslims and Muslims hate the Jews, they both seek to undermine European sovereignty.

Islam is not a threat to France; it is a component since the eighth century. It is through it, and through Jewish philosophers, that Greek thought arrived in France at the turn of the first millennium. And never has the world been better off than when Judaism, Christianity, and Islam worked together to make reason triumph over obscurantism. ...

[France] must not fall for the fantasies of the ‘great replacement,’ remember that she carries the name of an invading people, and that she is, from her origin, a foremost place for the settlement of innumerable peoples which every Frenchman, wherever he comes from, is the heir to. ...

“We can imagine, we can dream of Jerusalem as the capital of the planet, which will one day be united around a world-government. It would be a fine place for a world-government.”

This is so foolish, I don't know where to start. What we understand as "reason triumph over obscurantism" is almost entirely a Christian invention. Jerusalem would be the worst place for a world capital.

Madness leads to Civil War

Wash. Examiner reports:

Partisan political division and the resulting incivility has reached a low in America, with 67% believing that the nation is nearing civil war, according to a new national survey.

“The majority of Americans believe that we are two-thirds of the way to being on the edge of civil war. That to me is a very pessimistic place,” said Mo Elleithee, the executive director of Georgetown University’s Institute of Politics and Public Service.

I agree with that. We are headed for civil war, unless ppl come to their senses.

There are many issues where there is no reasonable compromise, such as yesterday's post on court-endorsed non-genetic mom sexually mutilating a 7-year-old boy.

It found that 84% believe that “behavior that used to be seen as unacceptable is now accepted as normal behavior.”

I believe the reverse is worse -- behavior that used to be normal is now seen as unacceptable.

Douglas Murray has written a new book titled "The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Identity, Morality." He is a British gay atheist, and he is restrained in his condemnations, but he is right that our society has gone mad.

The NY Times now admits that the so-called impeachment inquiry is really a Deep State coup. There is no longer any pretense of this being a prosecution for some recognized crime. A faction of the CIA and State Dept are unhappy about some foreign policy decisions, such as not supporting some Cold War and endless mideast war policies. It is just a question of how much these anonymous backstabbers hate Trump, and whether Congress has the votes to oust him.

Court forces dad to castrate son

Washington Examiner reports:

A jury in Texas returned a verdict on Monday that will prevent a Texas dad from intervening in the gender transition of his 7-year-old son.

Jeffrey Younger had petitioned a court in Texas to grant him sole custody of his twin sons, James and Jude, in part to avoid a plan to infuse James with female hormones.

Do you need any more proof that our society has been taken over by sickos?

If you don't buy into this garbage, then you are bigot. How far will the Left go? Have you had enuf yet?

According to the comments, the dad is the genetic dad, and the mom is not the genetic mom.

Maybe we should return to a system that favors father custody.

Update: The London Daily Mail has the story.

It turns out that the legal mom is a pediatrician who annulled the marriage because she claimed that he exaggerated his resume, and the judge believed her rather than him. She also made domestic violence allegations against him, but those were not believed.

She is obviously a lunatic. She even wants to rename the boy Luna!

Update: It appears that the dad lost the case because he had previously lost some of his parental rights. The judge said he lied about some things many years earlier, and I cannot assess that. Regardless, the court should not be forcing a boy to become a girl. I saw a report that the judge now recognizes this, perhaps because of the adverse publicity, and has given the dad the right to oversee the bogus psychiatric treatment. So maybe the boy will be saved.

Update: This reddit thread has more info about the case, including a juror saying the dad was an unemployed con man, and the legal mom should get custody because she has more money.

Maybe law should say that the parent with more money should win a child custody dispute, but that is not the law we have. The way the system is set up, the parent with less money usually wins such disputes, and the child support/alimony payments are ordered.

The dad supposedly lied about a few things, but if so, I am not sure what is worse. The dad for telling the lies, or the gestational mom for believing such silly lies. No one that gullible should be making big decisions.

The jury was apparently not so crazy because it knew that the dad would have veto power over castration. But it still authorized this lunatic legal mom to raise this boy as a girl.

Mitt Romney is a phony

The Atlantic mag has an article on how much Mitt Romney hates Pres. Trump, and how he is just planning for impeachment instead of trying to advance his legislative goals.

To Romney, Trump’s performance as president is inextricably tangled up in his character. “Berating another person, or calling them names, or demeaning a class of people, not telling the truth—those are not private things,” he says, adding: “If during the campaign you pay a porn star $130,000, that now comes into the public domain.” ...

Romney told me that he does not have an abstract definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and that when it comes to identifying impeachable acts, he follows Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s famous standard for defining hard-core porn: “I’ll know it when I see it.” Asked if he’s seen it yet, Romney told me that he’ll make up his mind once he hears all the evidence at the trial: “At this stage, I am strenuously avoiding trying to make any judgment.”

Okay, but what is the real issue here?

“I think people forget I worked for 10 years as a management consultant,” Romney said, referring to his time at Bain & Company. “Which meant I was able to make no decisions, I was able to get nothing done, and I had to try and convince people through a long process.” In retrospect, it seems, he was destined for the U.S. Congress.

No, we all understand that Romney is all talk and no action. He stumbled into some money opportunities, and got rich off of others. His run for the Presidency showed that he had no vision for the job, and no backbone to get anything done against opposition.

The article omits the elephant in the room -- his Mormon religion. His hatred for Trump is similar to that of other Mormons, like Jeff Flake. They cannot articulate it either.

Mormons are like the mirror image of left-wing Jews who hate trump. Both factions have an irrational hatred for Trump, and want to oust him from office. The hatred appears to be grounded in some religious beliefs, altho they don't explain it that way. It would sound too ridiculous if they admitted that they don't like him because he doesn't wear the right kind of underwear.

Romney probably tells himself that he is honest while Trump is a liar. The truth is more nearly the opposite. Trump tells us where he stands and why. Romney is never so straightforward. The Atlantic reporter says that he has been covering Romney for nine years, and he always seems like he is just saying what his consultants tell him to say. I think that he is one of the most loathsome characters in politics today.

Update: Romney tweets under the name Pierre Delecto (@PierreDelecto).

Dems add more anti-Russian hysteria

The NY Times editorializes:

In the summer of 1950, outraged by Joseph McCarthy’s anti-Communist inquisition, Margaret Chase Smith, a Republican senator from Maine, stood to warn her party that its own behavior was threatening the integrity of the American republic.

She complained about the "Communist design of 'confuse, divide and conquer.'"

Communism was threatening the American republic. We had commie spies and sympathizers at the highest levels. Spies gave away our atom bomb secrets and undermined our foreign policy.

Now the Russians are no longer commies, and China is more of a threat.

But the deep staters and Dems want to bring back the Cold War. They are preoccupied with weird conspiracy theories about how the Russians supposedly interfered with the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton blames the Russians for her loss, and now claims that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian puppet.

The Russians do indeed have a long history of propaganda seeking to 'confuse, divide and conquer.' But so does the NY Times, Wash. Post, and CNN.

It is funny how the NY Times sides with the Russians as long as they are Commies, and then turns anti-Russian when the Russians reject Communism.

Another NY Times essay:

As a feminist philosopher, I understand our constitutional crisis to be all tangled up with a specific brand of what I call “sovereign masculinity.” Sovereign masculinity is not a real, existent thing. It lives instead in that dimension of human existence Charles Taylor called the “social imaginary,” and is just one of many things that situate me in the world in ways I don’t have to think about. ...

The conservative Harvard political philosopher Harvey Mansfield wrote a treatise praising this kind of manhood in 2006, as an antidote to America’s post-9/11 blues. “The most dramatic statement of manliness would be the one where the man is the source of all meaning, where nothing else has meaning unless the man supplies it,” he wrote. The ultimate aspiration of the sovereign man is to have his speech operate like the speech of a god, where his word instantiates truth.

This is why toxic masculinity is not a separate issue from political authoritarianism generally. The sovereign man is not subject to the law because he is a source of law for others. The spectacles of subservience we have witnessed since Trump was elected are testament to that equivalency. Once obedience to the word of the sovereign sets in, becomes normal, we are on the road to an authoritarian state.

When Marie Yovanovitch stood up straight and walked with unassailable confidence through flashing press cameras to testify before Congress, after being told not to, the spell was broken.

These people are nuts.

Yovanovitch was fired because she was a holdover political appointee who are rumored to be disloyal. Her testimony proves that she is disloyal. I don't know anything about her, but there is not a list of those who complain about being fired by Trump, and their complaints pretty well prove that they should have been fired.

Correction: A comment below suggests that my terminology was a little sloppy. Ambassador is a political job, where the President is entitled to appoint people faithful to his policies. This ambassador was a political appointment in the sense that Pres. Obama moved her from being a career State Dept employee to a political position. She was only fired in the sense that she was re-assigned back to the State Dept. These changes occur with every new administration. That is my understanding.