The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election Africa Afrikaner American Media American Military Apartheid Barack Obama Black Crime Blacks Britain Charlie Hebdo Civil War Conservative Movement Constitutional Theory Deep State Donald Trump Economics FBI Feminism Foreign Policy Guns Hillary Clinton History Ideology Illegal Immigration Immigration ISIS Islam Israel Israel/Palestine John McCain Mass Shootings Neocons Political Correctness Race/Ethnicity Republican Party Republicans Russia South Africa Supreme Court Terrorism Abraham Lincoln Academia Affirmative Action Africans Afrocentricism Alt Right American Left Amerindians Anarchism Anarchy Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Antifa Antiracism Benghazi Bernie Sanders Black Lives Matter Boers Brexit Brian Willams Bruce Jenner Bundy Family Catholic Church Children Christmas CIA Civil Liberties Colonialism Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Corruption Cultural Marxism DACA Dallas Shooting Democratic Party Dinesh D'Souza Diversity Economic Development Elites Environmentalism Eric Garner EU Fake News Ferguson Shooting Football France Free Trade Gay Marriage George W. Bush Germany Google Government Surveillance Gun Control H1-B Visas Harvey Weinstein Hispanic Crime Hollywood Holocaust Ilana Mercer Independence Day Inequality Iraq Iraq War Islamic Jihad Ivanka James Comey Jews John Calhoun Justice Las Vegas Massacre Latin America LGBT Liberalism Libertarianism Libya Lindsey Graham Looting Marco Rubio Massacre In Nice McCain/POW Megyn Kelly Merkel Mexico Michael Flynn Middle East Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Native Americans Obama Orlando Shooting Paleolibertarianism Pamela Geller Paris Attacks Paul Ryan Police State Pope Francis Populism Poverty Propaganda Public Schools Race/Crime Rachel Dolezal Racism Radical Islam Rape Reconstruction Robert Mugabe San Bernadino Massacre Silicon Valley Slavery Syria Taxes The Bible The South Trump Ukraine Unemployment Vietnam War Vladimir Putin Voter Fraud White Americans White Death Working Class Yankees Zimbabwe
Nothing found
 TeasersIlana Mercer Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
🔊 Listen RSS

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) used to trace outbreaks to Patient Zero, the index case—the first patient to get, then transmit, a disease. Is this government agency doing due diligence in the cases of the polio-like paralysis infecting hundreds of America’s kids?

By the dictionary’s telling, epidemiology is “the branch of medicine that deals with the study of the causes, distribution, and control of disease in populations.”

By WND’s telling, “the diagnosis of the first cases of AFM, acute flaccid myelitis, in 2014,” coincided with the dispersal of thousands of Central American children among U.S. school children. More conspicuous at that time “was an outbreak of a deadly respiratory illness” that put hundreds of America’s children in intensive care. “Both types of symptoms can probably be caused by enterovirus D68, which happens to be endemic in Central America,” opines Dr. Jane Orient.

Are the state’s epidemiologists—whose job it is to trace and terminate outbreaks of contagious diseases—following these connections?

An outbreak necessitates the tracing of “Patient Zero,” the “single individual who bears the unknowing responsibility for having introduced the disease” to a certain population.

The same taxpayer-funded medical sleuths impressively tracked down the index case in the AIDS epidemic in North America. As documented in the late Randy Shilts’ And the Band Played On, he was Gaetan Dugas, a dashing, promiscuous, Canadian flight attendant, who had had approximately 1,000 sexual partners.

Although the CDC has provided a perfunctory status-update of its AFM Investigation, the agency’s mention of a possible genetic etiology for Poliomyelitis, a dreadful, highly infectious viral disease, is bizarre. It reads like a cop-out.

What next? Like the legendary Lancet has done, can we expect the CDC to diagnose “right-wing politics” with folly and fervency for daring to correlate “migration to infection”?

Lest you worried that “the nation’s health protection agency” was putting America First, the CDC boast s of making strides, between January 2017 and September 2018, “Toward Poliomyelitis Eradication”—in Pakistan. (I guess CDC could argue that lots of Pakistanis will end up in the U.S., “looking for a better life.”)

In any event, along for the ride with the thousands of migrants poised to pour into the U.S. from Central America is a healthy array of microbes: measles, Chagas disease, hepatitis and much more. Diversity, baby.

According to Tijuana’s Health Department, via Fox News, 60 percent of the migrants currently encamped on the U.S. border carry respiratory infections. There are, moreover, confirmed cases of tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, chickenpox, and skin infections galore, in addition to lice—these “serve as vectors of diseases like typhus.”

Stateside, “public health experts across the Southwest have documented rises in drug-resistant TB and dengue fever. In June,” says investigative journalist Michelle Malkin, “Australian public health researchers reported that ‘scabies, long considered a disease of the past in the developed world,’ is back. The scientists fingered “mass global migration as a leading factor, noting scabies outbreaks among refugees to the European Union and along America’s southern border.”

On the Continent—in Germany, in particular—“federal epidemiologists reported that since opening the floodgates to migrants in 2015, data show ‘increased incidences … of adenoviral conjunctivitis, botulism, chicken pox, cholera, cryptosporidiosis, dengue fever, echinococcosis, enterohemorrhagic E. coli, giardiasis, haemophilus influenza, Hantavirus, hepatitis, hemorrhagic fever, HIV/AIDS, leprosy, louse-borne relapsing fever, malaria, measles, meningococcal disease, meningoencephalitis, mumps, paratyphoid, rubella, shigellosis, syphilis, toxoplasmosis, trichinellosis, tuberculosis, tularemia, typhus and whooping cough.”

First in the liberty community to decry the health hazards from the unfettered flow of migrants across the 1,940-mile-long border with Mexico was dazzling Randian scholar and patriot, Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D., Esq.

Coupled with her health-care policy expertise, Dr. Cosman was an avid outdoorsman and marksman who regularly volunteered to patrol the border with the San Diego County Sheriff’s agents.

In a 2005, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons paper, “Illegal Aliens and American Medicine,” Cosman addressed the effects on the U.S. health system of the bleeding Southwestern border.
TB was virtually absent in Virginia until in 2002, when it spiked a 17 percent increase, but Prince William County, just south of Washington, D.C., had a much larger rise of 188 percent. Public health officials blamed immigrants. In 2001 the Indiana School of Medicine studied an outbreak of MDR-TB, and traced it to Mexican illegal aliens. The Queens, New York, health department attributed 81 percent of new TB cases in 2001 to immigrants. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ascribed 42 percent of all new TB cases to foreign born people who have up to eight times higher incidence. Apparently, 66 percent of all TB cases coming to America originate in Mexico, the Philippines, and Vietnam.

Chagas, cautioned Cosman, is yet another dread disease that has been imported from Latin America and has infiltrated America’s blood supply. “Chagas affects blood transfusions and transplanted organs. No cure exists. Hundreds of blood recipients may be silently infected. After 10 to 20 years, up to 30 percent will die when their hearts or intestines, enlarged and weakened by Chagas, burst.”

Thousands of cases of leprosy over the past few decades may seem negligible, but having been eradicated in the U.S, “leprosy, a scourge in Biblical days and in medieval Europe,” is back. By the reluctant admission of the New York Times, it was brought over from Asia and Latin America.

Other diseases with similar origins and vectors of transmission are dengue fever, polio, malaria, Kawasaki disease, intestinal parasites, and the ghastly brain worm, cysticercosis, which, “in the U.S, is an imported disease … found in immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America.”

To qualify for lawful permanent residency, this legal immigrant, now a citizen of the United States, was screened thoroughly for communicable diseases. The American government knows of every relevant antigen and antibody that courses through my veins.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

In the United States, even Customs and Border Protection apologizes for doing its job. CBP is supposed to “protects the public from dangerous people and materials attempting to cross the border …”

On one of the networks that wants all people, dangerous or not, to cross the southern border into the U.S., if they so desire, a CBP officer was bending over backwards to appear like a “global force for good.” (That, believe it or not, was the U.S. Navy’s motto, between 2009 and 2015!)

Tear-gassing rubble-rousing migrants, who were charging his officers and breaching the U.S.-Mexico border, was in the service of protecting … the migrants, especially The Children. Perhaps that’s in the oath of office a CBP officer takes?

Law enforcement officers entrusted with the safety of the American people struggle to articulate pride in executing their mandate. Attached to the expected self-loathing repartee is, invariably, a declaration of loyalties to The World. (Of a piece with this confused loyalty is the typical argument made by the typical TV talker: Illegal immigration must be stopped, so as to … save migrants from the journey’s depredations.)

It’s instructive to contrast the apologetics around defending the U.S. border and the American people with the absence of apologies on Israel’s borders.

In May this year, “Tens of thousands of Palestinians massed near Gaza’s border fence, threatening to ‘return’ to the lands their forefathers lost when Israel was created in 1948.” They wanted in.

Israeli soldiers responded not with tear gas, but with bullets. They killed over 60 protesters who threatened to breach the border. The number has since risen to 120.

Most of us, this writer included, would condemn such excessive force.

Yet surprisingly, the Economist—a liberal, pro-Palestinian, most excellent weekly—pondered but briefly and nonchalantly about Israel’s army having used excessive force, concluding almost callously: “Every state has a right to defend its borders.”

Come again?!

This from the very same editorialists who never tire of protesting any disruption in the holy quest of weary columns of Christ-like caravanners, planning to defy the U.S. government, by illegally entering the United States of America.

Moreover, calmly and with no histrionics does the Economist report, matter-of-fact, that “Any Palestinian, even a farmer, coming within 300 meters of the fence [with Gaza] is liable to be shot.”

And while the august magazine has declaimed dutifully that “Israel must answer for the deaths in Gaza,” its writers have also evinced a good deal of impatience with the M.O.P.E (Most Oppressed People Ever), stating: “It is time for Palestinians to take up genuine non-violence.”

In other words, grow up. The stone throwing was cute when your “Struggle” was in its infancy.

Go figure.

For the longest time, the world raged about Israel’s refusal to accept the necessity for its citizens to be blown to bits or be overrun demographically (by people who’re “only seeking a better life” for themselves and their posterity).

Israel paid no attention to the liberal lunatics aligned against its oft-excessive habit of defending its citizenry’s rights.

In fact, the Jewish State has recently gone one better. Israel has automated the process of defense, creating a set of “auto kill-zones” “by networking together remote-controlled machine guns, ground sensors, and drones along the 60-kilometer border.”

Bluntly put, Israel has deployed gizmos to Gaza; “Robo-Snipers” instead of flesh-and-blood men and women.

The nation’s “19- and 20-year-old soldiers” are still deployed to the front—but virtually. They sit at a safe distance “behind computer screens,” waiting on “approval by a commanding officer” before “pushing the kill button.”

The IDF Southern Command’s rules of engagement along the Gaza fence are, shall we say, particularly aggressive.

Oh, it’s still pro forma for the U.N. General Assembly and Security Council to open every one of their sessions with a rote condemnation of Israel’s actions on its borders and everywhere else.

But even the U.N., a cesspit of venality and stupidity, has gotten the message over the decades. And it is this:

Israel’s army is not going to put down its guns and mobilize an army of stone throwers to throw stones back at the persecuted Arabs, thereby not committing the crime of using excessive force.

Israel’s action on its borders is not unlike action taken by the U.S. Armed Forces in defense of borders not our own.

Ilana Mercerhas been writing a weekly,paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016). She’s on Twitter, Facebook,Gab & YouTube

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Immigration, Israel/Palestine 
🔊 Listen RSS

That’s the law. Nothing can be done about it.

And that’s the liberal reaction to any rational action to stop the stampede of uneducated, unruly, fractious, antagonistic masses toward and over the U.S. southern border. Liberals call law-enforcement unlawful. Or, they shoehorn the act of holding the line into the unlawful category.

Prevent uninvited masses from entering the country: Unlawful.

Tear gas marauding migrants for stoning Border Patrol personnel: Illegal, immoral, possibly even criminal.

Illegal. Unconstitutional. Immoral. Un-American. These are some of the refrains deployed by wily pitchmen, Democrats and some Republicans, to stigmatize and end any action to stop, disincentivize and summarily deport caravans of grifters, bound for the U.S. in their thousands.

Our avatars of morality and legality seldom cite legal chapter-and-verse in support of their case for an immigration free-for-all.

To go by the law, as professed by the liberal cognoscenti, claims-makers must be allowed to make their claims.

Could the cuddly treatment mandated be predicated on the Christine Blasey Ford standard? Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser claimed she had A Story to tell. So, the country had to hear her tell it. A compelling standard.

That’s what happens when feelings and fancy replace reason and facts.

No wonder the noise-makers are drowning-out the authentic claims-makers in society. Against the sainted noise-makers on the border all laws appear to be null and void or tantamount to torture

The Left is creating reality on the ground, all right. But the prime real estate liberals hope to colonize is in every American’s head.

Ruffians are breaching the U.S. border near Tijuana, demanding access to the American Welfare State. That’s the reality! Helped by the American left’s monopoly over the intellectual means of production—the average American is being encouraged to look at this aberrant apparition and “think”:

“Awesome. This is who we are. American laws are amazing for inviting this.”

Illegal, immoral, un-America: These are all pejoratives reserved not for the grifters making claims against Americans; but for the Americans resisting their claims.

To listen to the liberal propagandist class is to come away believing that breaking into America is legal so long as you call yourself a refugee or an asylee and are “seeking a better life.” Moreover, provided an asylee, refugee or saint in disguise appears at a port of entry (San Ysidro, in our case), then he must be admitted into America.

So, is The Law an ass or are those lying about the law the real asses?

A bit of both.

The Center for Immigration Studies provides something of a corrective. The gist of it is simple:

“The Border Patrol has the authority to not only arrest those who enter illegally, but also to dissuade their entry. There is nothing in the law that requires the Border Patrol to allow aliens to enter the United States illegally, and then arrest them. Simply put, aliens do not have a right to illegally enter the United States.”

Essentially, the opportunity to assert “a credible fear” of persecution, as explained by Andrew R. Arthur of the CIS, doesn’t give a scofflaw the right to enter the country and claim asylum.

To the contrary: The “credible fear” provision, evidently being misused and misconstrued, doesn’t “exist to facilitate asylum claims.” Rather, “it exists to facilitate the removal from the United States of aliens who have attempted entry through fraud or without proper documents.”

This charitable interpretation struggles to convince. Notwithstanding a defense of lousy and lax law—it nevertheless seems true to state that U.S. laws governing the admission of asylum-seekers and refugees will still process people based on a tale told at a port of entry, and despite disqualifying conduct: the brazen, even criminal, behavior evinced by the Central American caravanners rushing our border.

As practiced, the law is worse than an ass. It’s perverse in the extreme.

In the context of law misconstrued or reinvented, the chant about the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act is as telling. It’s the excuse parroted by almost everybody, Republicans included, for a lack of vigorous military action against an en masse breach of the southern border.

With their Posse Comitatus chant, the no-borders crowd is claiming that sending the U.S. Military to the border is tantamount to deploying the military for civilian purposes.

If an ongoing, sustained, intentional and international invasion of U.S. territory by foreign nationals is considered a domestic dispute to be handled by civil authorities—then America, plain and simple, is both defenseless and borderless; there is, seemingly, no law that’ll defend American borders.

What those liberals colonizing our heads are attempting to convey is that a good America, a just America, a moral America is de facto and de jure a borderless America.

In truth, and according to the Congressional Research Service, as relayed by the Military Times, Posse Comitatus means that “the U.S. military is not to be used to control or defeat American citizens on U.S. soil.”

The hordes amassed on the border with Mexico, and rushing the port of entry in San Ysidro, Calif ornia, are not American citizens. They are not even very nice.

Ilana Mercerhas been writing a weekly,paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016). She’s on Twitter, Facebook,Gab & YouTube

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Democratic Party, Donald Trump, Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

In the title of his magisterial book, Fyodor Dostoevsky paired “Crime and Punishment,” not crime and pardons, or crime and “Civics lessons,” amnesty and asylum.

Punishment must closely follow a crime in order to be both effective as a deterrent, as well as to serve as a public declaration of values and norms.

In explaining Texas justice and its attendant values, stand-up satirist Ron White performed the public service no politician is prepared to perform. “In Texas, we have the death penalty and we use it. If you come to Texas and kill somebody, we will kill you back.”

So, where’s such clarity when you need it?

Something has gotten into the country’s lymphatic system. The infection is becoming more apparent by the day, not least in the way matters of life-and-death are debated (or not).

Again and again one hears boilerplate statements that fail to properly fix on the defining issues of our time, much less fix them.

Consider the flippancy over threats against persons and property, from within the country and from without it.

The home of Fox News personality Tucker Carlson is surrounded by a small, if menacing, mob, and his family threatened. Before dinging the man’s front door, the assailants chant out their criminal intentions:

“Tucker Carlson, we will fight. We know where you sleep at night. We know where you sleep.”

To which other talkers, even the wonderful Tucker, respond by vaporizing about rights to speech and protest vs. some or other watered-down peace and security to which private property owners are entitled.

Nobody alludes to the rights of private property or to the fulcrum that is law-and-order.

No demands for arrests are issued or voiced, publicly. No expectation for retribution is set-up. Follow-up is nonexistent in media. Police do not publicize any arrests. If they make them, none are reported by media.

No teachable moments occur.

Remember words like, “Police are requesting the public’s assistance in finding those responsible”? Or, “No arrests have been made, as yet”? Such civilizing utterances have vanished from the nomenclature of media and law enforcement, when discussing acts of trespass, vandalism, and public disorderliness.

Be they within the U.S. or from without it, acts that violate one person’s property rights or the property rights of many—as the Central American caravanners expect to do—these acts don’t conjure the requisite tough talk or actions.

As a popular aphorism goes, “Justice should be seen to be done.” This is paramount to the rule of law. But more than that: In a population whose ignorance is growing, not diminishing, the basic and public acts of naming the transgression, identifying the transgressors, and arresting and prosecuting them are all essential in setting up an expectation of law-and-order.

Yet, on Tucker’s TV show, a languid guest (Victor Davis Hanson) suggested serenely that the solution to ambient lawlessness lies in … bringing back Civics lessons, to schools already root-and-branch rotten.

Public flogging is cheaper, safer, and more effective than sinking more money into one of the worst schooling systems in the developed world. (Joke alert for the humorless.)

When the streets and suburbs are ceded to thugs threatening to inflict bodily harm on citizens—the U.S. may no longer lay claim to being a country steeped in the rule of law.

Still on the topic of lawlessness, incivility and disrespect for personal boundaries: A Fox News panelist, Kat Timpf, is another in a list of public persons to be accosted by political adversaries, while out on the town.

Hounded before her were Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, White House adviser Stephen Miller, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Sen. and Mrs. Cruz, all badgered at eateries and other establishments.

Timpf tweeted, “I was just ran [sic] out of an establishment because of where I work. Chewed out, abused. But I guess that’s the norm now.”

(It’s a shame that in the course of tweeting her unfortunate experience, Ms. Timpf herself committed unforgivable aggression against the English language. A grammatical iteration of what Ms. Timpf meant is, “I was just run out of an establishment.” Conservatism means to conserve. That includes the English language.)

Once again, the victims are surrounded by a conservative circle of love and lamentation. Thousands of hackneyed tweets are sent their way. “We love you Kat.” (Rather than, “Please learn to conjugate your verbs, Kat.”)

Attempts to talk sense about what just went down and what should have gone down under law-and-order, the rule of law, and the sanctity of private property—these seldom happen.

And not one word is disgorged about the obligation of proprietors to protect their patrons.

Why aren’t businesses blamed for letting hooligans hassle paying patrons, as they try to enjoy services for which they’ve paid?

Why has no one suggested that the onus is on private property owners—yes, proprietors!—to turn away those who badger other customers in their rightful enjoyment of the services they bought?

The lack of focused debate is even more “messed up” than the assaults just recounted.

I mean, the Red Hen Restaurant henpecked Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her young family. Then and there, Mrs. Sanders ought to have demanded her money back. That would have been a better teachable moment to the nation than any presser ever given by this press secretary.

Ilana Mercer’s weekly, paleolibertarian think piece has been going strong since 1999. She is the author of “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016). She’s on Twitter, Facebook,Gab & YouTube

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media, Antifa, Political Correctness 
🔊 Listen RSS

When Slate magazine went after President Trump’s former speech writer, Darren Beattie, it chose to libel this writer, as well.

That’s a bully’s calculus: If you can, why not ruin the reputation of another individual, just for good measure?

Ruining reputations by labeling and libeling unpopular others is all in a day’s work for the bully, who has nothing in his authorial quiver but ad hominem attack.

The individual who penned an unsourced hit piece on me is Slate magazine’s designated “chief news blogger.”

A hit piece is “a published article or post aiming to sway public opinion by presenting false or biased information in a way that appears objective and truthful.”

Our intrepid journalist does not even feign objectivity.

Indeed, nothing screams Fake News like a “newsman” engaging in sloppy slander.

Incidentally, double-barreled surnames are largely a feminist affection. “Mathis-Lilley” happens to be male. Or, rather, an excuse for a man. Real men don’t bully, berate and bitch baselessly.

That’s what my many dogged, anti-Semitic, unmanly readers do. (Yes, I’m a Jewish, independent writer, the daughter of a scholarly, penniless rabbi. Bullies invariably target the weakest.)

The Mathis-Lilley article was published on August 20, this year, in the section called “The Slatest.” (Slate does cutesy and corny quite well.)

Mathis-Lilley lies throughout the piece, starting with the title:

“White House Speechwriter Appeared on Panel With Author Who Compared Black South Africans to Cannibals.”

It didn’t happen. No such comparisons were made. Cannibalism serves merely as metaphor in my book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa.”

The origin of the title is expressly and unambiguously explained in the Introduction. “It is inspired by Ayn Rand’s wise counsel against prostrating civilization to savagery.” (p. 8)

The exact Rand quote is citation No. 15 in “Into the cannibal’s Pot.” It comes courtesy of “Robert Mayhew (ed.), Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A (New York, 2005).”

Unlike Mathis-Lilley’s unsourced material in Slate , “Into the Cannibal’s Pot” is topped and tailed with hard evidence, and sports over 800 endnotes.

Based on the evidence presented, readers come to see “that South Africans had been tossed into the metaphorical cannibal’s pot.” (p. 9)

These are facts, not slander. Slander is Slate’s purview.

Duly, ignored was my polite request, addressed to Slate’s editors, to let me counter Mathis-Lilley’s lies over their pixelated pages.

After all, did not their chief counsel, Ava Lubell, Esq., promise me in email (Sept. 10, 2018, 4:22 p.m.) that Slate takes “the accuracy of [its] work seriously and would appreciate your identifying what factual inaccuracies you believe the piece contains”?

Yes, she did. Chief counsel for Slate clearly didn’t think Slate’s fidelity to facts was brought into disrepute by an unsound, unfounded cry, straight from the reptilian brain of their news correspondent:

“Ilana mercer is a real piece of work, racism-wise!”

Such puritanical zeal would have landed Mathis-Lilley a spot on Cotton Mather’s “special court to try the witchcraft cases,” in Salem, Massachusetts, circa 1692.

“Goody Mercer, burn her, burn her.” “‘Goody’ was a form of address for women,” in the days when women were offed for so-called sorcery.

In what is “Goody Mercer nee Isaacson” implicated, next?

Why, for the “insanely unsubtle” “cover art of ‘Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa.’” “[I]nsanely unsubtle”: Mathis is no wordsmith. His choice of adjectives is positively Kardashian.

The cover art, of course, is the publisher’s purview, not that of the author.

In anticipation of the Mathis-Lilleys of the world, the publisher chose to preface my text with a “Publisher’s Note.”

He wrote, “[‘Into the Cannibal’s Pot’] is about ideas and ideology. When losing an intellectual argument, there are despicable people who point an accusing finger and shout racism.”

Schooled in epithets, not argument, Mathis-Lilley goes on to claim that Steve Bannon uttered the “N-word,” and that, by extension, I was a sympathizer of such ugly utterances.

Oh, Mathis-Lilley hedges his words all right. Legalistic phrases like “Mercer seems to” bedeck his sub-par prose. But that’s just dirty, dishonest, underhanded writing. Never have I used the language attributed to Bannon.

Never. I could not. I would not.

The daughter of Rabbi Ben Isaacson would never use language so foul about another human being.

Daddy was a noted anti-apartheid activist before it became a fashionable and safe virtue-signaling pastime. The book maligned by Slate’s Mathis-Lilley as “racist” pays homage to dad (who refuses to leave his South Africa), for being “…a leader in the Promethean struggle to end apartheid. Rabbi Abraham Benzion Isaacson’s fight for justice for South Africa’s blacks was inspired by the advanced concept of Jewish social justice showcased in Deuteronomy and in The Prophets. …” (“Into the Cannibal’s Pot,” 2011, pp. 185-186.)

Mathis-Lilley is a pig of a man (with apologies to pigs which I love and do not eat). The woman he dubs “a real piece of work, racism-wise” worked tirelessly against petty apartheid.

A couple of pathos-filled pages in “Into the Cannibal’s Pot” detail how, in one single day, with nothing but determination, this “racist” broke a bit of the apartheid bureaucracy, to benefit a beloved domestic worker, Ethel, tribal name Nomasomi Khala. (pp. 70-72)

Accompanied by me, Ethel entered the Department of Home Affairs in Cape Town as a woman whose tribal marriage was unrecognized by the authorities, whose kids (in tow) were without birth certificates, and whose decades of toil left her bereft of state benefits.

Ethel was not in The System. She was stateless. But not for long.

When we departed the Department, that same day, Ethel and Jim, her husband of 25 years, had had their union solemnized by a grumpy magistrate, summoned at my insistence. And the children—bless them, they had dressed to the nines for the occasion—had birth certificates.

Good people, Mathis-Lilley, act. Bad people badmouth.

Next, Slate’s pseudo-newsman contends that “Mercer thinks getting rid of apartheid has been bad for South Africa.”

Lilley lies, again.

“Into the Cannibal’s Pot” condemns apartheid, calling it “one of the world’s most retrogressive colonial systems.” (p. 65) “Apartheid showed a gross disrespect for human rights and international law,” I wrote (p. 222).

What I do condemn in the book is “unrestrained majoritarianism” or “simple majority rule,” as applied in South Africa (and America).

Need I remind the crushingly stupid Lilley that “America’s founding fathers had attempted to forestall raw democracy by devising a republic” (p. 9)?

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media, Political Correctness 
🔊 Listen RSS

“We are one American nation. We must unite. We have to unify. We have to come together.”

Every faction in our irreparably fractious and fragmented country calls for unity, following events that demonstrate just how disunited the United States of America is.

They all do it.

Calls for unity come loudest from the party of submissives—the GOP. The domineering party is less guilt-ridden about this elusive thing called “unity.”

Democrats just blame Republicans for its absence in our polity and throughout our increasingly uncivil society.

These days, appeals to unity are made by opportunistic politicians, who drape themselves in the noble toga of patriotism on tragic occasions. The latest in many was the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre of Oct. 27.

In the name of honesty—and comity—let us quit the unity charade.

The U.S. is not united. Neither is America a nation in any meaningful way. It hasn’t been one for a long time.

Consider: In the late 1780s, Americans debated whether to nationalize government or keep it a decentralized affair. The discussion was one in which all early Americans partook, nationwide.

Think about the degree of unity that feat required!

The eternal verities of republicanism and limited government were understood and accepted by all Americans. The young nation’s concerns centered on the fate of freedom after Philadelphia. (The Anti-Federalists, the unsung heroes who gave us the Bill of Rights, turned out to be right.)

Around the time The Federalist Papers were published in American newspapers—Americans were a nation in earnest.

For it takes a nation to pull that off—to debate a set of philosophical and theoretical principles like those instantiated in these Papers, Federalist and Anti-Federalist.

The glue that allowed so lofty a debate throughout early America is gone (not to mention the necessary gray matter).

The Tower of Babel that is 21st century America is home not to 6 million but 327 million alienated, antagonistic individuals, diverse to the point of distrust.

Each year, elites pile atop this mass of seething antagonists another million newcomers.

Democrats, who control the intellectual means of production—schools, social media, TV, the print press, the publishing houses, think tanks, the Permanent Bureaucracy—they insist mass immigration comports with “who we are as a people.”

The last is yet another hollow slogan—much like the unity riff.

Modern-day Americans, some of whose ancestors were brought together by a “profound intellectual and emotional attachment to individual liberty,” possess little by way of social capital to unify them.

We don’t share the same core values, morals or mannerisms. We don’t revere the same heroes. We tear down other countrymen’s historic monuments. (As governor, Nikki Haley, hardly a member of The Mob, led the charge in South Carolina.) We display different regalia. Our attachment to one language, English, is tenuous at best, and waning.

Surveys suggest Americans today would rather avoid one another, choosing instead to hunker down unhappily in front of the telly.

As Americans, what unites us most is our passion for, and patterns of, consumption. America is an economy, not a nation.

Unite we Americans do over the state of our sovereign debt—it’s bad! But not over what it means to be a sovereign people.

For half the country, sovereignty entails hordes of defiant scofflaws breaking the border. For the other half, sovereignty means borders. (And some respite, maybe even a moratorium on the incessant influx.)

People become rightfully resentful of others when forced into relationships against their will.

Signs of the attendant, endemic civil unrest are already evident.

Don’t knock the cliché. Good fences (or walls) do indeed make good neighbors, within countries and between them.

A sense of security and sovereignty are essential to the health of individuals and nations alike. Developmental health in kids is predicated on respecting their bodies and their boundaries.

Wait a sec: Kids need boundaries but the communities in which they reside don’t?

Why do boundaries or borders become cardinal (racist) sins when staked out by communities? And why is trespass a praiseworthy creed?

A peaceful society is one founded on voluntary associations, not forced integration.

By extension, if the Christian pastry man doesn’t care to bake a cake for a gay wedding; leave him be. There are plenty cake-makers who’ll cater for your event.

Where’s the morality and munificence in compelling a service from an unwilling service provider? Servitude not service iswhat the gay master is extracting from the baker subordinate.

People are harming nobody when they withhold their wares. It’s their right. The baker owns his labor and his property. Leave him alone.

Currently, our overlords in Deep State D.C. insist that because we’re so rich and innately mean, they should decide what to do with the lion’s share of our earnings (including to distribute it to the world.)

No need. Americans are terribly generous—and most generous when left to choose their charities.

We are most generous to strangers in need when they, in return, don’t encroach on our space, and respect the natural rights we have in our person and property.

Besides, people get mad, even murderous, when Big Brother tells them who to shower with brotherly love.

An uneasy co-existence, not coerced unity, is the only hope for calm in our country.

Respectful disunity is the only way forward.

Ilana Mercer’s weekly, paleolibertarian think piecehas been going strong since 1999. She is the author ofInto the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) &. She’s onTwitter, Facebook,Gab & YouTube

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Political Correctness 
🔊 Listen RSS
Crime Life in El Salvador, Credit: GapDaily News
Crime Life in El Salvador, Credit: GapDaily News

The latest “caravan” community planning to crash borderless America is not part of Latin America’s problems; it’s escaping them. So say America’s low-IQ media.

And Latin America’s problems are legion.

The region, “which boasts just eight percent of the world’s population, accounts for 38 percent of its criminal killing.” Last year, the “butcher’s bill … came to around 140,000 people … more than have been lost in wars around the world in almost all of the years this century. And the crime is becoming ever more common.”

So writes the Economist earlier this year, in an exposé aimed at “shining light on Latin America’s homicide epidemic.”

As is generally the case with this august magazine, the shoe-leather journalism is high-IQ, but the deductions drawn therefrom positively retarded.

Tucked into these frightening facts about a killer culture is a timid admission: The Problem—Latin America’s murder trends—could be exported to the neighbors.

How? Do tell. By osmosis? Perhaps by “caravan”? Liberal louts never say.

By the by—and just so you know—Latin America’s crisis of crime “has been mounting.” El Salvador, for instance, had the highest murder rate in the world: 81 to 100,000. By the early 2010s, “the bloodshed in some cities had reached a pitch.”

Referred to by demographers also as a “youth bulge,” this “demographic bulge” is the crème de la crème comprising the caravans. Their exodus is from the slum-dog cities of Latin American, where the crime is heavily concentrated, and where “people are crowded into … shantytowns and favelas.

Our young, strong caravanners hail from a culture of “extortion gangs,” “drug-trafficking,” badly trained, “often corrupt” police and prosecutors, marred by general “institutional weaknesses.”

War-like conditions in their countries force “Latin American governments [to] spend an average of five percent of their budgets on internal security—twice as much as developed countries.”

Since I reported on El Salvador’s murder rate … a paragraph or two back, the murder rate in that country has “rocketed to 104 per 100,000 people.”

Such is the power of the war lords there, that stationing “soldiers on the streets” and throwing “thousands of gang members into prison” only served to increase crime.

Only— and only—when government offered bribes to “El Salvador’s three main gangs” did murders halve “almost overnight.” The government gave “imprisoned leaders luxuries like flat-screen televisions and fried chicken if they would tell their subordinates to stop killing each other.”

But then “the gangs began to see violence as a bargaining tool,” and the peace died.

What do you know? Since telling you about El Salvador’s criminal pinnacle, a mere paragraph ago, Venezuela did one better. (Maybe the Economist isn’t so high-IQ, as the rather randomly yoked-together data I relay here are its own).

“Venezuela now has the world’s highest homicide rate.” The country “stopped releasing murder statistics altogether in 2005,” because these make South Africa seem an oasis of peace and prosperity.

To fanfare, Colombia announced the achievement of “a murder rate of 24 per 100,000 people, its lowest in 42 years,” in 2017. In the United States, it’s still 4.9 per 100,000, although in some spots, murder rates are higher than in South Africa.

When they aren’t in hiding, Latin-American leaders and their international helpers try to excite a reverence for life among their people with sexy sounding campaigns. “Value life” is one. Another is “Instinct for Life.” These attempts haven’t taken.

Still, when the most hated man in America, President Donald J. Trump, questioned the benefits to the U.S. of immigration from what he called “shithole” countries, the low-IQ media lost it.

The president’s brutal honesty masks a more vexing question:

What makes a country, the place or the people? Does “the country” make the man or does the man make the country?

To listen to the deformed logic of the president’s detractors, it’s the former: The “country” makes the man. No sooner will these Latin-American migrants crash into our borderless country—than the process of cultural and philosophical osmosis will begin. Big time.

In no time will American probity and productivity become second nature to the newcomers.

Quite the reverse.

Having chronicled and analyzed the fate of the dying Christian civilization at the tip of Africa, allow me to sound the alarm, straight from a book that predicted the demise of South Africa, due to the same, shared flippant attitude toward human capital:

“Human action is the ultimate adjudicator of a human being’s worth. The aggregate action of many human beings acting in concert is what makes or breaks a society. Overall, American society is superior to assorted African [and Latin American] societies because America is [still] inhabited by the kind of individuals who make possible a thriving civil society.” (“Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa,” pp. 161-162, 2011.)

Put differently, it is the individual who creates the collective, not the other way around. The Man makes the country what it is.

South Africa ceased being great once enough good people were expunged from state and civil society.

The tipping point is coming. A sufficient number of bad people admitted into the Unites States of America will make America great no more.

Ilana Mercer’s acclaimed weekly, paleolibertarian column has been going strong since 1999. She is the author of “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) &. She’s on Twitter, Facebook,Gab & YouTube

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Hispanic Crime, Immigration, Latin America 
🔊 Listen RSS

Throughout Brett Kavanaugh’s ordeal, Democratic women and their house-trained houseboys had attempted to derail the decent part of the process, rendering a U.S. Senate Supreme Court confirmation hearing a small-minded, mean-spirited, undignified and gossipy affair.

In tenor, the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing resembled a tabloid, a woman’s magazine, or the female-dominated, Trump-watch panels, assembled daily by the Fake News networks.

As to the women folk in the Gallery: They were plain gaga. These libertine “ladies” appeared constitutionally incapable of abiding by standards of decency and decorum, as demanded in such a solemn setting.

Thank our lucky stars we must that Democratic distaff are not yet disrobing, as do their Russian heroines:

Pussy Riot, the Putin-hating, all-girl pop band, specializes in desecrating holy places and flashing holey places.

This kind of abandon, albeit moderated, extended to liberal lady senators. Sen. Kamala Harris and her soul sisters in the US Senate conducted themselves like kids who can’t quit interrupting the grownups, nagging for license to break protocol, so as to harangue and harass the “bad” man in the chair.

On the day the Democrats lost—and Kavanaugh won his seat on the High Court—a primal, collective, atavistic howl rose from the Senate Gallery’s female quorum.

In response, a journalist in attendance quipped that this is “what the Left sounds like.” He ought to have stated the obvious. Sure, there are a few male eunuchs among these girls gone wild. But this is predominantly what women of the left sound like.

Half-truths tend to bleed into wholesale lies if uncorrected. So, let us be frank. The sounds emanating from the uterine core of the Democratic Party are the subhuman grunts and growls one hears from animals in estrus or mid-feed. Something is terribly wrong with them.

This sound of willful insanity has spread throughout the land. It has signaled to the hordes of ill-bred Democrats across the country to holler at the moon. Or, harass and hit other Americans.

This is the same quorum that donned genitalia-shaped dunce-caps and took to the streets in a tantrum over Donald Trump’s election. On January 21, 2017, a day after his inauguration, millions of them marched in the Women’s March.

Lest anyone forget, this is the same XX-rated cohort whose “leader,” the menopausal actress Ashley Judd, rapped lewdly about her (alleged) menstrual fluids at an anti-Trump rally. Cheering her were libertine grannies in pussy dunce-caps. Women of a certain age used to command respect. Now, look at them.

Since Mr. Trump’s election, more than 42,000 seething females, says The Economist , “contacted EMILY’s List, a political action committee devoted to electing pro-choice Democratic women.”

“Half the Democrats’ first-time House candidates this year are women, up from 27 percent in 2016 (and far higher than the Republican share of less than 20 percent). From a field that includes Senators Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Klobuchar, the Democratic presidential ticket in 2020 will probably include at least one female candidate.”

As has The Hill forewarned that “women are poised to take charge in a Democratic majority. … Female lawmakers [will be] in the driver’s seat for some of the most pressing issues facing Congress.”

A Democratic takeover promises to be a bitch for ordinary men.

Beware! Dem witches are preparing to mount their brooms and swoop down on Deplorable America.

This is what the dominant, dominatrix wing of the Democratic Party sounds and looks like. You can’t fix ugly. The issue with these left-liberal females is how uncouth, shameless, vulgar, and cruel they are.

In conduct, these Democratic women are more feral than female.

The Democratic Party has come to be controlled by hysterical women and their domesticated man servants.

The anti-Trump protest ongoing is not cerebral or visceral, it’s gynocentric. And it’s expressly anti-male.

Yet, how did Republicans respond when these Democrat pack animals retreated, grunting and growling, baring bloodied fangs, from their prey, from Mr. Kavanaugh?

Most quipped, genteelly, that Democrats had overplayed their hand: The American People were hip to their antics.

Less-passive Republicans labelled the Democrats the party of mob rule.

Is that all you’ve have got? Hardly fighting words.

For heaven’s sake, Democrats have handed Republicans a winning issue. A huge winning issue. It is that that the Democratic Party, high and low, is dominated by militant, man-hating women. And they’re on the war path. In the words of Hawaii’s Sen. Mazie Hirono: “I just want to say to the men in this country: just shut up … for a change.”

Republicans can’t just mutter in a muted manner about “mob rule,” and ignore the rival party’s gift to them!

True, Democrats demonstrate daily that they’re not for the rule of law, but for the LAW OF RULE, mob rule.

But more crucially, Democrats consistently show that their party is, very plainly, hostile—even dangerous—to men.

The Dominatrix Party is out of the closet as a party whose very ideas pose a danger to 49.2 percent of Americans.

Republicans should use it, or prepare to lose it.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) &. She’s on Twitter, Facebook,Gab & YouTube

 
🔊 Listen RSS

One of many cringe-making moments in Christine Blasey Ford’s protracted complaint before the Senate Judiciary Committee—and the country—was an affectation-dripping reference to her hippocampus.

“Indelible in the hippocampus” was the memory of supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulting her, some 36 years back, asserted Ford in that scratchy, valley-girl voice of hers.

With that, the good “doctor” was making a false appeal to scientific authority. Ford had just planted a falsity in the nation’s collective consciousness. The accuser was demanding that the country believe her and her hippocampus.

All nonsense on stilts.

We want to believe that our minds record the events of our lives meticulously, and that buried in the permafrost of our brain, perfectly preserved, is the key to our woes.

Unfortunately, scientific research negates the notion that forgotten memories exist somewhere in the brain and can be accessed in pristine form.

Granted, we don’t know whether She Who Must Never Be Questioned recovered the Judge-Kavanaugh memory in therapy. That’s because, well, she must never be questioned.

Questioning the left’s latest sacred cow is forbidden. Bovine Republicans blindly obey.

I happened to have covered and thoroughly researched the “recovered memory ruse,” in 1999. Contrary to the trend, one of my own heroes is not Christine Blah-Blah Ford, but a leading world authority on memory, Elizabeth Loftus.

Professor Loftus, who straddles two professorships—one in law, the other in psychology—had come to Vancouver, British Columbia, to testify on behalf of a dedicated Richmond educator, a good man, who had endured three trials, the loss of a career and financial ruin because of the Crown’s attempts to convict him of sexual assault based on memories recovered in therapy.

I attended. I was awed.

Over decades of research, Loftus has planted many a false memory in the minds of her research subjects, sometimes with the aid of nothing more than a conversation peppered with some suggestions.

“A tone of voice, a phrasing of a question, subtle non-verbal signals, and expressions of boredom, impatience or fascination”—these are often all it takes to plant suggestions in the malleable human mind.

Loftus does not question the prevalence of the sexual abuse of children or the existence of traumatic memories. What she questions are memories commonly referred to as repressed: “Memories that did not exist until someone went looking for them.”

Suffice it to say, that the memory recovery process is a therapeutic confidence trick that has wreaked havoc in thousands of lives.

Moreover, repression, the sagging concept that props up the recovered memory theory is without any cogent scientific support. The 30-odd studies the recovery movement uses as proof for repression do not make the grade. These studies are retrospective memory studies which rely on self-reports with no independent, factual corroboration of information.

Sound familiar? Dr. Ford (and her hippocampus), anyone?

Even in the absence of outside influence, memory deteriorates rapidly. “As time goes by,” writes Loftus in her seminal book, “The Myth of Repressed Memories,” “the weakened memories are increasingly vulnerable to post-event information.”

What we see on TV, read and hear about events is incorporated into memory to create an unreliable amalgam of fact and fiction.

After an extensive investigation, the British Royal College of Psychiatrists issued a ban prohibiting its members from using any method to recover memories of child abuse. Memory retrieval techniques, say the British guidelines, are dangerous methods of persuasion.

“Recovered memories,” inveighed Alan Gold, then president of the Canadian Criminal Lawyers Association, “are joining electroshock, lobotomies and other psychiatric malpractice in the historical dustbin.”

Not that you’d know it from the current climate of sexual hysteria, but the courts in the U.S. had responded as well by ruling to suppress the admission of all evidence remembered under therapy.

Altogether it seems as clear in 2018, as it was in 1999: Memories that have been excavated during therapy have no place in a court of law. Or, for that matter, in a Senate Committee that shapes the very same justice system.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) &. She’s on Twitter, Facebook,Gab & YouTube

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Feminism, Political Correctness, Supreme Court 
🔊 Listen RSS

By the time this column goes to press, Christine Blah-Blah Ford would’ve appeared before the coven once considered the greatest deliberative body in the world: The United States Senate.

At the time of writing, however—on the eve of a hearing conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee to ascertain the veracity of Blasey Ford’s sexual assault claim against Judge Brett Kavanaugh—I hazard that voter distrust in the Republicans will prove justified.

True to type, Republicans will deliver a disaster to their supporters—to those banking on the confirmation of another conservative to the Supreme Court bench.

To question the two adversaries, the psychology professor versus the Supreme Court nominee, the Republicans chose an unknown, unremarkable quantity—a Phoenix-based prosecutor named Rachel Mitchell. Mitchell heads the Special Victims Division of Maricopa County, which consists of “sex-crimes and family-violence bureaus.”

This slipshod selection seemed forensically tailored to Judge Kavanaugh’s alleged crime. It almost suggested Republicans believe such a crime had occurred. Or, worse: These slithering opportunistic reptiles (with apologies to the reptile community) must feel politically compelled to conduct themselves as if Kavanaugh were indeed culpable.

Days before the hearing, this writer had warned that the Republicans did not have the male bits to defend Kavanaugh themselves: “With their choice of sex-crimes prosecutor Mitchell to quiz Brett Kavanaugh and his nemesis, what are Republicans saying? That they think a sex crime occurred?”

A better choice would have been Olivia Benson, leading lady on TV’s “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit.” Actress Mariska Hargitay would’ve put on a better show than Mitchell and consulted with sharper legal minds for her script. Hargitay is a liberal, but she’s a pro.

Mitchell, a humdrum, minor state functionary, was unlikely to effect a cross examination for the ages—which is what was required if Brett Kavanaugh was to have a fair shake.

For his part, Kavanaugh is oddly obtuse for one who is said to be such a great jurist. Meek, mild and emotional, he does not seem up to the task of defending himself.

Had the Republicans, also the laggards who dominate the Judiciary Committee, chosen to meaningfully fight for their candidate; they might have opted for one of two dazzling legal scholars. (Please, gentle reader, do not, in the same breath, mention TV judge Andrew Napolitano. Napolitano is a left-libertarian mediocrity who, predictably, has taken the Left’s position on the violence-against-women sub-science.)

Jonathan Turley, for one. Now there’s a fine choice for the cross examination that never was.

Another is Alan Dershowitz. A civil libertarian,Dershowitz is now emeritus professor at Harvard Law School, having taught there for 50 years.

Both Turley and Dershowitz are liberal. Both are brilliant. Both would have probably done the cross pro bono.

A fixture on television, Turley, professor at George Washington University professor, had suggested politely that Kavanaugh was not an intellect of Neil Gorsuch’s order.

As exemplars of the “big fierce minds” Americans are unlikely to see on the Court, Turley has cited Richard Posner and Robert Bork, while candidly pointing out that Kavanaugh was not of the same caliber.

As a rule, “Supreme Court nominees … are not especially remarkable in their prior rulings or writings,” wrote Turley. “They are selected largely for their ease of confirmation and other political criteria. Big fierce minds take too much time and energy to confirm, so White House teams look for jurists who ideally have never had an interesting thought or written an interesting thing.”

Consider: Republicans can’t even get a middle-of-the-road mind like Kavanaugh confirmed!

As far as unremarkable goes: Accuser Blasey Ford has certainly distinguished herself in this department.

Other than that she writes as poorly as is expected from an American university professor, and that she speaks like a valley girl (but, alas, doesn’t look like one)— Ford is unremarkable.

But then bad people are often banal.

Since the Senate extravaganza featuring the judge and his accuser were not criminal in nature, Democrats and their pussy-hat harridans have made the case that judge Kavanaugh was not entitled to due process of the law—to be presumed innocent, to be informed of the charges against him, to confront witnesses against him, and enjoy legal representation.

“Look, we’re not in a court of law,” shrieked that monster of a woman, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii.

Likewise, to justify their philosophical contempt for American constitutional legal protections, hordes of TV harpies, all baying for Judge Kavanaugh’s blood, relied on the same sub-par “reasoning”:

They were not seeking to convict—the offensive against Kavanaugh was not criminal in nature—therefore, claimed the conga-line of cretins presiding over the lynching, they have the right to sully the man in every way possible.

Not that one expects argument from asses, but there is more than a procedural difference or two at stake here.

Just law, as instantiated in the Bill or Rights, constitutes a declaration of the values shared in a society. We afford a man the presumption of innocence partly because the law instructs us to so do, but mainly because it is the right thing to do.

Underpinning the legal protections afforded to an accused in our adversarial legal system are vital ethical imperatives in which our society is meant to share.

In her initial list of demands “to be heard” (that cliché from a cadre of women that never shuts up), Ford evinced utter contempt for Kavanaugh’s natural, Sixth-Amendment confrontation rights.

Blasey Ford had initially demanded of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee that “Brett Kavanaugh be questioned first, before he has the opportunity to hear [her] testimony.”
Among other rights, Sixth Amendment constitutional protections afford defendants the right to confront their accusers and the accusations against them.

Like the sizeable mob that supports her—Blasey Ford doesn’t share a fidelity to and a respect for due process of law.

That many Americans no longer believe all are entitled to equality under the law reveals a great deal about the fault lines that mar and scar our country.

 
Ilana Mercer
About Ilana Mercer

ILANA Mercer is the author of "The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed," (June, 2016) and “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa” (2011) She has been writing a popular, weekly, paleolibertarian column—begun in Canada—since 1999. Ilana’s online homes are www.IlanaMercer.com & www.BarelyABlog.com. Follow her on https://twitter.com/IlanaMercer.


PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.