The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIsrael Shamir Archive
Trump Did Not Flinch!
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Trump didn’t flinch. He chose the good-looking Amy Barrett to replace the departed witch in the Supreme Court. What a difference! A devout Catholic instead of an atheist Jew; a flourishing wife and mother of seven instead of a bossy harridan keen on same-sex marriages and abortions; summer instead of winter. He made this choice even as liberal-feminist America was still bewailing Ruth Bader Ginsburg, sobbing loudly. Her funeral was impressive, nay, unprecedented. In my native Russia, only Stalin was seen off with such pomp. RBG was as ugly as her deeds (beauty and ugliness count, as Oscar Wilde explained); probably nobody in history exceeded her contribution to destroy the family, to profane marriage, to slaughter children. She took feminism to its radical extreme: after her recent visit to Israel (she didn’t like the country) she said that Israeli women are discriminated like blacks under Jim Crow laws. She felt sorry for Israeli judges who are pensioned off at 70, instead of serving for life, till 87 in her case.

Perhaps RBG was the secret Mama of Washington, the answer to the Papa of Rome, the hidden ruler of the US Empire in some Judeo-Masonic hierarchy, the top reptilian, the head of the Deep State, while the President is just a figurehead. For many years she strenuously clung to life and power, enjoying torrents of infant blood baths. She wanted to survive the Trump presidency, to see the last of him, of that he-man; to pass the power to the next reptilian, formally a Biden appointee, but God stopped her and gave mankind a chance. With RBG in SCOTUS, Trump would not have had a snowflake’s chance in hell to win the election. Every judicial decision would have run against him. He would have been declared an illegal occupier of the White House long before the votes were counted. Now he has a chance.

RBG’s entourage called Trump out: “Don’t you dare appoint a new Supreme Court judge in her stead! A new judge will be appointed by the new president, Mr Biden!” This was the first challenge of Trump. The magrepha of mainstream media, this piercing screaming machine (so powerful that a person in Jerusalem could not hear his neighbour speaking on account of the sound of the magrepha, says the Talmud) was turned up to full volume, shouting “Don’t you dare!” and “It is illegal to appoint a judge in an election year!”. This is the mantra of the Transition Integrity Project: “Trump will lose the election and he will fight to retain his power, but eventually he will surrender and establish his own TV channel, MAGA TV”. The aim of this media campaign is to break down Trump’s will to resist and demoralize his supporters.

If Trump had succumbed to these screaming media voices, he would be a lame duck today, all ready for plucking. But he didn’t give in. He decided to choose a new judge ASAP, before the elections.

Why is it important at all? For young people as well as for non-Americans, it is difficult to comprehend why the personality of a SCOTUS judge is so important. Other countries are ruled by a king / president / prime minister moderated by Parliament. On the other hand, Jews are traditionally ruled by judges. In the US, with the Rise of Jews, the Jewish way took ascendency and the Supreme Court usurped the prerogatives of democracy. Supreme Court judges can overrule practically any decision of Congress or the President.

Following the US example, the Israeli Supreme Court has also claimed this role, and last year the recently-established UK Supreme Court interfered in the normal functioning of government and tried to derail Brexit. Thus, in strongly Jewified countries, the traditional Jewish rule by judges has been established.

In the US, the courts have become highly politicised; they take an activist approach, handing down judgements and disregarding the opinion of main street America. Many important decisions, from same-sex “marriage” to immigration, are ruled upon by judges, not by legislative or executive branches. One can agree or disagree with these decisions, but there is no doubt that they are done to circumvent American law; it is rule by judges, not by the people of the United States. As the result, US democracy has been eviscerated. The election of the Deplorables’ President, Donald Trump, has been systematically neutralised by judges. Practically all his important decisions have been stopped and reversed. For his election to have any significance at all, he had to first tame the shrew of the Supreme Court. It is a job that hardly can be done in two terms, and may be impossible in one term, but he is doing his best to restore democracy. If Amy will take her seat in the Supreme Court, the rapid liberal conquest of hegemony can be stopped, and perhaps even reversed.

Trump’s shortlist was down to two – this one, Amy Coney Barrett, or Lagoa, daughter of Cuban immigrants. Take the Cuban, Trump’s advisers told him, and the Cubans of Florida will vote for you. More, the Latinos will vote for you! Care for minorities, and you will win! But Trump chose Amy. He gave a chance to a normal non-hyphenated American, a cis-gender native, not an immigrant, not black, not Latino, not gay, not trans, not Jew and not even Ivy League. For years, such people were the least privileged, always rejected by the smart set who prefer minority identity politics, but Trump put all that aside and picked a traditional American.

ORDER IT NOW

This is very important. Beside the ideological implications, Trump’s choice reflects his hiring practices. The Dems, the party of the New World Order, rely upon minorities; they are easier to mould and bend. They are obedient, as a rule. Non-hyphenated Americans, the majority, were squeezed out from important positions, and all the most powerful jobs were given to gays, coloureds, Jews and Hindus. Now Trump has begun to offset the imbalance. Kevin MacDonald noted that the question of “who gets the job” is the most important in the struggle for dominance. The Church was once a tool to reserve the best jobs for Christians while keeping Jews down the ladder. With the Church downsized, Jews now get the jobs, and they keep the non-hyphenated Americans down and out.

The very first article attacking Amy was published in the Nation. It was penned by the ever-cheerful Elie Mystal, who describes himself as “black”. He is a “professional black”, like his father before him; a light-skinned Ivy League lawyer who perhaps has some black ancestors and makes use of it to the utmost to maintain his “black privilege”. If that is not enough, he disposes of his gender deficiency (he is not a woman or a trans) by “proudly and happily admitting his wife wears the pants in the family”. Follow-up attacks on Amy were concocted by people of similar background, that is people who claim privileged minority status.

It is said that Amy Barrett wants to change the law on abortion. In truth, she wants to make it legal again. The US abortion law based on Roe v. Wade, (1973), “a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion”. This decision is one of many obviously illegal decisions made by the Supreme Court. The main fact of the matter is that the US Constitution does not protect or deny such a liberty. Such a right might be added as an amendment to the Constitution, if the states agree (my guess: they won’t). But there is currently nothing in the Constitution or in the statutes that would allow the Supreme Court to bypass the states and the people and rule on the topic of abortion.

Likewise, there is nothing in the US Constitution that would allow or forbid gay “marriage”. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision (decided by RGB’s vote) that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. This was an obvious untruth: the 14th Amendment was enacted in 1868, and for a hundred years nobody noticed it had anything to do with gay marriage. Supporters of such unions could lobby for it by the usual way through legislation via the states; but they found it more expedient to railroad it via the Supreme Court, though the Court had absolutely no right to bypass the normal system.

Amy Barrett, like every other decent democracy-loving US citizen, wants the country to be run according to the Constitution; she does not recognise the right of nine Ivy League graduates to tell the nation what is better for them, bypassing the legislature. She is also against the courts’ tendency to overrule decisions of the Executive branch. If the President decides to limit the immigration of people who probably will need welfare support, it is his decision. The people can elect another president with different ideas, but the court should not interfere in the running of the state. Amy Barrett’s idea is that the Supreme Court should not be the supreme dictator. She feels it should shrink back to normal size.

In modern American parlance, this is considered to be the “conservative view”. Surely it is not. Vladimir Lenin was hardly a conservative by any measure, but he was a lawyer by education and he was always against letting lawyers and judges make decisions for the people. He wrote that the legal profession would always rule against the interests of the proletariat. Just like Mrs Barrett, he thought that the people should decide, while the Judiciary should just deal with separate cases without trying to overwrite or create laws. You do not have to be a conservative or a liberal to support the ideas of Mrs Barrett: it is enough to understand that laws should be changed or promulgated by regular democratic means, through the popular vote, not by a few smart guys and gals.

US courts are currently dominated by Dem-nominated social engineering judges who want to lead the country in whatever direction they prefer, and to hell with law and the will of the people. That’s why the Senate approval of Amy Barrett won’t be easy. If she gets in before the elections, she may well become the katechon, the person who “prevents the secret power of lawlessness from having its way” (2 Thessalonians 2:6–7). And the lawless ones know that.

Trump’s opponents in the Senate are adept at throwing dog droppings at appointees of the populist president. The shameful spectacle of the Brett Kavanaugh hearing will no doubt be repeated, with buckets of lies and defamation poured down upon Amy Barrett’s head.

Jews are especially dissatisfied with the choice of a Catholic – because Catholics are not yet completely saturated with Christian Zionism, unlike Protestants, and because Catholics believe in God. (Oh yes, Jews also believe in God, but they consider a faith with its own priests to be unsuitable for Gentiles. The Gentiles should just provide for the Jews, and the Jews will take care of all correspondence with the Almighty). Catholics have imbibed the knowledge of right and wrong, of the moral and immoral, with the wine of their communion. When Amy Barrett was confirmed as a judge of the court of appeals, Jewish politicians badgered her, in particular Dianne Feinstein of California – “Yes, my dear, I suppose you believe in Christ? How can you be a judge with such prejudices?” (She used more studied language). Amy didn’t flinch and she was approved. Perhaps she will survive the Dem firing squad in the Senate.

ORDER IT NOW

This is not a sure thing. The Dems promised to die before letting her take the place of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as this place, in their opinion, belongs by right to a liberal Jewess. A less prominent position might go to a privileged “Person of Colour” or a gender minority, but the top position must remain in Jewish hands. Much depends on the judges of the Supreme Court – it is highly likely the election will be decided there. But the fact that Trump took a chance and chose a regular white American woman – a mother of many children who believes in Christ – is already a big deal. This may be a turning point in American history.

Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

 
Hide 234 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. IvyMike says:

    The Author’s standard for physical beauty is low but ACB seems an ideal candidate for the Supreme Court, very knowledgeable and very ready for that lifetime vacation.

  2. With one Jewish member on SCOTUS, Jews are already over-represented by a factor of 6 or 8. One is enough. Why the hell are Jews entitled to twenty+ percent of SCOTUS anyway? Not to mention every other court.

  3. Brilliant articulation on the oversized role played by today’s Supreme Court. Judicial tyranny is real. The courts have become hopelessly politicized. Activist (left wing) judges get to vanquish the will of the People (legislation or winning propositions) by declaring a statute or popular referendum ‘unconstitutional’ (California’s Prop. 187, for instance) or inventing a Constitutional ‘right’ (to intrude) where none existed (such as Brown v. Board of Education).

    The feel-good Brown ruling is still reverberating. Today, absurd new ‘Constitutional rights’ are being delivered to male transexuals who demand the right to play in women’s sports. The rights-hungry (and freedom-hating) Left is devouring its own. This black comedy will not have a happy ending.

    As for RBG, she epitomized the sanctimonious arrogance of today’s Left-dominated judiciary–not to mention its smug and haughty cheerleading section (otherwise known as the mainstream media.) With the nomination of attractive (and normal) Amy Barrett, methinks Trump has made a shrewd strategic move. But the divisions in America are deep and growing. Ironically, ‘diversity’ may be our nation’s undoing.

    • Replies: @Curle
    , @mc23
  4. meamjojo says:

    Catholics need to make a lot of babies so that their pedophile priests will have a wide selection of young victims to choose from.

  5. vot tak says:

    LOL, israel shamir is now prmoting a neocon scalia disciple. There is no way trump would select anyone but someone the zionazi-(very)gays groomed for the job. All of trump’s appointments have been rabid zionazi neocon types more loyal to israeli interests than american.

    This bit says probably more than he intended:

    “after her recent visit to Israel (she didn’t like the country)”

    That was part of a rant against ginsburg, where shamir was bloviating about her evilness and appearance. He seems upset ginsburg didn’t like israel. To be honest, after shamir promoted some western aligned oligarch (IE: israeli) running for prez in the last Russian election, the guy running for the “communist” party, I stopped paying much attention to his opinions and think of him as just another israeli now.

    • Agree: Moi
  6. Congrats to Mr. Shamir, who wrote a piece that is almost as funny and sarcastic as anything CJ Hopkins would write…and, while I do have issues with Roman Catholicism (especially after Vatican officials and other conspired to murder the last good Pope, John Paul I….read David Yallop’s “In God’s Name: An Investigation into the Murder of Pope John Paul I”), I do agree that I’d rather have a Catholic (or an Orthodox) on the Supreme Court than a Christian Zionist!

    • Agree: Alternate History
    • Replies: @Plato's Dream
  7. childless bossy harridan

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg did have two children. With so many valid critiques of the runty harpy to choose from, why resort to a falsehood?

    • Agree: israel shamir
    • Replies: @israel shamir
  8. vot tak says:

    Reading shamir’s idolation of the scalia disciple I was reminded of this classic film scene:

  9. Thanks for saving my time. I can more easily avoid your [Israel Shamir’s]free flowing opinionated rubbish when I come across, early on, Ginsburg described as a “childless harridan”.

    What about James and Jane Mr. Shamir?

  10. Too much hate in the first paragraph, alone. It wasn’t worth reading the rest.

    And there’s zero excuse for not checking SIMPLE facts. Ginsburg has TWO children and a few grandchildren.

    What a waste of negative energy, Mr. Shamir.

  11. @Jim Christian

    Correction: there are two Jews currently on SCOTUS. Kagan and Breyer…..

    You could also argue that there are too many Catholics on the court.

    • Agree: Old and Grumpy, meamjojo
    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  12. Biff says:

    Nothing more to say. Brilliant article. Thanks.

  13. Wally says:
    @meamjojo

    Speaking of perversion:

    Perverted Rabbi performs bris ritual / circumcision orally.

  14. Ghali says:

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an aggressive Zionist and an accomplice in Jewish terror and war crimes. Good riddance and shall burn in Hell.

    • Replies: @meamjojo
  15. @IvyMike

    Time to get that glasses prescription checked, my boy!

    • Agree: Gunga Din
  16. RBG wasn’t childless, but her viewpoints mirrored all those childless feminists who perpetually scream “My Body, My Choice” Sorry hon, that isn’t exactly YOUR body that began to occupy your womb after you shagged whoever that one fun night. An unborn baby is not a growth or a tumor that needs to be removed. The weapon here is to humanize and personalize the unborn. Don’t use clinical words such as fetus.

  17. Lestat says:

    What is the Oscar Wilde quote that is alluded to here? Anyone?

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    , @Tusk
  18. Ginsburg had two kids,but the point still stands that Barrett is quite attractive. She will be the only Supreme Court Justice that I want to see naked.

    Well,except maybe for Rehnquist.

    • LOL: 36 ulster, Ace
    • Replies: @G. Poulin
  19. slorter says:

    Trump didn’t flinch. He chose the good-looking Amy Barrett to replace the departed witch in the Supreme Court.

    I do not care for Republican or Democrat dogma very much they are really to sides of the same coin ; the supreme court makes decisions within the capitalist framework; more times than not they agree as they are not poles apart.

    And really if you are going to start an article why would you start like that rather childish!

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @Ace
  20. @IvyMike

    The author didn’t call her beautiful, and she’s 47, by the way.

  21. @Jim Christian

    Zero Jews on the Supreme Court is the perfect number. They keep forgetting that they are guests here, and quite awful ones at that.

  22. noname27 says: • Website

    Appointing a Catholic is only a slight improvement.
    The Counterfeit Cainite-Judeo-Christian Religion:
    https://isthefathercallingyoutohisson.wordpress.com/2017/05/26/the-cainite-judeo-christian-religion/

  23. @meamjojo

    You realize the whole “pedophile priests” was headline after headline of incidents from the 1960s and only involved less than 1% of the clergy right? And all those newspapers, running those headlines with glee, were owned by jewish or Christian (or some other competing religion) owners.
    When your uncle molests you decades ago, and he dies, there is no one to “sue”, and there’s also no one to smear.
    The whole “pedophile catholic priests” was a smear campaign. And it sounds like it worked on people like you.

    • Agree: VinnyVette, Ivan
  24. I guess that if Amy Coney Barrett rules against the Israeli first laws that violate the first amendment, Trump will just hire the Mossad to x her out, since Trump has sworn that America is Israel’s protector, while Trump has destroyed America with the covid lockdowns and largest nazi eugenics junk science propaganda campaign in world history!

    Find it hilarious that you believe that Amy Coney Barrett is not a feminist, even though she has seven children and is a Supreme Court nominee. Do you think tbat she home schools the kids and goes to the hockey games in between baking cookies, cleaning, cooking, and running errands for the home?

  25. asmaq says:

    7 kids and she is still smiling.lol.trump picked a good looker and named Amy too.He must be in deep shit with the whorus

  26. gotmituns says:
    @meamjojo

    Forget the word pedophile. The priests are fags.

  27. @IvyMike

    For a middle-aged woman with a seriously good brain who is raising 7 children and holding down a stressful, high-profile job, I would call her hot. Life is not a Hollywood set Bucko.

    • Agree: Anonymous Jew, druid55
    • Replies: @noname27
  28. Franz says:

    The Dems promised to die before letting her take the place of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    In God’s name, hold them to their promise.

    Hey, we’re in a “pandemic” anyway… wading through streets clogged with Democrat corpses would seriously help the optics. The plague needs all the help it can get: A local great-granny is now one of the many oldsters around here refusing to wear a mask at all, anywhere. She’s at least 75. The publicity battle is being hopelessly lost.

  29. Catholics need to make a lot of babies so that their school teachers can continue to molest children at alarming rates.

    fixed it.

    • LOL: noname27
  30. noname27 says: • Website
    @Chris in Cackalacky

    Foreign nannies will be raising her children, not her.

  31. noname27 says: • Website
    @wakeupscreaming

    And what part of the satanic Roman Catholic, money laundering, sodomy ridden, paedophilic cult do you represent?

    • Replies: @Ugetit
    , @Bardon Kaldian
  32. GMC says:

    At this stage of the Game, it matters little who is appointed to the S C or any other political office or agency. Their first days will be ” orientation meetings” and the rest will be History. One Mom with 7 kids , is a lot of baggage, in order to pull – an Upset Victory for the People’s Gov. Hey – how about those Tax returns , that we knew all along were – going to show that the entire tax system is criminal.

  33. G. Poulin says:
    @Father O'Hara

    For shame! How long has it been since your last confession, Father?

    • LOL: 36 ulster
  34. noname27 says: • Website
    @No Friend Of The Devil

    Eugenics was active and operational in the US long before Hitler and the German National Socialists came to power.

  35. Oracle says:
    @meamjojo

    The same can be said of Orthodox js.

  36. @Lestat

    It’s the one about your mom. How the world had to create a fake virus just to get her to wear a mask.

  37. Ugetit says:
    @meamjojo

    And Christ killers need to promulgate reckless smears and worse against all who may stand in their way.

    Now, tell us about Epstain and the other sickos.

  38. @noname27

    I thought she “adopted” the Haitians to take care of her children?

    • Replies: @noname27
  39. Ugetit says:
    @noname27

    And what part of the satanic Roman Catholic, money laundering, sodomy ridden, paedophilic cult do you represent?

    And what part of the satanic US and Israeli government, mass murdering, money laundering, sodomy ridden, paedophilic cults do you represent?

    • Replies: @noname27
  40. Anonymous[661] • Disclaimer says:

    Delightful article! Which reminds me, this Halloween I’m going to grab my broomstick, put on my Bader Ginsburg mask and go out to terrorize the neighborhood children.

    “You should have been aborted, you little wretches!!!” I’ll screech into their goyish faces.

  41. Sirius says:

    So with 8 months left before the election in 2016 it was okay to deny Merrick Garland hearings (“to leave it to the voters in an election year” as McConnell claimed) yet it is perfectly fine to railroad a nomination process for Amy Barrett just 6 weeks before this election?! Does the author see any hypocrisy in this?

    By far the most important ruling of the Supreme Court in recent times was the Citizens United case that essentially legitimized the buying of elections by corporations. How about mentioning that? That was probably the most activist case there was as the ruling went beyond the scope of the lawsuit. Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposed that 5-4 ruling in defense of a fairer system and a law passed by Congress.

    How about when the SC basically appointed GW Bush president by blocking a recount, again splitting on 5-4 partisan lines? That’s not conservative activism? That’s probably what the author is hoping for this time around, another “president” who receives a minority of the vote but manages to pull off a majority of the flawed electoral system, by hook or by crook.

    5-4 partisan lines is just not good enough. Why not 6-3 to make sure we can game the system?

    Why is the author defending Trump anyway? One would think he should be a major critic.

    Oh, and someone should have fact-checked Shamir. RBG wasn’t childless. She had 2 children. Not normal enough for the author? So just coming from her background (which the author keeps emphasizing, and as far as I know, she didn’t) makes her “not normal”?

    • Replies: @jsm
    , @The Real World
  42. anon[219] • Disclaimer says:

    God stopped her

    Indeed! A bit of Johnny Cash to commemorate her funeral…

  43. Realist says:
    @slorter

    This is the most honest and accurate comment on this article so far.

  44. @The Real World

    While we´re at the subject of quotas, not a single WASP for quite some time.

  45. @anti_barabas_ite

    Catholics need to make a lot of babies so that their school teachers can continue to molest children at alarming rates.

    fixed it.

    The real molestation comes about when young minds are filled with social justice crap. Warping the minds of the innocent is evil.

  46. Jake says:
    @Jim Christian

    Before Ginsburg died, the SCOTUS was one-third Jewish.

    Let’s get Jews to agree to Affirmative Action limitations. How about we have Affirmative Action limitations that refuse any group to have more than triple its national per capita in any work or education arena. If Jews are 3% of the population, then the most Jews on SCOTUS could be 9%.

    The Numinous Negroes need a dose of the same revamped Affirmative Action. No more than 39% of the NBA and NFL and MLB can be black.

  47. In 1803, in the infamous Marbury v. Madison decision, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall took the position that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” which resulted in the Court becoming the sole Constitutional authority, subject to no review. Since that day, the Court has ruled the United States of America as a judicial oligarchy.

    As a bonus, Marbury provides the Court with a paradigm on which it can base clearly and obviously unjust decisions. Marshall agreed that Marbury was entitled to relief but refused to provide it. There is no justice in Marshall’s ruling; even though the Constitution explicitly says that one of the nation’s purposes is to “establish justice.”

    What John Marshall did was reproduce England’s seventeenth century political economy absent only the monarchy. Even though Marshall’s argument is absurd, no one but Jefferson challenged it. He wrote, “the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” Why no one but Jefferson cared is curious. Was it, indeed, because the colonial elite who had taken control of the government never really fully supported the Constitution’s republican principles?

    I can’t help but wonder what they would have made of it, that so many Papists have been extended the privilege of membership in their reborn Star Chamber.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Wizard of Oz
  48. The supreme court is suppose to be the third branch of the govt.

    It is not suppose to join the partisan fight.

    I guess the idea of 3 checks and balances has been dead since the year 2000 election.

  49. @No Friend Of The Devil

    Trump had nothing to do with any lockdowns. That was power thirsty, Democrat governor’s jackass.

  50. anon[137] • Disclaimer says:

    I don’t care what she looks like but the fact that she has two adopted Haitian children concerns me. Someone who can make such bad judgement about adopting children undoubtedly will make bad judgements in other areas. Barrett probably was influenced growing up with televitz programs like the Bill Cosby Show and Different Strokes, where negroes are shown as being just like caramel white folks. One would think that a couple of years on the judge’s bench would cure most people of that fantasy. Obviously not. If she wanted to help Haitians, why didn’t she just give to a charity? These children will grow up confused and angry as most negroes that are raised by white parents are. A good example of this would be Colin Kopernik.

    • Agree: mark green
    • Replies: @Anon
    , @SC Rebel
  51. MLK says:

    The law of unintended consequences — Roe proved to be the condition precedent for the decline of the Democrat Party by ending Evangelical Quietism.

    The irony is that abortion availability geographically is essentially the same as it was before Roe.

    That spinning in place is a resounding success in comparison to the abject failure to turn abortion into a moral good. The sine quo non of women’s equality and empowerment.

    That, in my longstanding view. is the fatal flaw of Roe and its offspring — the Court’s failure to recognize that abortion was evil, even if a necessary one (in its view). I’m not familiar with Barrett’s writings on the subject but I did see recently that she described it as “immoral under any circumstances.”

    The political effect of Roe gives us a taste of what the Court contributed in conjuring in the form of The Civil War over Slavery.

    Typically, it’s the smartest among us that would rather die than admit they royally screwed up. And when you do so in the form of a Supreme Court decision (e.g. Roe; Dred Scott), it ain’t easily or quickly corrected like it is with Legislative and/or Executive overreach.

    Trump didn’t flinch.

    As my previous comments attest, I’m second to none in admiration for The Indispensable Man. But in the instant case, his selection of Barrett was compelled by events, as Shamir rightly alludes.

    The irony is that by making it abundantly clear that any gesture of compromise would be not only spurned but exploited, the Democrats and their Allied Media ensured Trump picking her to succeed RBG.

    Barrett is a threat to liberals and the left because of the ways that she is similar to Ginsberg, not how she is different.

  52. @meamjojo

    I think you mean Catholics need to provide lots of sons for molestation. The vast majority of sexual abuse victims were male. Further proof that homosexuals shouldn’t be priests, coaches, teachers or any other position that puts them into contact with young boys.

  53. @IvyMike

    Israel touting the telegenic highpoints of ACB is amusing. The fact is, is that she voted hand-in-glove for JB (I have a new sister) Pritzker when it came to forced vax and lockdowns, supporting the views of the governor who’s never missed a meal and then some.

    ACB is a charismatic Catholic, which is an emerging synthesis of Catholicism and end times, rapture-esque theology, embraced by the likes of Ted Cruz, Mike Pompeo and most importantly, Mike Pence. ACB was a professor at Notre Dame, which is in Indiana, Pence’s home state.

    They all identify as dominionists and are connected to a group called, “People of Praise” that embraces the dictates and rule of Pope Francis, who is nothing more than real estate salesman for Agenda 21.

    Lagoa would have been a far better choice than ACB, not for just the ethnic/minority/anti-commie/Florida angle, but she is less “ideological” than ACB.

    I also believe there is an outside chance, that she backs out of the nomination at some point before her appointment becomes official.

    • LOL: Ivan
  54. This woman is pro life and rescued two niglets from Haiti. How long do you think she’ll be able to bear the thought of even a single crying child waiting at the hot, dusty Mexican border?

    If you think there are a lot of Central Americans in the US now………

  55. noname27 says: • Website
    @Ugetit

    Since when did the US and Israeli governments profess to be God’s Church here on this earth and/or to be Jesus Christ’s representative and to bear all the heavenly responsibilities and standards that go with it?

    • Replies: @Ugetit
  56. noname27 says: • Website
    @Father O'Hara

    Ah elitist virtue signalling, even in the justus department, or “telescopic philanthropy” as Charles Dickens called it.

  57. @noname27

    Western civilization. Without RCC, no Western world.

    • Replies: @noname27
    , @gotmituns
    , @neutral
  58. @No Friend Of The Devil

    Her two main jobs have been a professor of law and a federal judge. Both jobs have a lot of time off and minions to do all the work. In fairness to ACB she was a minion, but I believe she had no kids at the time. Unfortunately most women under eighty have feminism cooked into their thinking, although some still embrace tradition to a certain extent. Gotta at least give ACB a little credit for that.

  59. Sounds like Mr. Shamir needs to look a little closer at Amy Barrett. How many Americans are still reeling from the screwing they got from Chief Justice John Roberts on Obamacare?
    For a closer look at Amy Barret, click in at the 1:12:00 minute mark of this Robert Phoenix video.

  60. I fully expect to be disappointed by a Judge Barrett. I can’t help but notice every “conservative” judge that has been appointed is either been a Kennedy or a Scalia clerk. The former is an old country club Republican and the latter a Reagan one. Their clerk turn judges seem to be their former boss’ mirrors. Alito and Thomas seem to be the only actual conservative constitutional Supreme Court judges.

    Finally I asked some whiney Ginsburg cultist what exactly did she do? Abortion and marrying gays was the answer. I responded Roe vs Wade was decided in 1973 while Ruth was doing the mommy lawyer thing, and any justice of the peace can now marry gays. Needless to say you could see the mental shudders being firmly closed. However the spectacle of her confirmation hearing should be a hoot, so in that respect Amy Barrett is a win for our Ringmaster In Chief.

    • Thanks: Johnny Walker Read
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  61. Iva says:

    My only problem with Trump Supreme Court appointee is the fact that she bring up Jacobson 1905 case to justify Governor of Il to set restriction and lean to the LEFT.
    https://reason.com/2020/04/08/jacobson-v-massachusetts-1905-and-lochner-v-new-york-1905-in-april-2020/
    https://headlineswithavoice.com………..in 2:27 min District judge in Pa ….Willianm Stygman doesn’t high behind president and ruled “Jacobson was decided over century ago and since that time It has been substantial development of federal constitutional law of civil liberties………….differential standards based on Jacobson is NOT APPROPRIATE”.

  62. noname27 says: • Website
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Looks like your idea(s) of ‘civilisation’ is as perverted as the RCC.

  63. Ginsburg was never a real beauty, but early pictures of her in the flower of youth aren’t that bad. It was decades of tirelessly working for evil that twisted and contorted her appearance (and, I’m afraid, her eternal soul) into an old lady whom you suspect lives in the forest and keeps small children in cages in order to fatten them up.

  64. gotmituns says:

    marrying gays was the answer
    ————————————–
    Sir, if you ever get in that conversation again, mention that rbg and kagen had already officiated at gay marriages before the gay marriage case got to the court and both refused to recuse themselves – Major Disgrace.

  65. gotmituns says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Not true sir. The major proponent of Western Civilization is by far the Nordics. Without the Germanic influence, Christianity would be nothing.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    , @anonymous
  66. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was not always witch on the outside but in fact was an attractive young woman (beauty must be in the eyes of the beholder). Rest in peace, RBG!

    As to Amy Coney Barrett (ACB), I hope she is nominated to the bench not because she is an un-hyphenated American but because she has been chosen by a rightfully elected president. Whatever her judicial philosophy, ACB has the right to seat along the remaining two Lesbo-Jewesses (I know, I know, any moment someone will point to the fat buffalo’s native Puerto Rico as her being a Catholic… you never heard of conversos of Spain?).

    And going forward, it won’t be ACB that will pose a threat to the constitution but John Glover Roberts Jr. (JGRJ) the overrated chief justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, who’s shown the tendencies to blow/bend with prevailing Jewish winds… the replacement for the late Thurgood Marshall, Clreance Thomas, has been more steadfast in the defense of the nation. After all, what did you expect from a George W. Bush (GW!) nominee? GW was an incompetent fool, unlike his old man, who had been talked into installing the shyster JGRJ in the driver’s seat.

    Hopefully, the tag team of Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch, Cavanaugh and Thomas would bury the liberal quartet of Bryer, Kagan, Sottomayor and Roberts!

  67. jsm says:
    @Sirius

    Screw you.

    Democrats have been nothing but hypocritical. (Integration for thee but not for me, etc.) Now it’s OUR turn. We learned from you; thanks for the lessons!

  68. @Old and Grumpy

    Finally I asked some whiney Ginsburg cultist what exactly did she do? Abortion and marrying gays was the answer.

    Huh….. so, her accomplishments are about screwing. Getting rid of screwing undesirable effects & legalizing weird ways of screwing.

    Interesting.

  69. nickels says:

    Why did Trump choose Amanda Knox for SCOTUS?

    • Replies: @vot tak
  70. @Brooklyn Dave

    Dave = another one who doesn’t understand the growth stages.

    Zygote – Embryo – Fetus – Infant – Toddler – Child – Preadolescent – Adolescent – Young adult – Middle adult – Old adult

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_human_body

    • Troll: Agent76
    • Replies: @Agent76
  71. @omegabooks

    “Last good pope”? What was wrong with Ratzinger?

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
    , @Bill
  72. RBG was a witch and a Jew? I’m sure Scalia would have agreed with you about the Jew part but the witch part? What a pathetic piece you wrote full of invective and BS! I tend to be drawn to the “originalist” view but I’m not sure you know anything about ACB because she is not a “typical” American but a member of cult that makes women totally subservient to their husbands and their community. I hope she will be interested in the needs of the American people and the rule of law rather than the orders of her religious superiors.

  73. anon[148] • Disclaimer says:
    @Observator

    https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/5/137.html

    This may be more topical than you realize. Jefferson was refusing to seat “midnight judges” appointed by Adams just before handing over power.

    Looks like “Papist” Elizabeth I also had a “Star Chamber” in Ireland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Castle_Chamber

    I get it that the Vatican was and remains a corrupt institution (with all that power, it was designed to attract the lower type of man) but at least the Catholics did not enter into a bargain with Satan’s minions to gain power.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  74. Wally says:
    @IvyMike

    So you prefer this ugly-as-a-mud-fence pretender:

    over:

  75. @Chris Cosmos

    women subservient to their husbands and their community. – This is a good quality in my book, we need more of them!

    • Agree: 36 ulster, Aristotle1
  76. @God's Fool

    Indeed, RBG was not born ugly, but later on her phenotype became an expression of her destructive mind. Here are some pictures of hers when still young.

    As a child :

    As a bride :

    As a young mother :

    Same happened with Hillary Clinton.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Dumbo
    , @God's Fool
    , @Corvinus
  77. @Brooklyn Dave

    not a growth or a tumor that needs to be removed.

    Pregnancy is a pathological condition, as are growths and tumors. Whether it needs to be removed is a different question.

    • Troll: Aristotle1
    • Replies: @Anon
  78. Anonymous[657] • Disclaimer says:
    @wakeupscreaming

    the whole “pedophile priests” was headline after headline of incidents from the 1960s and only involved less than 1% of the clergy

    Th molestations were mostly peaceful.

    • LOL: Gordo
    • Replies: @SC Rebel
    , @Anon
  79. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    By law, 89 percent of the budget of any charity goes for administrative costs, including salaries company cars, company cell phones and many other perks.

    The Haitian charities are especially corrupt.

  80. SC Rebel says:

    A virtue signaling, name hyphenating papist.

    Apparently, I’m supposed to be excited about that.

  81. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Grandma always said, don’t frown and sneer because that’s what you’ll look like at 50.

  82. SC Rebel says:
    @anon

    Exactly. Her own church had an influence on her with regard to the adoption too I’m sure.

    She’s a female David French, which isn’t a good thing.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  83. Like our other standards, Shamir’s standard for what constitutes a “traditional American” has been lowered. A traditional American does not import members of a hostile, privileged group — perhaps the least compatible race in the world — into her own family at the expense of her own children.

    At the expense of OUR children, too: when “Amy”’s prized Africans apply for university admission and for jobs, they will be favored over our children, and over all white and asian americans, because of their Holy Race. Thanks, Amy, I’m glad we can pay the price for you to feel sanctimonious and tolerant and attend the right parties.

    We should expect “Amy” to sell us out in a crucial immigration or racial-preference case when the time comes.

    A normal European-American woman, a white “Traditional American” woman with five grown children of her own who places her children and her nation first and respects herself and her fellow Americans, would have been wonderful indeed. “Amy” ain’t it.

    Yes, I would rather Trump fill this seat than Biden or Harris. But this woman is another brainwashed, virtue-signalling type. And yeah, she IS suspect for belonging to a group that advocates “speaking in tongues”; it is rank idiocy, even if we don’t like the people saying it and even if we don’t want to undermine a “fellow christian” by saying so publicly.

  84. Israel Shamir,

    You say RBG was ugly, a lot. Yet she was quite cute in her own way. Just as you are. Weird that you are obsessed with her supposedly terrible looks when you could be brother and sister…

    Furthermore, RBG’s close friendship with Scalia shows that she was far from a weird fanatic. She disagreed with you on many things. She disagreed with me on many things. She was not modelesque (unlike me 😉 and much like you), but no need to be so full of bile!

    • Replies: @Anonymous Jew
  85. @Sirius


    Garland was never going to get a hearing from a Republican-controlled-Senate because of the circumstances surrounding Scalia’s death. I support their decision regarding that.

    • Troll: Agent76
    • Replies: @Sirius
  86. Agent76 says:

    Sep 18, 2020 President Trump: I will nominate Pro-Life justices

    President Trump upheld his 2016 promise to nominate Pro-Life justices to the Supreme Court of the United States.

    • Troll: The Real World
  87. @anti_barabas_ite

    My wife and I left the Catholic Church and do not regret the decision. But I can’t abide slandering good people and painting with too broad a brush.

    It seems that the rampant sexual deviancy and abuse were and are predominantly in the priesthood. It is the priests and bishops who engage in unnatural “sex” with each other (and sometimes adult or teenaged members of the public). It is the priests who molest and impose upon and confuse boys and young men.

    These sins should not be pinned on the many, many decent non-clergy men and women who teach in the church’s schools. Not among the nuns generally either.

    The problem was, and still is, the thorough infiltration of male homosexual deviants into the seminaries and thence into the priesthood and the hierarchy. Let’s not blame the goodhearted heterosexual non-priests, men and women, who teach in good faith the catholic schools; they care about their students in a normal wholesome way, and they strive to raise their own children just as we do.

    We would not trust an RC priest with our children. By contrast, we would not presumptively distrust Catholic-school teachers who are not priests.

    • Replies: @Tsar Nicholas
  88. There were way too many question marks for Lagoa. The fact that she didn’t take her husband’s last name for one. And the fact that her husband’s name is Paul Huck – or is that (Huck).

    • Disagree: The Real World
  89. Cowboy says:

    This was a pretty nice country before they let in the joos and the romanists.
    There are currently zero qualified jurist on the Supreme Court.

  90. Truth says:

    Trump didn’t flinch. He chose the good-looking Amy Barrett to replace the departed witch in the Supreme Court. What a difference!

    Oh so he picked another Broad. Real looker too;

    Good news.

    This one’s a little more vibrant and colorful…

    https://i2.wp.com/www.independentsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Amy-Coney-Barrett-1.jpg?resize=696%2C700&ssl=1

  91. meamjojo says:
    @Ghali

    Jews don’t believe in hell.

    • Replies: @Dave Bowman
    , @SC Rebel
  92. @Observator

    Australia adopted at federation in 1901 much of the US constitutional disposition including the right and duty of the High Court of Australia. There have been some complaints of legal activism and some complaints about particular appointments. A very left wing ill disciplined Attorney-General was appointed by the short lived disastrous Whitlam government in the mid 1970s for example. But there are major differences which cast some doubt on the culpability of Chief Justice Marshall for today’s unhappy political divisions. The biggest is probably the absence of a Bill of Rights in Australia so making it hard for judges to make law in face of clear readings of a statute’s meaning by traditional judicial method. Happily, one of the cases which is exceptional stopped a Labor government from forbidding much election advertising when the High Court managed to find an implied right to free speech in the Constitution of sufficient width to allow full argument at elections. Unfortunately good think has also found ways of changing the once settled law wrt indigenes which, in its land rights aspect has been very expensive and bad for Aborigines. (And, can you believe it, a person who could claim Aboriginal ancestry but wasn’t an Australian citizen or stateless was given the right recently by a 4- 3 majority to live in Australia!?!).

    Then there has been a strong tradition of objectively leading counsel being appointed so, inter alia, Attorneys-General will not lose caste with their peers in the six state Bars. Compounding that advantage (unless the government goes rogue) is the absence of any need for Senate confirmation. Once the Governor-General accepts the government’s advice and signs the Letters Patent the appointment is consummated. It is almost inconceivable that the Governor-General would refuse. At the beginning of the 1930s a Labor government appointed two judges who were so disapproved of by practising barristers that the customary welcoming ceremonies were boycotted. One of them (Evatt), a formidable scholar of dubious hnestty , resigned after 10 years to become Minister for Foreign Affairs, under the new wartime Labor government, and, in due course a significant figure in the foundation of the United Nations as well as going almost gaga over what he thought was a conspiracy against him in 1954 (the Petrov Affair) when he was Leader of the Opposition with the result that a state Labor government appointed him state CJ in which role he went seriously off beam. The other, (Sir) Edward Aloysius McTiernan, served from 1930 till 1976 when he was 84 (before the retiring age of 70 was brought in) and it can be fairly said that, when his invariably Catholic Associates (clerks in SCOTUS terms) hadn’t written his judgments he had the good sense to concur in the judges of Dixon CJ ….

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  93. @Wizard of Oz

    I should have added the advantage the Australian High Court has of not having to make sense of 18th century language, ideas and technology. Fortunately it wasn’,t too much of a stretch in 1937 to find that the national Parliament had been given the right to make laws with respect to broadcasting….

  94. Alvin says:
    @Captain Sensible

    That’s a great observation about ACB going along with the unanimous decision to uphold all of Illinois’ lockdown orders, unlike the District Court judge in Pennsylvania. Very disappointing that she couldn’t dissent against the worst civil and economic rights abuse since at least the internment of Japanese during WWII. I would have appointed that Pennsylvania judge.

    ACB is not a fighter. She’s weak, a conformist who doesn’t want to rock the boat. She will not challenge New Deal decisions that violated our rights and upheld every government intrusion into our lives.

    I bet she wears a face mask whenever she steps outside her home.

  95. She was vetted by “(((The Federalist Society))) a Jewish group who decides who gets to be selected for supreme court nominations so she will do as her (((master))) tells her. Don’t expect anything from her. She is also a race traitor there are plenty of White children who need adoption but she chose black from a foreign country over even the blacks in the USA. So no I have no high hopes for her in any manner.

    • Agree: SC Rebel
  96. Ugetit says:
    @noname27

    Since when did the US and Israeli governments profess … bla bla bla…

    The US has professed since it’s inception that it was all about freedom and democracy, and as for the Israeli thugs, their excuses are that they’re G-d’s Chosen ones and besides, they are entitled to the world because of their “high IQs,” “industry” and because they’ve all been “poysekyootid” all these millennia and besides, they dindu nuttin.

    Any more questions?

    • LOL: Ace
    • Replies: @in the middle
  97. @RadicalCenter

    A traditional American does not import members of a hostile, privileged group — perhaps the least compatible race in the world — into her own family at the expense of her own children.

    Totally true. ACB appears guilty of hazardous virtue signaling. Why import additional POC when our country already has too many underprivileged, genetically-disadvantaged negro children in need of care or adoption? Conduct of this sort reminds me of what that silly movie star (Angelina Jolie) did before having her boobs removed as a preventative measure against breast cancer. Mia Farrow also pursued the perilous route of cultivating an oversized, discordant, mixed-race household.

    Generally, radical virtue signaling of this sort tends to afflict showy, affluent white liberals.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
  98. Agent76 says:
    @The Real World

    “A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.” William Shakespeare

    • Replies: @The Real World
  99. @Plato's Dream

    What was wrong with Ratzinger?

    He resigned.

    • Replies: @Anon
  100. CSFurious says:
    @IvyMike

    Compared to RBG, Judge Barrett is the most beautiful woman in the world.

  101. Dumbo says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Beauty, facial expression and moral character can be related (somewhat).
    Physiognomy makes sense.
    I wouldn’t say that the problem is that she got uglier (we all become less attractive as we get older and women more so) but she clearly seems more evil/angrier in later pictures.
    Some women, in contrast, even in old age look very kind and almost angelic grandmas, reflecting also their character.
    This is why some women who were attractive in their youth, but having an evil character or loose morals, tend to get uglier as they age.
    Maybe this is not true for all, but it is true enough, I think.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
    , @Vojkan
  102. @mark green

    It isn’t “virtue-signaling” if you aren’t concerned with how others think of you for doing it.

    Whether you like it or not, adopting Haitian children is something that can be done out of a sincere spirit of generosity, or pity, or charity.

  103. Dumbo says:

    The fact that she adopted two Haitians doesn’t bother me. I wouldn’t do it personally, I wouldn’t like to be entrusted with the burden of rising Blacks, but if she wants it, what’s the deal, she has already 5 other biological children. (Well… If the adopted children are black males and some of the biological children are daughters the same age, then I can foresee a possible problem – it has happened before).

    Other things about her are more worrying, however. Like the fact that she’s a woman, and doesn’t seem really all that conservative.

  104. Anon[165] • Disclaimer says:
    @Curmudgeon

    Really? I guess we have different empirical knowledge of pregnancy.

    • Agree: Aristotle1
    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  105. Anon[165] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    No, the molestations were mostly (over 80%) homosexual, pederastic. Calling them pedophilia was a disinformation tactic so silly people like you could lambast the Church and so the homo-heretics could avoid Church reform and get their greedy hands on the real estate.

  106. lloyd says: • Website
    @RadicalCenter

    Five children, and a nation first woman would not become a Surpreme Court Justice. Speaking from the experience of my mother, she would be unlikely to pursue full time or any time at all a professional career. The German national socialists gave women the focus of children, church, kitchen. A few exceptionally talented woman such as the director of Triumph of Will pursued carrers outside the three Ks. Hitler had a particular dislike of women politicians as he humphed in Mein Kampf.

  107. 76239 says:

    “US courts are currently dominated by Dem-nominated social engineering judges”

    The supreme court has always been a rubber stamp for tyranny. Its been like that since John Marshall. In the middle of the 19th century, the US supreme court ruled a person could be the property of another person and that property title had to be upheld in areas of the country that opposed it. You cannot get any more social engineering than that.

    • Replies: @Curle
  108. Ace says:
    @The Real World

    Hanging is too good for him. No. Crucify him. No, to the stake.

    • LOL: Denis
  109. Ace says:
    @slorter

    Yes, “capitalism” is everywhere you look, behind every door.

  110. anonymous[124] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    “I get it that the Vatican was and remains a corrupt institution… but at least the Catholics did not enter into a bargain with Satan’s minions to gain power.”

    You are an open-minded individual compared to some who have apparently been waiting in the weeds to ambush Barrett because of her religious affiliations both intramural to the many factions within the RC church and in the greater world of extracorporeal fantasy.

    Veterans Today and Gordon Duff are anything but stable coherent opinionators, being prone to frequently and flippantly contradict themselves within the confines of a single sentence let alone an entire essay. However, they have outdone themselves with the slander served up against Barrett from almost the moment her nomination to the SC was formally announced.

    Get this for the Satanic apocalypse they see incipient in Barrett’s appointment to the high court:

    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/09/28/queen-of-a-satanic-pedophile-cult-to-join-supreme-court/

    I guess the world ends like in the movie “Cabin in the Woods.” Boundless deviltry is all described and ominous names dropped, from Moloch to Roy Cohn, Jeffrey Epstein, Antonin Scalia and much celebrated Jesuit Malachi Martin, who has been pretty low profile (not to mention dead) since being a frequent interview on demonology and exorcism by Larry King on his late night national radio show back in the pre-CNN 1970’s. Bogeyman done got Malachi long ago, but he’s always good for a nostalgic laugh.

    • Replies: @Bill
  111. Tick Tock says:
    @The Real World

    You must be a Wokestor of some flavor. Too much hate, actually only real world facts, but then that is confusing to the Woke. There is no truth and there is no God. Boy or Girl or whatever you are you are in for a surprise….

    • Replies: @The Real World
  112. Anonymous[508] • Disclaimer says:

    this is so curious WHY the deepstate always comes after judge ROBERTS to do the toilet work clean up??? ?? now Roberts being pushed to block Barrets hearings…on what grounds??? why always ROBERTS???

  113. Anon[165] • Disclaimer says:
    @Old Palo Altan

    I was saddened by Ratzinger’s resignation. However, since he couldn’t clean the stables I think it was a good idea to resign. If he had died in power, it would have been equivalent to rubber stamping the homoheretic status quo.

    Imagine what would have happened if McCarrick’s filth (or anyone else’s) had come to the open a few months after BXVII’s death. That he resigned made the rest of the faithful perk up our ears, yet because he gave no explanation, he created no scandal. (As in the sin of scandal).

    With 7 years’ hindsight, I’d say the fruits of the resignation are less complaisant, more prayerful Catholics. Many are really taking close looks at Francis. In this sense, I don’t share de Mattei’s pessimism, though a couple of years back I was as dismayed by Francis as most. Ratzinger did presage a smaller, poorer yet infinitely creative Church.

  114. Great article, Mr Shamir. Just a correction, however.

    The Congress does have the power under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to restrict the ability of the Supreme Court to adjudicate in certain pre-defined areas. Ron Paul tried to use this to limit the Court’s ability to pronounce upon reproductive rights, but was defeated. Probably because most Republicans are quite happy with the child murdering and the war against the family.

  115. @RadicalCenter

    Archbishop Carlo Vigano has stated that he church is being run by a “gay mafia” who dominate the institutions. Vigano himself was removed from important work at the Vatican bank because he was uncovering too much wrongdoing. He has revealed that the current Pope, whom he refers to as Bergolio, brought back Archbishop McCarrick, a serial abuser to head he talks with China, talks which resulted in a sell out of China’s Catholics in return for a large cash donation from Beijing. McCarrick is now laicised, but this does not make up for the likely thousands of young men he sexually abused.

    Vigano has also stated, rather chillingly, that the church is the spiritual rm of the New World Order.

  116. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

    He gave a chance to a normal non-hyphenated American

    LOL. A normal non-hyphenated American name is Amelia Barrett. Shortened first names are not normal. Middle names are not normal in daily or professional use. (Might “Coney” really signal Cohn-y?)

    Her nauseating statements reveal her to be a vapid careerist conformist. In her wildest dreams, she would never imagine curbing Federal power.

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
  117. From a quick review of several comments, it appears that some posters are going after the messenger. Bad juju. Like all articles similar to this one (which I considered well written and fairly well balanced) I took some time to look at the substance of the article. The judgment on earlier SCOTUS opinions is fair, in my opinion, and a good constitution originalist is needed in the gang of nine. Desperately. Let’s hope that Amy Barrett does get on the court and that she is the real thing.

    If we are to survive as a country, America needs balanced and lawful justice again.

  118. @Agent76

    So, you are unable to articulate rebuttals. Then, why are you here and responding to any comment?

    • LOL: The Real World
    • Troll: Agent76
  119. And a new word enters the lexicon:

    SCJILF (scuh-JILF) Supreme Court Justice I’d Love to . . .

  120. @Tsar Nicholas

    Have you ever seen this image of the large meeting hall at the Vatican?
    It’s quite startling…. https://tinyurl.com/y46r9jdq

    • Replies: @Tsar Nicholas
  121. @meamjojo

    Perhaps not.

    There are times when I rather hope God does, though.

  122. Z-man says:

    The first few paragraphs describing RBG were priceless, thanks.

  123. @Tick Tock

    LOL, what predictable, programmed nonsense from someone who is clearly void of independent thought / analysis.

    Pelosi and Clinton could reasonably be referred to as “harridans”. I’ve never witnessed nor read about any such behavior from Ginsburg.

    Back to your closed and limited programming…

  124. That is a great article. Unz even allowed the term “Jewified”. I’m impressed.
    This is why I love this website. It’s full of strong opinions stated with as much power as the English language allows.

  125. anon[170] • Disclaimer says:

    Seems to be a conservative type but even if she were some sort of exception as to judge everyone else’s rights or freedom -no one person is going to make the slightest difference. There are piles of laws long since done by the tiny ‘majority’ -of only nine people, and all without a peep from the hoards.

    Kelo vs. New London Conneticut

    • Replies: @Curle
  126. Tusk says:
    @Lestat

    It is a reference to Portrait of Dorian Gray wherein the more sin he committed the uglier he became.

    • Agree: israel shamir
  127. saeger says:

    Some comments and part of article mention appearance as if it matters but it’s the record of judgments made that is the thing. From what I’ve seen she is toward the right, shown by initial web search anyway.

  128. Sorry, shes just controlled opposition. Shes a crypto, just another Freemason put in power to further the nwo agenda.

    1. Born n raised in Louisiana, why did she go to a tiny university in Memphis called Rhodes University? If Rhodes doesnt raise a red flag, then how about the original name for the university, The Masonic Univ of Tennessee. This is where she got her Freemason indoctrination. The univ name was later changed after Cecil Rhodes, a south african diamond magnate who gave all his wealth to the Rothschilds to further the nwo agenda.

    2. Her father was a lawyer for Shell Oil. And there it is, Shell Oil is Rothschild oil. Btw, the logo is not a shell, its a communist sun rising.

    Freemasons have infultrated every position of power. No loose ends.

    • Replies: @The Real World
  129. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Those are lovely pictures of the late judge of the august bench … the difference between her and Hillary is that RBG was a lady and HRC is a dyke.

    Thanks, FR!

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  130. @The Real World

    Yes, and the Pachymama statues being worshipped in the Vatican Gardens during last autumn’s Amazon Synod, and the statue of Molech they have at the Vatican.

  131. @Anonymous

    There was A John Roberts listed on the Epstein flight logs. Maybe this was THE John Roberts.

  132. @Dumbo

    Yes, some women age with dignity without becoming ugly. Compare RBG’s case with that of Ursula Haverbeck, a 84 old German woman, jailed for “Holocaust denial”:

    Young :

    Old :

    • Replies: @JM
  133. DaveE says:
    @Alvin

    I bet she wears a face mask whenever she steps outside her home.

    Yep. Here’s the kind of “reformer” she is:

  134. SC Rebel says:
    @meamjojo

    They will when they die and haven’t accepted Jesus as their Savior.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  135. @Captain Sensible

    Good point regarding whether nutty evangelicals can be properly “conservative” by anything but chance coincidence.

    The more “charismatic” side of American religion is just nuts (even Hegel argued this actually)

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/adventures-in-la-la-land-lutheranism/

  136. gsjackson says:
    @Alvin

    The Pennsylvania decision was very well written for legalese, very much on point, and the judge is young — early 40s. Unfortunately too young to get on the SCOTUS short list just yet, as he was appointed I think less than a year ago, but one to watch. And of course, this appointment is like Bork’s in the ’80s — Armageddon for the Dems, establishing a five-justice conservative majority — so optics have to come into play. For a man they would dig up a couple dozen rape victims, but it’s going to be hard to touch a heroic young mother raising seven kids while playing in the legal big leagues (and she is quite capable intellectually).

    It is concerning that Barrett upheld the lockdown, but I need to find out when that decision came down. The Pennsylvania judge made much about the open-ended nature of the lockdown, and how executive fiat ceases to become due process as time passes.

    • Replies: @Bill
  137. Bill says:
    @Plato's Dream

    So much. Most of the cardinal electors at the last conclave were created by Ratzinger, for example.

  138. Curle says:
    @Chris Cosmos

    “but a member of cult that makes women totally subservient to their husbands and their community.”

    Step up from being subservient you a global ethno-banking cartel passing itself off as an religion, don’t you think?

    • LOL: Sulu
  139. @Not Only Wrathful

    Like most leftists of her age, she was an old-school Liberal, as evidenced by her comments on Kaepernick kneeling (and friendship with Scalia). She was also cute when young, but developed the Hillary scowl.

    SCOTUS is more about what they won’t do than what they will. ACB just has to be solidly judicially conservative and that will give us all we can hope for. The real battle is outside of the court, as it should be.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  140. Sulu says:
    @wakeupscreaming

    The whole “pedophile catholic priests” was a smear campaign.

    Unfortunately many of the smears were found in the under ware of little boys and girls.

    Sulu

  141. Curle says:
    @anon

    I’m not going to question your disagreements with Kelo except to note it doesn’t even make the top 500 as far as establishing an significant anti-majoritarian legal principle. I get annoyed when ‘conservatives’ cite it as some kind of cultural or legal watershed. Governments have been practicing eminent domain since the railroads maybe even the canals.

    If looking for an horrendous legal cases, look to Martin v Hunter’s Lessee (Federal supremacy), Swann v Charlotte-Meklenberg School District (forced integration), or Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. where, in the latter case, unelected administrators were given a presumption of validity in legislating via interpretative rules.

  142. @God's Fool

    Bettin’ on these clowns is like pissin’ in the wind..

    • Replies: @God's Fool
  143. Sulu says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    As if a man needs any more reasons not to marry in the first world. Can you imagine doing Hillary 50 years ago when she was passable and then running into her today? You would be praying to God that she just doesn’t recognize you.

    Sulu

  144. I don’t understand the obsession. The court is overwhelmingly pro-corporate and anti-worker. 15 of last 19 judges appointed by GOP, yet here we are! Lib or Con, Jew or Gentile, Catholic or Muslim, black or white doesn’t change a thing other than fake drama over BS like muh abortion or muh gunz. Don’t know what guns will do for you, we’ll all be living in a box on skid row by that time. Most of the babies will grow up in poverty and end up in prison at 30-60,000 a year on taxpayers, but not before dropping 6-10 more chilluns that do the same. Great work conservatives!

    When the rich want you to lose yer guns, they will be gone regardless. As of now, most conservatives are tarded bootlickers and would gladly waste every bullet they have shooting average libtards, Antifas, blacks, mexicans, or just mentally deranged poor folk in general, majority of right wingers are no threat to capital or the elites, thats why you still have them.

    Unless you’re Wall St Google Amazon or Chamber of Commerce, I really dont understand why any average guy would care. They do what the CIA tell them to do period. Pro-corporate, pro oligarch, pro monopoly, pro empire, anti worker, anti union, anti environment.

    Court is just as corrupt as congress. What the hell does it say about the greatest and freeeest country on earth that our fate is supposedly in the hands of a few corrupt “judges” Not much! Basically a dictatorship of out of touch rich asshole boomers. Just more proof ‘Merica is a 3rd world banana republic.

    More Patriot Acts and Citizens United will save the white race! They can already assassinate you, send you to gitmo without trial, spy on you, listen to your phone calls, read your email, track everywhere you go, silence you, disappear you, but one more con will make it all better!

    Truth be known the Dems want right wing judges just so they have an excuse not to do anything. Easy way to shift the blame for not passing anything their constituents want.

    I also read today that this Barrett lady helped Trump and Giuliani get MEK, the Iranian terrorist cult, taken off the terrorism list. So Trump has designated the two groups most responsible for destroying ISIS, and protecting Christians in Iraq and Syria, IRGC and Hezbollah as terrorists. While fighting to get MEK taken off. Awesome

    Failed state!

    • Thanks: Joe Levantine
    • Replies: @vot tak
    , @Zarathustra
  145. https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-court-of-god-how-a-catholic-secret-society-took-over-scotus/271612/

    Another viewpoint that alludes to a possible (probable) Opus Dei connection. Still, if I had to choose which witch I’d take the catholic one anyday over the alternative..

    What can we expect?
    Whilst the comparison of physical appeal is amusing, by that yardstick Nikki Hayley would also make a great political pundit.
    ACB may be similarly genetically gifted but I suspect that she will be just as autonomous.

  146. Avery says:

    { …the departed witch in the Supreme Court.}

    No truer words were ever spoken.

  147. Cowboy says:
    @Anonymous

    Because he is a jesuit whore

  148. Bill says:
    @anonymous

    “coal barons” LOL.

    That article is saved from being libel by its incoherence.

  149. Bill says:
    @gsjackson

    The GOP majority on the SCOTUS has been as big as 8-1 in recent decades. Nothing is going to happen. Nothing is going to change. This is not the most importantest confirmation fight ever. It is nothing.

    • Agree: neutral
    • Replies: @gsjackson
  150. @IvyMike

    Come up with a better argument before you unleash your fingers.

  151. vot tak says:
    @redmudhooch

    “I also read today that this Barrett lady helped Trump and Giuliani get MEK, the Iranian terrorist cult, taken off the terrorism list”

    Didn’t know that, thanks. Tried finding info on her views and past actions, beyond the nonsense reported in msm sources, but came up empty.

  152. Debate between Trump and Biden? The loser was the American people !!

  153. Curle says:
    @76239

    You are confusing your targets.

    “ In the middle of the 19th century, the US supreme court ruled a person could be the property of another person.” Why wouldn’t they?
    Slave holding was an authority reserved to the states by the 18th century document the US Constitution. Don’t blame the courts for an instance of faithfulness to the law, blame the founders.

    “[A]nd that property title had to be upheld in areas of the country that opposed it.“ Ever hear of due process And takings? Also protected by that aforementioned 18th century document. Your complaint is with the federal system of government established by the founders not the courts.

    • Agree: mark green
  154. @Nick from Newtown

    Good catches….I think. However, it is claimed here that the college name was changed to honor a former physics prof and decades-long Prez of the college.

    Charles Diehl retired in 1948, and the Board of Trustees unanimously chose physics professor Dr. Peyton N. Rhodes as his successor. ……… In 1984, the Board of Trustees decided the name “Southwestern” needed to be retired, and the college’s name was changed to Rhodes College to honor the man who had served the institution for more than fifty years.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodes_College

  155. anonymous[252] • Disclaimer says:
    @gotmituns

    What your godless forebears, the spiritually accursed Catholics and/or the Nordics, built was a one-way portal into Hell.

    Does it matter if that portal is a “glorious” one or not? If you answer in the affirmative, it just means the accursed lot of you will enter Hell, gloriously. 😀

  156. anonymous[252] • Disclaimer says:
    @SC Rebel

    Silly argument. That makes about as much logical sense as a hindoo saying something similar about you and your faith;

    They will when they die and haven’t accepted shiva as their savior.

    You see where I am going with that? Probably not, but may the suspicion linger always.

  157. @RadicalCenter

    It’ll be weird. Amy’s kids will be high IQ high achievers,(barring psychological or other issues) but the Haitians will be dumb as a box of rocks. Amy will hallucinate systemic racism as the cause; she may also blame herself.

  158. JM says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Hahahhahahahaha! Sleight of hand.

  159. neutral says:

    The supreme court is ultimately just the rubber stamping authority for whatever the elites determine is the next thing that has be accepted by society, it has no real power. And by elites I mean the jews.

  160. neutral says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Bullshit, Western civilization was formed from the Germanic* tribes that replaced the Roman empire. It is ultimately a racial identity, those millions of non white Catholics are not Western, the same logic applies to Europe, being Catholic does not make you Western.

    *They also happened to be the reason Catholics exist in Europe, it was the early Frankish rulers that converted to Christianity that made it spread to where it spread.

  161. Vojkan says:
    @meamjojo

    As an Orthodox Christian who has lived for thirty-six years in a predominantly Catholic country and has become acquainted with many Catholic believers, I affirm that the paedophilia problem among Catholics has been wildly exaggerated to suit the Left’s political agenda.
    There are paedophile priests but there are far less of them than there are paedophile teachers in the French republican school. Pretending that Catholics are naturally inclined to paedophilia because of a few black sheep in its clergy is as pretending that all Jews are naturally paedophiles because of Polanski or Epstein or Daniel Cohn-Bendit (a French-German leftist who made an apology of paedophilia in one of his books). And what about the muslims who practice basha bazi and consider legitimate to marry 8-year olds?
    At least Christians, be they Catholic or Orthodox – I don’t consider the judaising heretics that call themselves protestants to be Christians – treat paedophilia as anathema, unlike the two other monotheist religions.

    • Agree: Joe Levantine
    • Thanks: Intelligent Dasein
    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  162. @Franklin Ryckaert

    The linked image of HRC is gonna give me the willies…

  163. @Johnny Walker Read

    Unfortunately, those five clowns are the only thing remaining that will prevent the country from truly pissing in wind … nice tune.

  164. gsjackson says:
    @Bill

    That 8-1 majority included Blackmun, Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter. Not one originalist among them, and each likely as not to vote with the liberal bloc.

    Republicans certainly have a knack for picking justices that disappoint their constituencies, but if Barrett is confirmed there will for the first time be a Federalist Society vetted majority of nominal originalists (excluding from consideration John Roberts, whose vote obviously is controlled). Maybe nothing will change, but on paper — and these justices have left a significant paper trail that the Federalist Society picked up the scent of — this would be a court that might overturn some significant precedents, such as the abortion cases.

  165. RBG hired 119 law clerks during her nearly 30 years on The SCOTUS.

    One was black.

    If a christian had done that the charges of racism would have been al over the news but we know who owns the news.

    As a Jewish racial supremacist she likely thought blacks were intellectually inferior which is prolly why the did not retire when the Kenyan was POTUS; she didn’t want a black man to name her replacement.

  166. @Vojkan

    It is very open minded of you to live in a Catholic country.

    • Replies: @Vojkan
    , @Avery
  167. Vojkan says:
    @ploni almoni

    Open or close-mindedness or religious belief have nothing to do with it. My parents took me to France when I was seven. I am definitely grateful that I grew up in France rather than in communist Serbia or anywhere in the former Yugoslavia and I am convinced that the French are overall far better people than any of the ex-Yugoslavs except maybe the reviled Bosnian Serbs.

  168. Vojkan says:
    @Dumbo

    Like The Picture of Dorian Gray.

  169. druid55 says:
    @wakeupscreaming

    especially since it’s now being shown what a bunch of paedo’s the Jevvs are. Their ilk are the ones pushing for lowering the consent age. Their Talmood says sex is ok with a 3yo – that;s their ffamous Rambam, by the way. etc.

  170. WormPoop says:
    @anti_barabas_ite

    Sexual abuse has been rampant for centuries, everywhere, every country. Don’t slander everyone from a particular group based on the position of your own suspicion and bias (hate?).

    In the same way, not all of the 330 million Americans are ignorant, brainwashed, and evil…. many are decent human beings; not all Irish are drunks; not all Jews hate the human race. I grew up in the Catholic tradition, and all my teachers were really good teachers, focused on helping us students do well in school and life. Thanks to them and my parents I grew up asking questions; I still do and that brought me to this site.

  171. Sirius says:
    @The Real World

    What circumstances are you referring to?

    • Replies: @The Real World
  172. AMY BARRETT is ONE FOR THE GOOD GUYS!
    I would love to have been privy to Trump’s selection process, especially curious to know why he went against, what must have been, all the zionists which surround him. Anyone with a brain must be saying Trump needs a second term … to be TRUMP!

    • Replies: @The Real World
  173. Avery says:
    @ploni almoni

    {It is very open minded of you to live in a Catholic country.}

    Where do you live ?
    (I myself live in very open-minded [Christian] US)
    In an open minded Muslim country, perhaps?
    Dare I guess Saudi Arabia ? One of the most progressive, open minded countries in the world?

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  174. Not exactly a fan of Ginsburg here, but I’m shocked at the author’s invective. Is your next article going to rail against Justice Breyer, because I’m sure they voted together >90% of the time.

    I had never heard of Judge Barrett but when I read her name and saw her picture, I immediately suspected that since she wasn’t a Jew, she had to be Catholic. Most of the prominent conservative judges are Catholic, or Jews who converted. It is simply mind-boggling that there are so many Catholics on the Supreme Court.

    • Agree: The Real World
  175. Corvinus says:
    @RadicalCenter

    “A traditional American does not import members of a hostile, privileged group — perhaps the least compatible race in the world — into her own family at the expense of her own children.”

    The fact of the matter is that she, as a “traditional American”, chose to adopt two infants and raise them with her brood. The only “expense” was to pay for their upbringing.

    “A normal European-American woman…”

    Ah, yes, you are employing the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. Go figure, that is one of your standbys…

  176. Loup-Bouc says:

    Mr. Shamir:

    I enjoyed your article, as I have all your other pieces — the lilt and fun of them, their fresh language. But this time, I cannot accept your article’s root premise: “…[I]n strongly Jewified countries, the traditional Jewish rule by judges has been established,” [and] “…Jews are traditionally ruled by judges,” [and] “[i]n the US, with the Rise of Jews, the Jewish way took ascendency and the Supreme Court usurped the prerogatives of democracy.”

    You address the U.S. Supreme Court’s (and lower federal courts’ and state courts’) power of “judicial review” of legislative, executive, and agency actions. That power was established in 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/#tab-opinion-1958607.

    In 1803, the Court’s Justices were Christian — all of them. At that time, and during the Justices lives before and after that case-decision, Jews bore virtually zero political power and even less (if that is possible) influence respecting the field of jurisprudence and the conduct of judges or courts.

    The Marbury v. Madison doctrine has never suffered fundamental change. Surely, particular Justices’ political, economic, social, and “moral” views have influenced the tenor and quality of their application of the Marbury v. Madison doctrine. But always (at least in Anglo-American jurisprudence) that has been true — even in England, where, at least until very recently, the judiciary has not possessed a formal power of judicial review.

    Actually, for centuries, English courts have used a subtle, informal, indirect means of controlling Parliament. If an English court considered a statute extremely unwise, hideously irrational, or outrageously oppressive, the court would refuse to enforce the statute because it was “insensible” — intractably ambiguous or even incoherent, hence incapable of submitting to judicial construction or interpretation.

    But that English judicial trick long-preexisted the 20th-century advent of English government’s disproportionate Jewish political influence (Disraeli notwithstanding).

    I do sympathize, however, with (a) most of your view of abortion and (b) most of your view of Ruth Bader Ginsberg [RBG], with whom I had a regrettable professional legal relationship in 1970. I wondered whether she was like a traditional Barbie doll — anatomically incorrect. And I found her mind kindred to that of an auto-mechanic or a plumber and her psyche marred by emotional plague.

    Occasionally, RBG’s Supreme Court opinions furthered justice — especially in the field of habeas corpus and other similar forms of relief from unjust criminal conviction or imprisonment. But her federal constitution constuctions/interpretations were near-always driven by her sick politics, rather than the constitution’s actual language and its legitimately pertinent history. Long, I have wondered whether Justice Scalia really befriended RBG: Was that “friendship” RBG’s wishful hallucination?

    The matter of abortion

    Until the 12th week of gestation, human fetuses are not sentient — not capable of feeling fear or pain — because they have not attained sufficient neural development. So, since my concern is causation of suffering, I would support a right of obtaining an abortion before the 12th week of gestation, but never after the 11th week — except where quite necessary to save the woman’s life.

    Such a rule would not trouble, rationally, any aware, rational woman — except, perhaps, traditional Catholics presumptuous enough to try to determine non-Catholics’ moral choices.

    Contraception (even the “morning after” pill) is readily available and cheap. Every aware, rational, non-moron, abortion-preferring woman will know she is pregnant early enough to obtain abortion before the 12th week. [I use the term “moron” as mostly do the psychiatrist and psychologist communities: IQ below 56 ± a few points.]

    If the woman is a traditional Catholic and, so, will not use contraception or permit her mate to use it, that woman will not want to seek an abortion. So such rule will not transgress her liberty.

    If the woman is seriously mentally retarded or unaware because of psychosis (but NOT a homeless wretch), near-certainly she will have a guardian or the like who will discover her pregnancy early enough and submit the woman to abortion before the 12th week — if abortion is “in the [woman’s] best interest.” The psychotic or moron homeless are beyond workable regulation.

  177. @Anonymous

    If you can’t figure that out, not much hope for you Anon.

    The man was picked to do the biding of his true masters, and has been compromised to make sure he doesn’t balk at his orders.
    https://www.waynedupree.com/2020/06/justice-john-roberts-is-compromised/

  178. Brilliant, as usual. Thank you, Mr. Shamir.

  179. @The Real World

    I keep asking, who in the sober mind, would mate with Snow white’s step mother? OMG! Only in America indeed.

  180. @Sirius

    The fact that he was fine at dinner, hours earlier, that he died alone and contrary to Texas state law he did not have an autopsy to determine cause of death. Add that…gee, he’s only a SCOTUS Justice…one of the rarest and most powerful birds in the country. An autopsy should have been automatic in those circumstances!

    Then add, that both of the two usual county officials who normally go, in person, to see a dead person and the situation before issuing a death report were miraculously out of town for a conference and some third-level sheriff-type literally issued the death certificate upon a verbal phone description (with the ranch owner, I guess.) Yes!

    Some local TX reporter reached the primary person who does that, who was 1.5 hours away at that supposed meeting, and she said she would have never done that and it’s very irregular to “phone it in” and to not autopsy someone who dies alone.

    Plus, the highly irregular fact that NO ONE at that ranch was interviewed. Not even to share memories or give slight description of the dinner before, etc. I followed the story intensely and still don’t know who the guests were at that ranch that weekend. That’s how much of a lid was kept on it. I could go on with much more but, you get the idea.

    There are a great many of of us who believe he was ‘removed’. We might know the truth someday b/c I think Trump has a bee in his bonnet about it.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  181. @the grand wazoo

    Some people are claiming that she’s a Deep State pick. That she’s been groomed for this spot. One guy pointed out that she went to a rather unusual college, Rhodes College in Memphis, which has Masonic origins.

    Hmmm, could she be another Justice Roberts?

    • Replies: @gsjackson
  182. @Loup-Bouc

    This may be some SCOTUS minutiae but I remember seeing an interview with a justice on CSPAN, I think it might have been Blackmun although I can’t say for sure because he and RBG only served on the court together for one term or so, and he said that RBG and Scalia would often stroll into the conference room together late, much to the chagrin of then Chief Justice Rehnquist.

  183. @Captain Sensible

    “… Pope Francis, who is nothing more than real estate salesman for Agenda 21.”

    Well said. I guess Shamir is oblivious to the “ Renaissance Occult Church of Rome”, one of the finest books written by erudite author Michael Hoffman, a must reading for those willing to look beyond smoke and mirrors.

  184. @Alvin

    “ Very disappointing that she couldn’t dissent against the worst civil and economic rights abuse since at least the internment of Japanese during WWII”

    Very true, though what would have been her chances to be nominated for SCOTUS, had she objected?

    Let us hope that if she gets nominated, she will remove the face mask of conformity and show a fiery spirit at defending the constitution.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  185. @Tsar Nicholas

    “ Vigano himself was removed from important work at the Vatican bank”

    Vigano’s open letter to the globalist Pope was an act of courage. But since you mention the Vatican Bank, my question is what on earth does banking have to do with the bride of Christ.

    The rot within the Catholic Church was always there, but ever since the Church started conniving with Catholic apologists for the Talmud thereby embracing usury which was strictly prohibited for the first 15 centuries of the Church’s history, the flood of deviancy within the RCC has overwhelmed the gates of decency.

    In the “Usury in Christendom”, Dr. Michael Hoffman’s research is quite informative.

    • Replies: @Tsar Nicholas
  186. @redmudhooch

    Sorry you do not understand.
    Greatest threat to capitalistic system is accelerated inflation, or hyperinflation.
    It did happen under Carter. Luckily it happened close to end of his fourth year. Than Regan took over, and did stop the hyperinflation by curbing the Unions,

  187. anon[327] • Disclaimer says:

    I was busy sleeping, did the skies darken when witch melted?

    Is it known how many paychecks witch collected while dead?

  188. @Chris Cosmos

    subservient to their husbands and their community.

    Probably you want a feminist/amazon woman for your self, what is wrong with a woman who loves her husband and is a family oriented woman?. You have been programmed all your life by the pervs in Hollywood, which movies always portray either divorced father, with a child, or a divorced mother with children. Go on, support that type of life, for as for the rest of us, we approve of what you call a subservient to her husband, i.e. a normal lady who lives the way families have lived for hundred of years, until the 20th century, where people like you, created the amazon, feminist types, who are angry, and miserable because they want to be like man, which no rational man would besides you, it seems wants for companion, thus their frustration and hate towards guys like me, who rather have a wife, a lady like ACB.

  189. @Ugetit

    I guess the first words coming out of a talmudist baby, is ‘hey rabbi, kiss my male genitals”.
    https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.S8rcmoqbr1GIkZZy8qfbxwHaES%26pid%3DApi&f=1
    Baby who lost consciousness after circumcision dies

    Posted by Erin Elizabeth | Jun 24, 2016

  190. @Avery

    You are almost as open minded as Vojkan.

  191. gsjackson says:
    @The Real World

    The “guy” you’re referring to said, in his first and only post here, that Rhodes College was named after Cecil Rhodes. The official story is that it was named after a physics professor who became president of the school in 1948, long after the death and “philanthropic” career of Cecil Rhodes. Whatever the college’s Masonic origins, control passed to the Presbyterian Church in 1855.

    I know a guy in New Orleans who, like Barrett, was an academic high achiever, going to high school at Newman, about a mile from Barrett’s school. He also went to Rhodes, because in New Orleans it has a strong reputation for academics and if a small liberal arts college is your cup of tea it is a natural choice in that part of the country. He is a solid conservative who was the first to point out to me that something might be amiss with the 9/11 official story. He’s far from a Deep State apologist.

  192. Yes, I was the one who pointed out on here about the Rhodes name discrepancy.

    To compare, even slightly, your friend with Barrett is bizarre. Two different individuals with different lives. Although generalizations can be made about some things as long as they’re realized to be just that. For instance, I’ve known several people from Louisiana and, frankly, I don’t trust any of them.

    But, Barrett could be an exception to that. Raised Catholic can make a difference (the Confession ritual helps keep them grounded and in touch with reality. Not so with southern Baptists). And she’s lived for a long time in the Midwest and is married to a native. More grounding.

    Anyhow, I have no strong feelings about Barrett. She’s fine, unless I learn otherwise.

    • Replies: @gsjackson
  193. @Anonymous Jew

    Barrett will have to be willing to vote to overrule major “precedents” if she is to be faithful to the US Constitution and return almost all issues to the States where they are supposed to be decided.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  194. gsjackson says:
    @The Real World

    “Bizarre?” I was simply responding to the person you called our attention to who wrote, “Born and raised in Louisiana, why did she choose to go to a tiny university in Memphis called Rhodes University” (sic). And the answer is than many high academic achievers in New Orleans consider going to Rhodes, which is pretty selective, and few, if any, are to the Masonic manor born and go there for that reason.

  195. @Joe Levantine

    I agree about the Vatican Bank. It was established as (and is still called) the Institute for Works of Religion (IOR) in 1942. Maybe the original purpose was hijacked or maybe that was its original purpose all along. The fact that it was created during World War II suggests money laundering to me.

    Hoffmann’s book is groundbreaking.

  196. @The Real World

    The Truth About Scalia’s Murder- and Yes- He Was Murdered

    As everyone knows, there are many questions surrounding Scalia’s death, but none of them- in my opinion- are the right ones. I DO believe that Scalia was murdered, but it wasn’t an assassination like many people are assuming. Scalia was brought down by his own behavior- and he is definitely not going to be the only one.

    Wake up and smell the coffee. “Q”uit believing in legends and lullaby’s.
    https://davidshurter.com/2016/02/17/the-truth-about-scalias-murder-and-yes-he-was-murdered/

  197. @Joe Levantine

    Like my grandpa used to say “hope in one hand and shit in the other, and see which one gets full first”.

  198. @Johnny Walker Read

    You are correct that Scalia was murdered.
    But his throat was not slit. That is nonsense. Slit throat could not be hashed up.
    Wikileaks published some Podesta e-mails where he is proudly referencing in connection to Scalia to some events in the swimming pool of that hotel.
    Logical conclusion from that e-mail is that Podesta arranged Scalia’s death by drowning him in swimming pool of that hotel.

    • Replies: @The Real World
  199. Larry C says:

    I wanted to vote for Hillary…I really did.

    But I had to vote for Trump:

    The names of all the other candidates were written in Cyrillic.

    • LOL: Tsar Nicholas
  200. @Johnny Walker Read

    You have no clue what info I have so, who the F are you to lecture me?

    Your comment reveals you are both naive and deeply uninformed. Q? LOL, even your timeline is screwed up. That was non-existent when Scalia died and I was acquiring info.

    Oh, then you front a pedo blog. Was Scalia one? I have no clue and neither do you. It’s some dude making utterly unsubstantiated claims. Perhaps you’re the pedo and that’s why you’re so interested in that.

    Anyhow, buzz off, I have no time for uninformed, naive fools.

  201. @Zarathustra

    Logical conclusion from that e-mail is that Podesta arranged Scalia’s death by drowning him in swimming pool of that hotel.

    Oh, good grief….

    NO, the term “wet works” has nothing to do with swimming pools. It is a code word used that means assassination. If he indeed was, the easiest and most obvious method would be a simple injection.

    Can’t find any unusual drugs in his system if no autopsy is done.

  202. mc23 says:
    @mark green

    Diversity is only good in food courts.

  203. Thim says:

    He didn’t flinch. After Gorsuch (CFR member, globalist), and Kavanaugh (principal author of the Patriot Act, totalitarian globalist), he picks a totalitarian leftist ditz whose moment of stardom has been declaring that the Illinois lockdown is entirely Constitutional, all of it.

    No, he didn’t flinch. He squeezed hard and did a Nadler, he soiled his depends.

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
    , @anon
  204. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    In my comment of September 30, 2020 at 11:23 pm GMT (comment # 183), I observed that in 1970, I had a “regrettable professional legal relationship” with Ruth Bader Ginsburg [“RBG”]. That observation deserves explanation (which appears below) — and the corrections that the professional legal relationship began in 1969 and that RBG’s surname is Ginsburg, NOT Ginsberg.

    One February 1970 afternoon, in a lawyers’ seminar occurring in a law school, RBG put a certain factual/legal assertion. The assertion seemed specious.

    I asked RBG a question that required that she clarify her assertion. Her clarification showed that her assertion implied the specious proposition I had thought it implied. So, I asked a second question that required RBG defend her assertion, which was indefensible, because its premise was false and its conclusion illogical and would have been illogical even had its premise been true.

    RBG did not respond to my question. She answered a quite different, and irrelevant, question buzzing in her head. I observed that she had not answered my question but some other, unrelated query.

    Speaking politely (conduct not quite common in my behavior), I suggested that perhaps I had put my question with tone, loudness, rhythm, pronunciation, enunciation, facial expression, shoulder-tilt, breath-odor, or…… that muddied her receipt of my query. Apologetically, I posed my question again, slowly, with keen speech and simplest possible language capable of delivering my question clearly and precisely.

    Again, RBG responded with an answer of some utterly different, and irrelevant, question her mechanic’s brain conceived — not my question.

    Unnerved, I stated bluntly (but not quite ill-manneredly): “Twice, you have not answered my question but some question generated by your brain vis-a-vis some stimulus utterly unrelated to my question. Please answer exactly my question, which I shall repeat.”

    I repeated my question. Again, a third time, RBG answered perhaps a question issued from an inverted Mt Olympus or a ritual of a space-alien sect, but not anything like what I had asked her. My response was far from polite — included terms I shall not put in this public setting. Shocked, she uttered silence.

    In an April 1970 lawyers’ seminar occurring in a law school, RBG put a hypothetical case and asserted that the case demanded an outcome conditioned on a distinction of two kinds of quasi in rem jurisdiction. I observed that, per the Supreme Court, the quasi in rem distinction would not affect the case’s outcome. She dissented, but did not explain or cite a Supreme Court decision.

    I excused myself, went to the law library, and pulled a U.S. Reports volume that bore a case that supported my observation — supported it clearly. I returned to the seminar and read, aloud, the Court’s statement of facts, the Court’s decision, and the language of the Court’s reasoning that showed RBG’s distinction clearly a false basis of decision.

    The audience’s reaction accorded with my observation. RBG refused to recognize her error, insisted she was right, and waxed silent for the remainder of the seminar-session.

  205. Corvinus says:
    @RadicalCenter

    “…return almost all issues to the States where they are supposed to be decided.”

    Except when said states and the residents in those states violate the Constitution, then it is up to the third branch of government to uphold it. Next time, offer that proper context.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  206. @Anon

    You are assuming that “pathological condition” is bad. It is merely a change in the norm for the body. A zygote does not exist naturally or continually in a woman’s body. Women’s bodies change during pregnancy, including allowing for normally closed joints in the pelvis to open to assist vaginal deliveries.
    While pathological pregnancies usually refer to medical (pathological) conditions that can occur during pregnancies, such as ectopic pregnancies or preeclampsia, which are bad, actually all pregnancies are pathological in nature.

    My issue with the current debate over abortion is that no one seems to focus on the reasons why a woman would want an abortion, and deal with those reasons. Whether those reasons are morality (or lack thereof), financial, or other, they need to be addressed to reduce the “demand”. The “Yes I can” vs “No you can’t” shouting match goes no where, and hasn’t for 60 years.

  207. @The Real World

    A little “info” on just another hunting ranch Scalia loved to visit. Personally, I never knew a dedicated hunter who would not bring his own gun along.

    CIBOLO CREEK (‘RENT BOY’) RANCH IS A 30,000-acre VIP resort located in west Texas, 100 miles from the Mexican border, in the Chinati Mountains. Guests arrive by private jet at the Ranch’s own private airport. Rooms cost $500+ per night. Guests of the ranch typically include Hollywood figures, politicians and businessmen. Previous guests include: Mick Jagger, Bruce Willis, Tommy Lee Jones, Randy Quaid, Dick Cheney, Charlie Sheen.

    The Cibolo Creek ‘Rent Boy’ Ranch is also frequented by an international 17th-century hunting society called the ORDER OF SAINT HUBERTUS. This all-male Order was founded in 1695 by Austrian Count Anton von Spork in the Kingdom of BOHEMIA.

    Ped hunters origins

    The owner of Cibolo Creek ‘Rent Boy’ Ranch is John Poindexter. He obtained the property in 1988. A 3rd-generation Texan, Poindexter runs a Houston-based manufacturing company, J.B. Poindexter & Co. Poindexter is a leader in the ORDER of SAINT HUBERTUS.

    https://huttsstrangeworld.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/bohemian-grove-pedo-hunting-parties-and-rent-boy-ranch/

    https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/http-fellowshipoftheminds-com-2018-03-19-bombshell-jerome-corsi-says-justice-antonin-scalia-was-a-pedophile-murdered-by-13-y-o-boy

    Things aren’t always the way they say they are….

  208. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Thim

    Kananaugh ws not an author of The Patrio Act. That assertion is libel. I expect you bought the same libel spewed by the scurrilous Democrats and fake-news left-wing press during the Senate’s Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination proceedings.

    John Yoo and Jennifer Newstead were among the authors and Congressional managers of the Patriot Act the Bush administration submitted to Congress.
    * https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/yoo.html?pepperjam=&publisherId=96525&clickId=3296985000&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=affiliate
    * https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/23/facebook-hires-privacy-patriot-act-1375411
    * https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-picks-patriot-act-lawyer-for-top-state-depar
    * https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/04/23/she-sold-patriot-act-congress-her-next-job-is-defending-facebook/

  209. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    In my comment of September 30, 2020 at 11:23 pm GMT (comment # 183), I criticized Mr. Shamir’s article thus:

    …I cannot accept your article’s root premise: “…[I]n strongly Jewified countries, the traditional Jewish rule by judges has been established,” [and] “…Jews are traditionally ruled by judges,” [and] “[i]n the US, with the Rise of Jews, the Jewish way took ascendency and the Supreme Court usurped the prerogatives of democracy.”

    My criticism included, among other observations, this:

    You [Mr. Shamir] address the U.S. Supreme Court’s (and lower federal courts’ and state courts’) power of “judicial review” of legislative, executive, and agency actions. [Emphasis added, not original.] That power was established in 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/#tab-opinion-1958607.

    In 1803, the Court’s Justices were Christian — all of them. At that time, and during the Justices lives before and after that case-decision, Jews bore virtually zero political power and even less (if that is possible) influence respecting the field of jurisprudence and the conduct of judges or courts.

    I ought to have added that the Marbury v. Madison doctrine serves our (would-be) democratic republic’s vital, perhaps most vital, interest of protecting the citizenry from unconstitutional legislative, executive, and government agency actions.

    Since the judiciary lacks power of enforcing its decisions (except sometimes by holding litigation parties “in contempt of court”), the judiciary’s actions bear virtually zero direct practical effect (near zero direct influence of the lives of citizens).

    Mostly, the judiciary’s constitution-protecting actions serve the public interest by informing the citizenry of unconstitutional actions of legislators, elected officials, and officials they appoint — so that citizens can (a) demand cessation or reversal of the unconstitutional actions of legislators, elected officials, and appointed lesser officials and (b) vote recalcitrant legislators and elected officials out of office.

    More than not, in our faux-democracy/faux-republic, judicial review bears merely illusory effect. Still it is a great public benefit whenever it is realized and would be a great boon if our “democratic republic” were exactly, truly that.

    Judicial review does NOT — could not [see above]— reflect a sinister Jewish plot. Rather, if, consistently, it bore the effect the “Founders” conceived, judicial review would protect the citizenry against the anti-utilitarian and predatory behaviors of the psychopathic among Jews (e.g., neoliberalism, neoconservatism, raptorial financial institutions) and protect the citizenry also against the anti-utilitarian and predatory behaviors of the non-Jewish greedy psychopaths who run our government.

  210. anon[327] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thim

    Easy to confuse Kavanaugh with Chertoff.

    Nadler soils everything.

    • Agree: Loup-Bouc
  211. @Corvinus

    Is that you Abe Lincoln, bloviating from the grave?

    Lincoln was the greatest tyrant and despot in American history. In the first four months of his presidency, he created a complete military dictatorship, destroyed the Constitution, ended forever the constitutional republic which the Founding Fathers instituted, committed horrendous crimes against civilian citizens, and formed the tyrannical, overbearing and oppressive Federal government which the American people suffer under to this day. In his first four months, he
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3113729/posts

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    , @Loup-Bouc
  212. Axel says:

    I always look forward to reading Mr. Shamir’s commentary. It is insightful and often contains salient information not available on the mass media.

    However, I must disagree with his assessment of the late Justice Ginsburg. Furthermore, this one misses the mark on Judge Barrett because he has failed to review her judicial opinions and decisions.

    As one who looks back at the Warren Court as the high point and standard for civil liberties in our nation, IMHO, I believe Barrett will be become one more vote for regressive policies and a corrupted judicial system with no last court of appeal for real justice.

    And yes, it is a mistake to identify her as a ‘constitutionalist’, regardless of how she herself characterizes her judicial philosophy. What we do know is that her decisions have too frequently struck down civil liberties and upheld authoritarianism in government, and I certainly expect that government mass surveillance and militarization of the police, and the prosecution of journalist truth sayers like Julian Assange and whistleblowers like Edward Snowden who expose government crimes- including war crimes and official wrongdoing- will proliferate, and will be upheld by a Supreme Court with Justices like Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett, if she is confirmed- and I defy anyone to say that those decisions or policies would be in accord with the Constitution.

    I have no doubt that if judges like Barret are appointed to the Supreme Court, that pattern will not change.

    If she is confirmed, I’d like Mr. Shamir to revisit his evaluation in five years, and tell us if whether his endorsement was valid.

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  213. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    I reviewed the source article you linked. It paints Lincoln a monster worse than all other U.S. Presidents.

    Your source article’s most interesting aspect is its utter lack of scholarship (and bad diction and bad grammar, important flaws because they impeach the writer’s education and intelligence, hence the writer’s reliability).

    The article’s writer does not provide any evidence that could support the article’s damning assertions concerning Lincoln’s conduct. The article’s writer does not even cite a source that might supply supporting evidence. The article’s writer merely provides a link that opens a page of sales website of Powell’s Books, http://www.powells.com/biblio/61-9781589804661-0 . The article’s writer puts the link (a hyperlink) as if the link will open “War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco (Pelican Publishing Co. 2007, ISBN 9871589804661).”

    Your source article’s horrors-list includes a few correct assertions concerning Lincoln’s behavior. But that list includes many half-truths, which, always, are falsehoods: half-truths distort reality, often slanderously or libelously.

    [MORE]

    Example:

    Your source article asserts that Lincoln “Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.” But the truth is:

    (a) Lincoln acted after consulting with members of his Cabinet, members of Congress, and high officers of the federal military.

    (b) On 19 April 1861, the time of Lincoln’s ordering the blockade, a blockade was not necessarily an act of war, and, even if it was an act of war per international law, it was not a violation of the separation of powers doctrine or an Executive usurpation of Congress’s exclusive power of declaring “war.”

    On 11 April 1861, the South Carolina having seceded from the Union on 20 December 1860 and near-all Southern States having seceded in February 1861, three Confederacy envoys arrived at Fort Sumter and met with the fort’s commander, Union Army Maj. Robert Anderson. The Confederacy envoys demanded the Union forces evacuate the fort. On 12 April 1861, Maj. Anderson not having acceded to the South’s evacuation-demand, Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard bombarded Fort Sumter Fort Sumpter.
    See, e.g.,
    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/fort-sumter-the-civil-war-begins-1018791/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter
    https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/fort-sumter

    The Confederacy’s bombardment was an act of war. And, though the President does not hold a power of declaring war (which power vests exclusively in Congress), the President DOES possess emergency power of pursuing temporary military action to defend the nation — in Lincoln’s case, to defend the Union against the Confederacy’s very substantial, violent act of war.

    Never has the U.S. Supreme Court, a lower federal court, Congress, or any respected constitutional lawyer questioned whether the President possesses such emergency military power. The question, itself, would be stupid and threaten the integrity, even the existence, of the United States.

    On 19 April 1861, the date of Lincoln’s ordering the blockade, the Supreme Court had not ever held that a blockade was, itself, an act of war. Typically, the pre-1861 Supreme Court cases involved capturing foreign nations’ sea vessels or taking their cargoes — actual acts of manifest physical aggression involving actual invasion of a foreign nation’s territory, which (territory) includes its vessels flying its flag.
    See, e.g.,
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4977454228951086554&q=Little+v.+Barreme+(1804)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38&as_vis=1
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1434622059396019213&q=Bas+v.+Tingy+(1800)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38&as_vis=1

    The Treaty (or Declaration) of Paris of 16 April 1856 presumed to regulate privateering, sea vessel seizures, blockades — set rules determining their legality/illegality or the legality/illegality of the modes of their effectuation and prosecution.
    See, e.g.,
    https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/105
    https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=473FCB0F41DCC63BC12563CD0051492D
    https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Paris_Declaration_Respecting_Maritime_Law
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Declaration_Respecting_Maritime_Law

    But that treaty addressed cases in which the blockading nation and the blockaded nation were involved in mutual hostility or the blockaded nation had committed an act of war against the blockading nation.

    The Treaty attempted, but failed, to set rules that applied in peace-times as they applied in war. The Treaty bound only its signatories and only when they were engaged in war with each other. The treaty left signatory nations free to use privateers when at war with other states. The treaty did not assert that every blockade was, itself, an act of war.

    Fifty-five nations signed the Treaty, but not the U.S. The United States demanded complete exemption of non-contraband private property and, in 1857, withheld formal Treaty-adherence, when its “Marcy” amendment was not accepted by all powers, chiefly per British influence. The U.S. wished to maintain privateering: not possessing a great navy, in wartime the U.S. needed to rely largely upon merchant ships commissioned as war vessels.

    During the Civil War, the Union declared it would respect the principles of the Treaty. But the Confederacy did not abide by those principles and issued letters of marque for privateers during the conflict.

    One cannot argue — legitimately — that current (post WWII) international law governed Lincoln’s conduct. But even had current international law applied, it would not hold that Lincoln committed an act of war by ordering a blockade against the Confederacy’s ports. Current pertinent international law holds that, even without U.N. Security Council permission, a nation may blockade another to defend itself against the nation it blockades and that such blockading is NOT an act of war, certainly not an act of aggression.

    U.N. Charter, Chapter VII, Article 51 permits a nation to use force, even a blockade, in pursuit of the the nation’s “right of individual or collective self-defense” if an armed attack occurs against it — until the Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security.

    In U.S. constitutional law, the parallel is that the President may act militarily to defend the nation when the nation is attacked, until Congress declares war or discontinues the President’s military action by Congressional resolution and a Congressional Act depriving the President use of federal funds to maintain his action.

    Lincoln’s blockade was a defensive action undertaken because of the Confederacy’s act of war — its bombarding of Fort Sumter — and the Confederacy’s ensuing military actions taken against the Union. Ensuing military actions? Even now, according to current international law, a nation engages in an act of war or an act of aggression merely by amassing military power to prosecute an clearly threatened imminent but not yet actually manifested war or invasion. https://www.lawfareblog.com/caroline-affair

    So, though the Confederacy had not yet otherwise-invaded the Union, following it bombardment of Fort Sumter, since its ensuing military action pursued its threat of further invasion, the Union held a right of taking defensive military action against the Confederacy. Hence Lincoln possessed emergency power to pursue the Union’s defense until Congress determined whether it would declare war on the Confederacy or ratify Lincoln’s military action and his determination to continue it until defeating the South.

    On 10 August 1861, Union and Confederate troops battled at Wilson’s Creek, Missouri. Missouri was a Union state Confederate troops invaded. Previously, several major battles occurred around the border of the Union and the Confederate South. All such military activity resulted from the South’s acts of war, not the Union’s, which, at least during 1861, was engaged merely in defending its territory and national integrity.

    Allege, if you wish and your source article insists, that the “poor” South was defending its “right” of independence. But that allegation clashes with the U.S. constitution, its every pertinent provision and its whole design’s express purpose and intent:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and decure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves[the People of the United States, not each state separately] and our Posterity [including in1860-1865], do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States [all stated united, not separate states] of America.

    U.S. Constitution: Preamble,
    https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/preamble
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble

    The Constitution was adopted to cure and avoid the grave troubles suffered under the previous Articles of Confederation, which did not bind the states securely into a single Union but formed only a loose federation and near-impotent central government. The Confederation failed miserably, and the Constitution sought to solve the Confederation’s troubles much, and vitally, by forming for all Posterity a solidly bound Union.

    • Thanks: Corvinus
    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  214. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Axel

    What we do know is that her [Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s] decisions have too frequently struck down civil liberties and upheld authoritarianism in government, and I certainly expect that government mass surveillance and militarization of the police….

    Cite case-decisions that support your assertions. I know of none, though since 1972 I have been a constitutional-lawyer/law-professor/federal-jurisprudence-scholar and practice regularly in fields involving federal jurisprudence and constitutional law.

    You put an identical assertion respecting Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, as if they were evil clones of a «primordial» anti-civil-liberties monster. Roberts is utterly corrupt, and not a conservative, but an intestinal parasite of a moray eel. Thomas is incompetent for his role, and, combined with his religious inclinations, that incompetence produces bad decisions.

    Alito is a decent, intelligent, careful jurist. I dislike more than a few of his opinions. But I have never read one that suggests corruption or designed unfairness. [See also below.]

    I had hoped Gorsuch would be a Justice of consistent honor and intellectual rigor, as was Justice Scalia. But Gorsuch fooled me. He wrote a flagrantly politically corrupt, horrendously harmful opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf

    The Bostock v. Clayton County decision’s harmfulness was both a further derangement of federal jurisprudence and a major exacerbation of the damage done by the DSM’s depathologizing homosexuality and the Supreme Court’s invalidating laws that limit marriage to heterosexual unions (the last harm involving encouragement and facilitation the grotesque harm of homosexuals’ “parenting” children). [DSM = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.]

    In Bostock v. Clayton County, Justices Alito and Kavanaugh showed they are highly intelligent, intellectually rigorous, and deeply honorable, not corrupt. Why did you not mention Kavanaugh?

    The so-called liberals include one utterly corrupt monster, Breyer, who lies often to “premise” his neoliberal political decisions and who, starting with his 1st Circuit tenure and continuing in the Supreme Court, near-single-handedly destroyed antitrust law for the benefit of large corporations and the filthy rich. See, e.g., Kartell v. Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc., 749 F. 2d 922 (1st Circuit 1984, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9416050735228666167&q=Breyer+antitrust+opinion+health+insurance+toy+store+&hl=en&as_sdt=4,105,119

    In about half their opinions, the remaining “liberals,” except Sotomayor, show rather frequent political corruption. Sotomayor is the least corrupt of the “liberals,” but sometimes her identity politics and inadequate economics learning produce socially, politically, or socioeconomically sore results.

  215. Trump didn’t flinch.

    Shamir, the Gate-Keeper throws another Jewish minion (oops, RBG) under the bus, to glorify the Mashiach (Trump) of Israel!

    LOL, worshiping to Mashiach Trump has already started.

    Best regards,

    Mohamed

  216. Corvinus says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    “Indeed, RBG was not born ugly, but later on her phenotype became an expression of her destructive mind.”

    What scientific evidence are you able to muster that backs up that assertion?

  217. AceDeuce says:
    @meamjojo

    There is more pederasty in the synagogues and the “black church” than pedo Father Pat MeGroin ever dreamed of. And the Godless secular freaks populating the 2020 hellscape are no slouches, either..

  218. @Loup-Bouc

    Spoken like a true lover of Lincoln/Marx and the Republicant Party. As you you know Marx was one Lincoln’s greatest admirer’s, as he was a commie at heart. Maybe you should look into the history of Lincoln’s stable of commie generals. Here’s a little something to help get you started.

    From the beginning, the Republican Party has worked without deviation for bigger, more imperial government, for higher taxes, for more wars, for more totalitarianism. >From the beginning, the Republican Party has been Red.

    Why? In 1848, Communists rose in revolution across Europe, united by a document prepared for the purpose, entitled Manifesto of the Communist Party. Its author was a degenerate parasite named Karl Marx, whom a small gang of wealthy Communists the League of Just Men hired for the purpose. The Manifesto told its adherents and its victims what the Communists would do.

    But the Revolution of 1848 failed. The perpetrators escaped, just ahead of the police. And they went, of course, to the united States. In 1856, the Republican Party ran its first candidate for President. By that time, these Communists from Europe had thoroughly infiltrated this country, especially the North. Many became high ranking officers in the Union Army and top government officials.
    https://rense.com/general80/red.htm

    A little education for all you Yankee’s out there.
    Cheers

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  219. @Corvinus

    Maybe something you don’t have to read will be easier for you to digest about your beloved tyrant and destroyer of the American Constitution and States Rights.

    • Thanks: mark green
    • Troll: Corvinus
  220. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Spoken like a true lover of Lincoln/Marx and the Republicant Party.

    (1) You have not put, and cannot put, a premise that could support your absurd assertion that I am a "lover" of Lincoln or a "lover" of Marx. If you researched my Unz Review comments, you would find a few that show your assertion risibly false.

    In several comments posted under several Unz Review articles, I have stated (a) that I have NO politics, (b) that I react to specific (domestic and international) socioeconomic issues according to what may be the most Benthamian-utilitarian resolution, (c) that I am a near-misanthrope whose socioeconomic dream would be a Kropotkinian anarchy of mutual aid realized in loosely federated small communities, and (d) that I vote for individuals, not parties (and, so, have not voted in all elections).

    My Presidency candidate votes:
    1960, John F. Kennedy
    1964, Barry Goldwater
    1968, I did not vote, because Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey were equally dangerous and despicable
    1972, George McGovern
    1976 and 1980, Jimmy Carter (reluctantly)
    1984 and 1988, I did not vote for a Presidency candidate
    1992, Ross Perot
    1996, Bob Dole
    2000 and 2004, I did not vote for a Presidency candidate
    2008, I voted for Barack Obama, and have regretted that vote deeply
    2012, I did not vote for a Presidency candidate
    2016, I voted for Donald Trump
    2020, again, I will vote for Trump [Though I condemn Trump’s support of Israel and his policy respecting Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and China, Trump’s other policies are utilitarian; and the alternative, Biden, is monstrously evil as it is also very dangerously incompetent and will be controlled much by the Clintons and reflect the worst aspects of neoliberalism, globalism, and neoconservatism.]

    (2) Your entire reply-comment is uttely irrelevant to my comment to which your comment pretends to reply — my comment of October 2, 2020 at 10:23 pm GMT (comment # 222).

    (3) Your reply comment does not answer my October 2, 2020 at 10:23 pm GMT comment's trashing of your comment of October 2, 2020 at 11:44 am GMT (comment # 219) to which my October 2, 2020 at 10:23 pm GMT comment replied — because you CANNOT answer my comment. My comment's premises and assertions are sound and well-supported — and quite correct; and its arguments expose the fallacy of your comment's criticism of Lincoln.

    (4) The 1848 European "revolution" was not a communist event. https://www.britannica.com/event/Revolutions-of-1848
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848

    Marx’s Das Kapital was published in parts, the first of which was published in 1867.

    The Communist Manifesto was published 21 February 1848.

    The 1848 “revolution” began with a Sicilian revolt that occurred in January 1848, about a month BEFORE the publication of the Communist Manifesto. https://www.britannica.com/event/Revolutions-of-1848
    That Sicilian “revolt” was much of the inspiration of the French “revolt.”

    The French revolt began 24 February 1848 — only six days after the Manifesto’s publication. That six-day period could not have sufficed to enable the Manifesto to stir a bloody revolution. The publication could not have reached, and inspired, manifestly, the revolt-participants in just six days. And many participants were illiterate, hence would not have read the Manifesto.

    Historians — even Communist historians — do not connect the Manifesto, or Marxist communism, or any communism, with the 1848 revolts. Rather, historians observe that the Manifesto reacted to — did not ignite or encourage — the brewing revolts, which started about a month before the Manifesto’s publication. See, e.g., these sources:
    https://www.ohio.edu/chastain/dh/eurorev.htm
    https://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=honors
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/revolutions-of-1848
    http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/78871/1/78871.pdf
    https://www.britannica.com/event/Revolutions-of-1848
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848

    Even Communist sources observe that the while the Manifesto was partly inspired by Europe’s 1847-brewing revolts and the January 1848 Sicilian revolt, Marx and Engels opposed the French revolt and did not imagine that their Manifesto could explain it. See, e.g., https://en.internationalism.org/internationalreview/199304/3583/revolutions-1848-communist-perspective-becomes-clearer

    (5) Your reply comment is one more set of your consistently evidence lacking, fact-free, and fact-and-evidence-denying pieces of dreck composed much of wishful hallucination.

    • Thanks: Corvinus
    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  221. @Loup-Bouc

    Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. All I’m saying is Lincoln was one of the most(if not the most)tyrannical presidents to ever occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. That is a fact, plain and simple. Once more I will list his treasonous acts against his fellow countrymen and our constitution. You can choose to accept these facts or you can continue to live in denial, either way it matters not to me.
    Have a nice life.

    [MORE]

    #1 Lincoln ordered the military blockade of Southern ports.

    This an act of war.

    Only Congress can do that.

    At that time Lincoln certainly violated the US Constitution.

    #2 Lincoln ordered hundreds of Northern newspapers who dared to speak out against him to be shut down. And their owners and editors were arrested for disloyalty.

    This is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution that Lincoln swore to uphold.

    #3 Lincoln ordered the arrest of Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham for the crime of speaking out against him.

    Can you imagine that?

    #4 Ex parte Merryman,

    Chief Justice of the US Roger Taney, sitting as a judge of the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maryland, ruled that Lincoln had violated the US Constitution when he illegally suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

    After hearing this Lincoln signed an arrest warrant to have the Chief Justice of the US arrested.

    #5 US Constitution Article lll…

    Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them.

    Lincoln committed treason.

    Lincoln waged war upon his own country. Unless one considers secession legal and the Confederacy was a sovereign nation.

    #6 Lincoln sent Union troops door to door in areas of Maryland, a Union state, to confiscate weapons.

    This is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

    _____________________________

    Many Constitutional violations against Maryland

    ‘Maryland my Maryland’ was published calling Lincoln a tyrant and a despot and a vandal.

    Lincoln as already mentioned, trashed the Constitution by suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus and sending troops door to door confiscating weapons in areas of Maryland.

    Maryland was a Union state.

    Lincoln ordered the arrest of thousands Marylanders for the crime of ‘suspected Southern sympathies’.

    Lincoln ordered the arrest of US Congressman Henry May representing Maryland. #7

    Lincoln also had arrested…

    Most of the Maryland State Legislature #8

    Most of the Baltimore city council #9

    The police commissioner of Baltimore #10

    The mayor of Baltimore #11

    Thousands of prominent Maryland citizens. #12

    These people were arrested and held in Military prisons, without trial, some of them for years.

    This trashing of the Constitution upset many Marylanders. One of them was named Booth.

    Committing so many crimes against Maryland would end up giving Lincoln a big “headache”.

    SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

    April 25 1861, When it looks as though Maryland may secede from the Union, Lincoln sends a letter to General Winfield Scott giving him permission to bombard Maryland’s Cities.

    This war criminal Lincoln couldn’t wait to bombard innocent civilians. We call that Terrorism these days.

    #13 Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation.

    This is a direct violation of the US Constitution and the US Supreme Courts decision on the matter.

    #14 The Lincoln administration allowed the taking of private property for public use without just compensation or due process of law.

    This is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment.

    A prime example is the Union army stealing Robert E Lees home, Arlington House, which they used as Headquarters.

    Since dead Union soldiers were stacking up like cordwood, they started burying them in Lee’s yard. There were so many Union soldiers graves here, this was to become Arlington National Cemetery.

    #15 The Lincoln Administration routinely used water torture against the thousands of Union prisoners arrested and jailed without trail.

    This violates the 8th Amendment,

    “Cruel and unusual punishment”.

    #16 Lincoln was Commander-in-Chief of an Army whose invasion of the South resulted in the deaths of 50,000 Southern civilians.
    “We’ll fight them, Sir, ’till hell freezes over, and then, Sir, we will fight them on the ice.”

    http://www.thehistoryforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30277

    • Troll: Corvinus
  222. Loup-Bouc says:

    #1 Lincoln ordered the military blockade of Southern ports.

    This an act of war.

    Only Congress can do that.

    In my comment of October 2, 2020 at 10:23 pm GMT (comment # 222), I proved those assertions false — proved them false with irrefutable history, with irrefutable U.S. law, with irrefutable international law. But you repeat the same false assertions, again without evidence and again without citing any source that provides evidence.

    Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

    That is a very curious argument, rather like a infant’s rant or child’s taunt.

    Lincoln was one of the most(if not the most)tyrannical presidents to ever occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. That is a fact, plain and simple.

    That is a bare, empty assertion, “plain and simple,” not a fact. And in the rest of your comment, you merely repeat your previous comment’s bare, empty assertions, without historic, factual, or legal support.

    [MORE]

    In my comment of October 2, 2020 at 10:23 pm GMT (comment # 222), I put the example of your false assertion that Lincoln committed an act of war with a blockade of Southern ports — just that one example, because more examples would require many thousands more words. Here is another example. You wrote:

    The Lincoln Administration routinely used water torture against the thousands of Union prisoners arrested and jailed without trail.

    This violates the 8th Amendment,

    “Cruel and unusual punishment”.

    You put zero proof that the “Lincoln Administration routinely used water torture.” You do not describe the “water torture.” You do not prove that, if any “water torture” occurred, Lincoln, himself, was even aware that the “torture” occurred.

    You do not account that the Confederate “prisoners” were either enemy troops or enemy agents of a discrete geopolitical region purporting to be a separate nation that (a) had attacked the United States and (b) was prosecuting war against the United States. You do not account the law that such enemy prisoners and enemy agents were not entitled to the protection of the U.S. Constitution, hence not entitled to protection of the U.S. constitution’s 8th amendment.

    You do not account the fact that at the time of the “Civil War” and for decades afterward, far worse punitive measures had not been held violations of the 8th amendment, even where such measures were applied where the punishment recipient had not committed a crime, but was bound into forced chain-gang labor in conditions like that of Auschwitz — merely for failing to pay a debt.
    * https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16688171331174227306&q=Bailey+v.+Alabama,+219+U.S.+219+(1911)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38&as_vis=1
    * http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/syndicated/peonage-explained-system-convict-labor-slavery-another-name/
    * https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89051115
    *** https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.9hw3ckhM1_jp0-2UUeJ9fgEsDh%26pid%3DApi&f=1
    * https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/2019/11/22/peonage-in-the-united-states-1907/

    You do not account that at the time of the “Civil War,” international law did not include a rule that made “water torture” a war crime or even a rule that interdicted “water torture” or treated it as a violation of rules of war.

    You do not account that, in 19th century U.S., even during the “Civil War,” U.S. law permitted U.S. soldiers and sailors to be executed (put to death), flogged, caned, keelhauled, mast-headed, bucked and gagged, forced to carry logs beyond endurance, forced to ride the wooden mule, being branded, tied to a wheel or a rack, being tied and suspended by one’s thumbs, being doused continuously with sea water. You do not account that the Confederacy’s law permitted many such punishments of the Confederacy’s own soldiers and sailors.
    * https://casetext.com/case/dynes-v-hoover [Act of the 23d of April, 1820, (2 U.S.L., p. 45,) article 17, provided: “And if any person in the navy shall desert, or entice others to desert, he shall suffer death, or such other punishment as a court martial shall adjudge.”]
    * https://bluejacket.com/sea-service_discipline-flogging.htm
    * https://taskandpurpose.com/history/10-brutal-punishments-used-legal-military
    * https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/b/brief-history-punishment-flogging-us-navy.html
    * http://npshistory.com/publications/foun/hrs/chap10.htm
    * https://www.history.com/news/navy-bread-and-water-ban-sailor-punishment
    * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270882887_The_Military_Justice_System_and_Illegal_Punishments_as_a_Cause_of_Desertion_in_the_US_Army_1821-1835
    * https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/40842/CALVINWHITEHEAD-DISSERTATION-2017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

    So, even if — as was NOT true — the 8th amendment could have protected Confederate troops or agents, still, whatever “water torture” you assert (or hallucinate), it would NOT have been an 8th amendment violation during the “Civil War” — but a traditional military practice of the U.S. military and the military of the Confederacy. A “water torture” may have been “cruel.” But it was NOT “unusual.” And the 8th amendment applies only to punishment that is BOTH cruel AND “unusual.”

    But, during and before the “Civil War” and for many decades after, the U.S. military rendered punishments without limitation of the 8th amendment. Even in 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court had not actually DECIDED that the 8th amendment applies to military justice:

    It is not clear to me that the extensive rules we have developed under the Eighth Amendment for the prosecution of civilian capital cases, including the requirement of proof of aggravating factors, necessarily apply to capital prosecutions in the military, cf. Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U. S. 296, 300-302 (1983), and this Court has never so held, see Schick v. Reed, 419 U. S. 256, 260 (1974).

    Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. United States, 517 US 748 (1996), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16557693202034052775&q=LOVING+v.+UNITED+STATES,+517+U.S.+748&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38&as_vis=1

    In Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U. S. 296 at pp.300-301 (1983), the Court observed:

    The need for special regulations in relation to military discipline, and the consequent need and justification for a special and exclusive system of military justice, is too obvious to require extensive discussion; no military organization can function without strict discipline and regulation that would be unacceptable in a civilian setting. …. In the civilian life of a democracy many command few; in the military, however, this is reversed, for military necessity makes demands on its personnel “without counterpart in civilian life.” …. The inescapable demands of military discipline and obedience to orders cannot be taught on battlefields; the habit of immediate compliance with military procedures and orders must be virtually reflex with no time for debate or reflection. ***

    Many of the Framers of the Constitution had recently experienced the rigors of military life and were well aware of the differences between it and civilian life. …. Their response was an explicit grant of plenary authority to Congress “To raise and support Armies”; “To provide and maintain a Navy”; and “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” Art. I, § 8, cls. 12-14. It is clear that the Constitution contemplated that the Legislative Branch have plenary control over rights, duties, and responsibilities in the framework of the Military Establishment, including regulations, procedures, and remedies related to military discipline; and Congress and the courts have acted in conformity with that view.

    Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U. S. 296 at pp.300-301 (1983), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9170204446220968459&q=Chappell+v.+Wallace,+462+U.+S.+296+(1983)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38&as_vis=1

    So, before, during, and for decades after the “Civil War,” the 8th amendment did not apply to the U.S. military. A fortiori, it could not apply to Confederate soldiers or agents. Hence the 8th amendment could not apply to Confederate troops or agents who were the Union’s (the U.S.’s) prisoners of war.

  223. 650,000 unnecessary deaths of his own countrymen, to end slavery(which it did not)and keep the blessed union together. All instigated by your man Lincoln. Yes, he was quite the hero comrade!

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  224. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    You did not READ my latest comment replying to you, my comment of October 7, 2020 at 10:55 pm GMT (comment # 231) or my next earlier comment replying to you, my comment of October 6, 2020 at 11:02 pm GMT (comment # 229). You continue to put irrelevant assertions.

    In your latest comment (to which this comment replies), again you assert that I am a communist. Your called me “comrade,” which one must take as calling me a communist, since in a previous comment replying to me, you wrote:

    Spoken like a true lover of Lincoln/Marx and the Republicant Party. As you you know Marx was one Lincoln’s greatest admirer’s, as he was a commie at heart. Maybe you should look into the history of Lincoln’s stable of commie generals.

    Your comment of October 6, 2020 at 2:10 pm GMT (comment # 227).

    [MORE]

    In my comment of October 6, 2020 at 11:02 pm GMT (comment # 229), I debunked your hallucination-base assertion that I am a communist. See part (1) of that comment.

    Lincoln is not among my heroes. I credit only two Presidents: John Quincy Adams & Theodor Roosevelt. I half-credit Eisenhower (half because Eisenhower permitted John Foster Dulles to destroy Iran’s democracy for oil and enslave the people of Central America) and half-credit Kennedy (half because Kennedy moved the U.S. toward military intervention in Vietnam and he did not live long enough to forge a record sufficient to premise reliable judgment of his merit).

    In your comment to which this comment replies, you say the the “Civil War” did not end slavery, and you include a video that addresses that matter. But in my comment of October 7, 2020 at 10:55 pm GMT (comment # 231), I made the same point and included several articles and photographic evidence, which show that neoslavery commenced in the Jim Crow era: the peonage and convict leasing systems of the last decade of the 19th century and the early 20th century.

    And your assertion does not account that slavery did cease shortly after the “Civil War,” during the Reconstruction period and did not recommence, as neoslavery, until near the last decade of the 19th centuryexcept in New Jersey, which was a slave state from and before its inception and which continued slavery at least into the last decade of the 19th century, likely even into early 20th century.

    New Jersey [hereinafter “NJ”] banned importation of slaves in 1788. But NJ forbade free blacks from settling in the state.

    In the first two decades after the “Revolutionary War,” many northern states abolished slavery. But for decades after 1776, slaves were used widely in NJ agriculture and at NJ’s ports.

    Of all the Northern states, NJ abolished slavery last. An 1804 NJ statute and subsequent laws freed children born after that law was passed. But if a Black was born of slave mother after 4 July 1804, that Black had to serve a lengthy, unpaid apprenticeship under the “owner” of his enslaved mother. Black women were freed at 21. But Black men were not emancipated until they reached 25. After 1846, if a slave was born before those laws, such slave was considered an unpaid indentured servant “apprenticed for life.”

    Though early after 1804 NJ allowed free Blacks to vote, the legislature disenfranchised them in 1807, an exclusion that lasted until 1875. By 1830, of all the slaves remaining in the North, two thirds were held by masters in NJ. Not until 1846 did NJ “abolished” slavery. But NJ qualified the “abolition” by making former slaves “apprentices” who were “apprenticed for life” to their masters.

    NJ opposed the 13th amendment and did not pass it until 1866 — though the U.S. Senate had passed the 13th amendment 8 April 1864 and the U.S. House of Representatives had passed it 31 January 1865. As the previous four paragraphs indicate, slavery did not end actually in NJ until decades after passage of the 13th Amendment.

    RE: the NJ slavery history, compare, e.g., these sources:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_New_Jersey#Abolition_of_slavery
    https://archive.is/20031017072606/http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_jersey.htm
    http://slavenorth.com/newjersey.htm

  225. Glory, glory, hallelujah. The Union was saved to make war another day and kill some more. God is on our side and has always been. The end always justifies the means.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Israel Shamir Comments via RSS