Tag Archives: Canada

State vs. National Citizenship—the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 must be Repealed—Time to Bite the Bullet, Folks!

Donald Trump has won a lot of national support for his position that “anchor babies” are not U.S. Citizens.  https://www.yahoo.com/politics/birthright-citizenship-where-the-2016-127093585661.html

Despite their appetite for socialism and socialist engineering of U.S. Demography, I think it is fair to say that few if any the Radical Republican Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment ever dreamt of or envisioned a situation where millions of “huddled masses” and “wretched refuse ” types of people would come to America just to have babies to enroll in schools and obtain other welfare entitlements. 

No, the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to create a national standard for citizenship and civil rights, and to abolish the notion that the States of the United States were equivalent to the “States” who obtain membership in the United Nations.  

State citizenship was the weakest point of Cousin Abraham’s Northern policy during the War:  while many Radical Republicans wanted to call Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, and every other Confederate Officer and Politician, a “traitor”, these charges simply would not stick for one single reason.  From 1776-1868, the individual states were the ones which established and determined citizenship, and so Lee was right to think of himself as a Virginian (about a 10th or 12th generation Virginian, in fact) by both the doctrines of ius solis and ius sanguinis.  Jefferson Davis might have been born in Kentucky, but he was a “naturalized” Mississippian.  Pierre Gustave Toutant-Beauregard was a 6th or 7th generation Louisianian, like Lee, either by ius solis or ius sanguinis

So Lee and Beauregard were unquestionably citizens of their own home states, and NOT of the United States.  They might have been employed in the armies of the United States, or, like Davis, also officers of the United States Government in its legislative (Senate) and Executive Branches (where Davis was Secretary of War).

But by every pre-War understanding, the Confederate leaders were not CAPABLE of betraying a Country WHICH NEVER EXISTED.  Like the States they belonged to, the Confederate Leaders could resign from the service of the Union, but in no legal or moral sense could they be called “traitors” to it, because (at least before 1868) the UNION WAS NOT A SINGLE SOVEREIGNTY.  Yes, indeed, quite simply, there WAS no such thing as “United States citizenship” prior to the Fourteenth Amendment—just a very generalized “American” citizenship which dependent on the collaboration and contribution of the ratifying states.  And that is why “Birth of a Nation” (by D.W. Griffith) was so correctly named: a collection of closely cooperating and allied free nation-states (small Jeffersonian Democracies) went to war with each other in 1861, and they were, afterwards, at gunpoint, forced into one single new country.

This was the debate that framed Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidency—so long as he could convince (fool?) a majority of the people into believing he was born in Hawaii, he was eligible, under the ius solis doctrine of the 14th Amendment, to be President.  But if a ius sanguinis standard should be applied, Obama’s rather famous Kenyan father stood as an absolute obstacle to his eligibility.  So as Dinesh D’Souza had shown in his brilliant movie Obama 2016, Obama’s goal as President was absolutely to abolish both the identity and nature of American society and culture.  Now the 44th President effects this transformation largely through emotionally manipulative lies and psychological manipulation, rather than democratic process or law.

But, indeed, the language of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “citizenship” clause is clear enough in making “soil” more important than “blood,” and has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court for over a hundred years to mean that literally anyone born in the United States, for any reason, automatically is an American Citizen.  This is obviously a disaster for the Country and many have written about it, including the mad Texan elf of Clearwater, Florida, Robert M. Hurt, Jr.:

Trump Is Right: Anchor Babies Do Not Rightfully Become US Citizens

http://bobhurt.blogspot.com/2015/08/trump-is-right-anchor-babies-do-not.html

What Hurt proposes is essentially changing the law by reinterpreting the law, and this often does not work so well—and could in fact be described as the source of much of modern America’s woes—allowing the Supreme Court to say that night is day and day is night is getting old, 62 years after Earl Warren became Chief Justice, 113 after Oliver Wendell Holmes brought Massachusetts “progressivism” to the Court, paving the way for the New Deal for whose eventual triumph (through popularity over constitutional rigor) Holmes might be considered a kind of Prophet….

Among Holmes’ most famous pronouncements is that, “an experiment, as all life is an experiment” (Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919)).  Allowing, or even encouraging, population replacement—the “Browning of America”—is among the left’s favorite long-term social goals and experiments, and (admittedly) all of us who oppose the Browning of America are classified by Salon.com, the Huffington Post, and the New York Times, among others, as vile racist reactionaries. 

But I can live with that.  As far as the way out, though, as far as how White America can preserve itself, I don’t think that verbal games such as Robert M. Hurt, Jr., Donald John Trump, and many others will work.  

No, I always prefer dealing with issues directly and in taking a “full-frontal” approach.  The Fourteenth Amendment resulted from a massive war of Centralization of Power.  The only politician in MY LIFETIME who ever addressed the problem directly was San Diego Mayor and later California Governor and Senator Pete Wilson: who directly advocated repeal of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment during the 1980s.  He is almost totally forgotten now, but when I was in Law School, I remember thinking his approach was sound.  Repeal of the Citizenship Clause would be clear statement that unlimited immigration and population replacement via “anchor babies” is and ought to be intolerable.

People don’t realize it, but prior to the War of 1861-65 between the North and the South, MANY NORTHERN STATES if not most of them, DENIED CITIZENSHIP of any kind to blacks.  (the last state to have such a law was Oregon, which literally made it simply illegal to “be a negro” in the State of Oregon— to enter the state at all, under any pretext, was cause for imprisonment, fine, and immediate removal to the state lines upon release.

While “the Underground Railroad” was very famous, you might ask yourself, “if Abolitionist sentiment was so strong in the North, (a) why was the underground railroad “underground” and (b) why did it end up in Canada?  The answer is that since Northern States had enacted “no black citizenship” laws, being “free” in most places meant nothing. 

The way history is taught and discussed in modern America, it’s not always quite clear, but Chief Justice Roger Taney, in Scott v. Sanford was actually adopting a MERGER of both the Northern and Southern positions in his (plurality against Freedom for Slaves by Crossing State Lines) decision in 1857 (every Justice on the Court rendered a Separate opinion in that case). 

Justice Taney said that no negro could ever be a citizen of the United States.  So he was ALREADY (by usurpation) establishing a Federal rather than a state standard of citizenship—THAT IS WHY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS ENACTED—the whole War Between the States and 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution can be considered an effort to Overrule the “Dred Scott” ruling— but what many people forget is that Taney had already taken the critical first step by attempting to impose NORTHERN standards of Citizenship NATIONWIDE— ironically, this ruling (if it had been allowed to stand) might well, would almost certainly, have had the bizarre effect of “outlawing” or depriving tens of thousands of free (and many slaveholding) blacks in Louisiana of their citizenship, professional licenses, and right to vote. 

So the real problem was Taney’s (1857, pre-War) judicial “stealth” transition from allowing STATES to determine Citizenship to his rather clumsy attempt to impose a NATIONWIDE standard for citizenship.  The Fourteenth Amendment was the “Radical Republican” answer to this. 

Ironic, isn’t it?, that when properly understood, the Fourteenth Amendment was just as oppressive to the Northern States as to the Southern States.  Northern States could no longer ban black people. (Although the remarkable State of Oregon did not repeal it’s African-exclusionary laws until 1926, and only ratified the Fifteenth Amendment until the centennial of that State’s admission to the Union in 1959)(Oregon’s 1844, pre-state, pre-war position on slavery was that all blacks, free or slave, should be whipped and lashed twice a year until they left the territory).

Former California Governor Pete Wilson, by contrast with both Roger Taney and Donald Trump, understood that and would have returned to the individual states the power to determine citizenship by repeal of the “birth clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment.  One can easily imagine, almost too easily, how permitting the states to determine citizenship would be nearly equivalent to allowing secession—because Hawaii, for example, could pass a law decreeing that no “Howlees” (i.e. Anglo-Saxon or other European Whites) could ever be citizens of Hawaii—and so effectively dissolve the ties between that improperly annexed Island State and the rest of “the Union.”  (Hawaii currently has the most radical and politically “real” and active secessionist movement in the USA).

Even if the States COULD determine citizenship, the balance of the 14th Amendment still protected everyone “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States with regard to Civil Rights…. so even if there were no “national standard for citizenship” there could still be a “national standard for civil rights.”
 

Canadian Suppression of Free Speech: Harbinger of the Near American Future?

Ezra Levant: ‘Crazy’ prosecutions

Republish Reprint

Ezra Levant, Special to Financial Post | July 23, 2015 3:42 PM ET
More from Special to Financial Post

This October Ezra Levant will be prosecuted for being “publicly discourteous or disrespectful to a Commissioner or Tribunal Chair of the Alberta Human Rights Commission.”

Canadian PressThis October Ezra Levant will be prosecuted for being “publicly discourteous or disrespectful to a Commissioner or Tribunal Chair of the Alberta Human Rights Commission.”

It would be unprecedented to prosecute a journalist for having the wrong opinions about a government agency

Here we go again.

This October I will be prosecuted for one charge of being “publicly discourteous or disrespectful to a Commissioner or Tribunal Chair of the Alberta Human Rights Commission” and two charges that my “public comments regarding the Alberta Human Rights Commission were inappropriate and unbecoming and that such conduct is deserving of sanction.”

Because last year I wrote a newspaper editorial calling Alberta’s human rights commission “crazy.”

Have you ever heard of a journalist being prosecuted for being disrespectful towards a government agency? A journalist in Canada, that is — not in China or Russia.

I’ve been through something like this before. In February of 2006, I was the publisher of the Western Standard magazine. We ran a news story on the Danish cartoons of Mohammed and the deadly Muslim riots that followed. Being a news magazine, we included photos of the cartoons to show the central element of the story.

Muslim activists filed “hate speech” complaints against the magazine, and me personally, for reporting this legitimate news story. What followed was straight out of Kafka: a 900-day investigation by no fewer than 15 government bureaucrats and lawyers for the thought crime of publishing news “likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt.” Truth was not a defence; journalism was not a defence. The commission had invented a counterfeit human right not to be offended.

I spent $100,000 on legal fees before the commission dropped the charges against me — because it was taking such a beating in the media. Even the provincial cabinet minister in charge of the commission at the time, the Hon. Lindsay Blackett, told reporters the commission had become a “kangaroo court.” I guess he’s allowed to say that, but I’m not.

Over time human rights commissions have gotten much more scrutiny, and the federal human rights commission even had its censorship powers repealed by Parliament. But last year, Alberta’s commission stumbled back in the news. A Czech immigrant had failed the provincial engineering exam three times, so he complained to the commission that the exam was “discriminatory.” In a shocking ruling, it agreed and ordered Alberta’s engineering profession to lower its standards and pay the complainer $10,000.

I have an opinion about that. I think it’s: crazy. You may have the same opinion and, if you’re not a lawyer, you’re allowed to express it. I expressed it anyway. After all, I was a journalist and hadn’t practiced law in many years. My job was to express my opinion. Sun News hired me, as a journalist, to do exactly that.

This time the commission didn’t come for me. But one of its prosecutors did. Arman Chak filed a complaint to the Law Society of Alberta about my column. Even though I haven’t practiced law in years, I’m still a lawyer. That was his angle.

At first, the Law Society dismissed his complaint without even a hearing, as it does with other nuisance complaints filed against me over the years by my political opponents. It would be unprecedented to prosecute a journalist for having the wrong opinions about a government agency.

Alberta benchers aren’t always so fastidious about courtesy. Earlier this year Dennis Edney, Omar Khadr’s lawyer, stood outside the Edmonton court house, blaming Khadr’s legal situation on the legal system’s anti-Muslim “bigotry.” But like Chak, Edney is a law society bencher himself. He is not being prosecuted. Nor should he be — we need passionate lawyers, zealously advocating for their clients, even if they’re sometimes prickly.

To my knowledge the decision to prosecute me is unprecedented. Unlike Edney and his court-house remarks, I’m not even a practicing lawyer. I’m a journalist who happens to be trained in the law. There are tens of thousands of inactive lawyers like me in Canada. They include politicians like Peter MacKay and Thomas Mulcair. Sometimes these politician-lawyers are polite. Sometimes they aren’t. Two years ago, my fellow member of the Law Society of Alberta, an opposition politician named Rachel Notley, compared the Alberta Energy Regulator to a “banana republic.” It’s a quasi-judicial tribunal, like the human rights commission. But it’s unthinkable that the Law Society would have prosecuted her for being “discourteous” to a government agency. Because we live in a democracy and value public debate.

Well, I do too. And I’m going to keep calling the human rights commission “crazy” for the rest of my life. And the fact is that their old prosecutor is still trying to get me — that is a bit crazy, isn’t it?

_____________________

Canadian Journalist Faces Jail Time
For Calling Government Agency ‘Crazy’
by Sputnik News
July 24, 2015
Canadian lawyer and media personality Ezra Levant, who was cited by the Law Society of Alberta for remarks he made about the province’s human rights commission, said his prosecution is “crazy.”

In a March 2014 Toronto Sun opinion column titled “Next stop, crazy town,” Levant called out the Alberta Human Rights Commission’s ruling that the province’s engineering exam “discriminated” against an immigrant who failed the test three times. Levant also slammed the commission’s order to Alberta’s engineers to pay him $10,000 and lower their standards.

“But with human rights commissions, when you think you’ve hit rock bottom, you haven’t,” Levant wrote. “The crazy keeps going down. You gotta get out your shovel and dig to get to the crazy that’s underneath the crazy.”

Lawyer and then-Alberta Human Rights Commission member Arman Chak launched a complaint to the Law Society that same month, saying Levant’s comments were “inappropriate and unbecoming” of a lawyer, even though Levant had not practiced law in years.

The complaint was initially dismissed without a hearing, with the Law Society ruling that Levant was acting as a journalist when he made the statements about the Commission. But Chak appealed last fall, and the panel granted his appeal seven months later, paving the way for a hearing on the citations in October.

Interestingly, a month after Chak appealed the Law Society’s ruling in Levant’s favor, he was dismissed from the Human Rights Commission. Chak has since sued the Commission for wrongful termination and defamation.

In an opinion column published Thursday in Canada’s Financial Times, Levant writes: “Have you ever heard of a journalist being prosecuted for being disrespectful towards a government agency? A journalist in Canada, that is – not in China or Russia.”

“To my knowledge the decision to prosecute me is unprecedented,” he wrote. “I’m not even a practicing lawyer. I’m a journalist who happens to be trained in the law. There are tens of thousands of inactive lawyers like me in Canada.”

Levant said that he values public debate, and is “going to keep calling the human rights commission ‘crazy’ for the rest of my life. And the fact is that their old prosecutor is still trying to get me – that is a bit crazy, isn’t it?”

With thanks again to Paul From, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, for sharing this and making me aware of this madness—I used to consider that Canada was a much calmer and saner nation, and it’s population much more stable, than the USA—but apparently that world, like so many others, is now “Gone with the Wind…”

On April 10, the 208th Anniversary of the Birth of His Grace, CSA General Leonidas Polk, the First Episcopal Bishop of Louisiana

In thirty days, that is, on April 10, it will be the 208th Anniversary of the Birth of His Grace, General Leonidas Polk, the First Episcopal Bishop of Louisiana.  

OK, the Anglicans were clearly latecomers in Louisiana.  The RCs got here a long time before….although their Bishopric only preceded ours by a scant 48 years.  The RC ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS (NOVÆ AURELIÆ) was only erected on 25 April, 1793, as the Diocese of Saint Louis of New Orleans; raised to its present rank and title of Archdiocese on 19 July, 1850.  Amazingly enough to contemplate, the RC Bishop of New Orleans’ original territory comprised the entire original Louisiana purchase plus both East and West Florida, being bounded on the north by Canadian, on the west by the Rocky Mountains and the Rio Perdito, on the east by the English-speaking RC Diocese of Baltimore, and on the south by the Diocese of Linares and the Archdiocese of Durango.  The present boundaries of the RC Archdiocese include the State of Louisiana, between the twenty-ninth and thirty-first degree of north latitude, an area of 23,208 square miles (constantly shrinking due to bad hydraulic and wetland management, but that is a different story).

So it is no surprise that the political and ecclesiastical history of Louisiana are inextricably intertwined.  But Bishop Polk was, as they say, something completely different from any other prelate of local or even national memory.  He was a fighter.  I think it is important to remember and celebrate his 208th birthday this year because we have the opportunity to combine this celebration with the sesquicentennial memorial of his death and martyrdom on June 14, 2014, the hundred and fiftieth anniversary of his death from enemy cannon fire atop Pine Mountain in Cobb County, Georgia.  Cobb County’s county seat is Marietta, and it is the last county guarding the northern suburbs of Atlanta (Marietta is now, pretty much a northern suburb of Atlanta, but in the historical metaphor for Scarlett O’Hara’s mythic reality, it was separate.

And it was there, in the 32nd year of Cobb County’s creation out of the Cherokee nation, that General Leonidas Polk died defending the “Old South” (was it really old when it had only existed for 31 solid years—by it’s 32nd Birthday on 2 December 1864—Cobb County was occupied by Sherman’s troops and thus under the heals of the most brutal enemy any Americans had ever known.  Yes indeed, to Southern Partisans and Confederate Patriots, General Leonidas Polk died a hero to right and Constitutional Government, every bit as much as, perhaps more even, than King Charles the Martyr in January 1648/9.  Oliver Cromwell was probably a lot like Sherman, in his self-righteousness, but he lacked the technology and strength of force to be as savage and brutal.  And oddly enough, I doubt Cromwell would have used his power as brutally against his own people (Roundheads or Cavaliers) even if he had had it.  I could be wrong.

There is a Society of King Charles the Martyr (SKCM) to which my devoutly Anglo-Catholic Father belonged.  I have considered joining it.  And there SHOULD be a Society dedicated to the memory of His Grace, General Leonidas Polk of Louisiana.  If I could find any “fellow travelers” I would certainly organize such a society, and you’d think I’d have an easy time of it.

When in New Orleans, on most Sundays (and on this immediate past Ash Wednesday) I attend services at Christ Church Cathedral on St. Charles & Sixth Street, the seat of the Episcopal Diocese of Louisiana.   His Grace, General Polk, has a magnificent tombstone inside the Cathedral, just to the right of the altar (when facing the Cross) and behind the elaborately carved, elevated wooden pulpit. On other Sundays, more rare in the past but perhaps soon to be more commonly, I attend Holy Eucharist at Trinity Church on Jackson Street, built under the direction of Bishop Polk in the 1850s, with an auditorium called “Bishop Polk Hall.”

And yet everyone in the Episcopal Diocese of Louisiana is totally embarrassed by General Leonidas Polk.  “He was a villain” said Christ Church Cathedral Dean David A. duPlantier on Sunday, 20 October of last year (2013), just before delivering a sermon on the Parable of the Unjust Judge (Luke 18: 1-8), which just happens to be one of my favorite texts in the Bible.  And yes, I thought the irony was delicious: that Dean DuPlantier so harshly and unjustly judged the founder of the Church where he preaches….  I have become much colder in my feelings towards Christ Church Cathedral ever since.  How can they dishonor their founder?  How can a people so viciously toss away and condemn their own heritage?  My grandmother was baptized in a Church (Holy Trinity) built by Bishop Polk in Nachitoches, Louisiana even before Trinity on Jackson here in New Orleans.  Holy Trinity in Nachitoches is, I think, the oldest standing Episcopal Church west of the Mississippi.  It may well be the oldest Protestant Church West of the Mississippi.  Trinity on Jackson is, to be sure, East of the Mississippi although only by a few blocks.

I grieve for the disregarded and disrespected heritage of my Southern Ancestors who fought for freedom.  I certainly do not grieve for the passing of slavery, but I think the price was much too high: in no other nation on earth did it require a bloody “civil war” to abolish slavery.   Nor was the War of 1861-65 really either a Civil War nor a War to End Slavery—it was the first experiment in self-righteous Yankee Imperialism by a powerful centralized government designed for world conquest for the benefit of the few, not the many, and above all for the occult purpose of instituting a form of government which can only by called, somewhat ironically, “Corporate Communism”—an oligarchy of institutions sponsored by the government and sponsoring the government, who protest and proclaim that their purpose is to redistribute wealth and grant equality to all people.  

To all people except those who remember and respect history, of course.

 

Argue and Fight against making “Bullying” a Crime—talk about a new “Wiley Ulysses'” Trojan Horse into our Privacy, our Children’s Privacy, and all of our First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights….

I propose to you: Bullying could never be made a crime without destroying the last remnants of the rights to privacy, the protections for Freedom of Expression and Assembly under the First Amendment, and the right of the people to be free from unlawful searches and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

There’s a petition circulating IN CANADA to make school-bullying a CRIME—this is EXACTLY what I expected the petitions circulated by young good-looking, redshirted SPLC signature collectors earlier this year (2012) would ultimately lead to—and it’s a disaster, or it would be!   I wish I thought this sort of thing could never happen south of the 49th Parallel—but I see the writing on the wall—for all of us: mene meme tekel upharsin…. http://www.causes.com/causes/797224-stop-bullying-canada-let-s-be-the-change-to-inspire-the-world/actions/1692551?recruiter_id=55421141&utm_campaign=invite&utm_medium=wall&utm_source=fb

Can you imagine what the search warrants would look like to investigate allegations sufficient to raise “probable cause” that the crime of bullying was encouraged or tolerated in a school-age child’s parents’ home?  What are people thinking when they endorse such invasions of the sanctity of our private life?  As if there were not enough unconstitutional excuses based on “terrorism” and the “war on drugs” to breach the Fourth Amendment right of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, and personal effects.  If you make “bullying” a crime, then the schools will be constantly swearing out search warrants for parents homes, parents will lose their parental rights because they allowed their children to “bully” someone at school—or GOD FORBID, that parents even ENCOURAGED their children to think that some ways of behaving are better than others….. GOD FORBID that a parent would inculcate ANY values into his or her child that were not pre-screened and pre-approved by a judge or “diversity counselor” or “sensitivity counselor”—such things exist, and they must be stopped.

“Bullying” is a form of immature expressive activity which can be cruel or injurious—but value-judgments are necessary to civilized society and are bound to hurt SOMEBODY.  Speech which doesn’t hurt anyone is unlikely to be powerful.  Advocating the truth of the Bible or of the Constitution will become categorized as Bullying—MARK MY WORDS!

Don’t you see that to make “bullying” and/or “cyber-bullying” a crime would be to open our children and their conduct growing up to even more intrusive state and federal scrutiny and control over their every day lives than they already are made to suffer? Every time I see these red-shirted agents of the Southern Poverty Law Center passing out anti-bullying material I go up to them and ask them how you can define bullying as anything other than a crime of expression, a crime totally dependent on ONE person’s subjective judgment of the meaning and effect of ANOTHER person’s speech. The very word itself “bullying” suggests an overbroad and extremely vague concept. Defining “Bullying” as a crime would be PERFECT for the Brave New World and New World Order types who want the STATE to substitute GOVERNMENTAL judgment for individual values and opinions. Defining “Bullying” as a crime would lead to daily governmental surveillance of our children’s behavior—and, of course, “OUR” conduct and values as well for having taught our children to be bullies. GOD PROTECT US ALL from such an insane, statist program as to make bullying a crime—any such definition of “bullying” as a crime would be simultaneously overbroad and void for vagueness.

I ask you all, if you consider yourself a supporter of the First Amendment or of Constitutional rights at all, to reflect whether you support for the United States Constitution is really consistent with your endorsement of making “bullying” a crime—I personally cannot think of anything worse in the world that could happen to our children or our schools. It would be another GIANT step towards to TOTAL ABOLITION OF FREEDOM and of Parental control over the education and inculcation of values into their children.

Colonialism and Race as Transformational Issues in Barack Obama’s life and policy? Dinesh D’Souza’s movie: 2016, Obama’s America

Well, OK, I just saw Dinesh D’Souza’s “2016 Obama’s America“.   It’s an absolute “must see” before the election because it imparts vital evidence concerning our 44th President and an interpretation of his policies which everyone should consider.  

Now Dinesh D’Souza is a young man (one year younger than I am in fact, so he’s really young, just like Obama….) so he may not suffer from this problem but he kind of reminds me of some of the legendary professors I’ve heard of (but never experienced in person) who actually fall asleep during their OWN lectures…

So far as story telling goes, for narrative quality and dramatic effect, it is really fairly dismal, especially when compared with “The Big Fix“—last year’s astounding movie about the BP Oil Spill and it’s impact on New Orleans and Louisiana generally.  Dinesh is an Ivy League academic from India and he SHOULD have hired Josh & Rebecca Tickell or someone to bring life to what, honestly, SHOULD have been a very compelling story and COULD have been presented better.   

His Rebus Dictis  (these things having been said)—I highly recommend the movie for its informational content (just don’t expect to be entertained or to enjoy the experience even a little bit—if you’re tired, have a coffee or two before hand—because you NEED TO HEAR THIS STORY).

To make a long story short—Dinesh D’Souza presents Obama as the ultimate con-man and traitor, the last person ON EARTH who ever should have been President of the United States (though the narrative never actually says this in so many, or so few, words).    To use one of my old Tulane University college archaeology advisor’s favorite phrases, this movie clearly portrays Barack Hussein Obama as a Classic “Nigger in the Woodpile” The_Nigger_in_the_Woodpile.jpg 760×524 pixels.  The phrase means (according to Wikipedia, and Will*), “some fact of considerable importance that is not disclosed – something suspicious or wrong: Especially a stowaway or “sleeper agent” type spy — in short, a bunch of Greek Soldiers hidden inside, say, a wooden Horse mistaken by the apparently “Born Yesterday” Trojans as a Gift from the Gods (I have always wondered how the Trojans could possibly have been this dumb?  Had ten years of siege weakened their intelligence through malnutrition and lack of exercise?  Why didn’t anyone (besides Cassandra) ask: WHY would the Gods make such a strange gift?  The Gods gave the people sun and water and grain and cattle, which are all very useful, but what can you DO with a wooden horse that big, exactly, I wonder, that would make it an appropriate gift from the Gods as opposed to a trick by the “Wily Odysseus”).  

Anyhow, Obama entered the Presidency as a Communist Nigger in the Woodpile  OR as a Communist Trojan Horse—take your pick, but Obama became President, according to D’Souza, and I have to agree, for the SOLE purpose of destroying America’s (1) economic, (2) military, (3) political, (4) intellectual, and (5) moral strength.  This is no modest undertaking, not an inconsiderable set of goals, but look how well Obama has done in just his first term!!!!   That is the long and short of Dinesh D’Souza’s movie.  Except to point out: Obama has done so much to destroy America in ONE term, he’ll probably transform us into a lower-ranking Third World Country somewhere beneath Belize and Burkina Fasso but above Bangladesh and Haiti if elected to a second term. 

According to D’Souza, Obama WANTS to do this because he is fulfilling his father’s dream of destroying the most successful product of the White Anglo-Saxon Race and Nation of England (that most successful product being the USA) because England had intentionally (in the Obamas’ opinions, both junior and senior) conquered, colonized and underdeveloped Kenya in particular and 1/4 of the African continent in general.

Empires are majestic and romantic, but they are inevitably built on conquest and cruelty, whether we’re talking about Xerxes (“Ahasueras”), Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and all the Roman Emperors (“Caesars”) who followed him, at least up through Marcus Aurelius but probably straight through to 1453 and the Fall of Constantinople, the Sassanian Empire, Mongol Empire, Charlemagne’s Empire, the Caliphates of Baghdad and Cordova, the Ottoman Empire, the Aztec Empire, the Inca Empire, the Spanish Empire, or the British Empire.   Charlemagne’s Empire and the British empire were possibly the “Kindest and Gentlest” of this list, but it is simply not in human nature for local groups and societies to give up their freedom and autonomy voluntarily, and so “to make an Imperial omelette, you have to break quite a few local small-to-medium size eggs, and a few really big eggs” sometimes, like the Aztec and Inca Empires being incorporated into the Spanish Empire, or the Mogul Empire being incorporated into the British.

I grew up with a very mixed up perspective on Empire.  On the one hand, everyone in my family agreed that the British Empire and the Pax Britannica were great things, but also that the British were almost congenitally stupid in their handling of their imperial possessions, starting with the USA.   It would have been so easy, and so completely reasonable, to give three million American “colonists” direct representation “across the water” in the Parliament of the United Kingdom in London.  Why, oh, WHY did the British Parliament and crown not extend ALL the rights of Englishmen to ALL the King’s subjects in North America?   And by the time they got to India, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, the British had (apparently) learned almost nothing from their experience in America.  TO THIS DAY I look at Canada, the most loyal of all the British Dominions, and think that Britain and Canada should share a single parliament—especially in this day and age of jet travel, telephones, faxes, and e-mail.  

The ROMAN Empire was always extending full citizenship to the conquered peoples—as was Napoleon’s “New” (if short lived) Franco-Roman Empire of 1803-1814.   Now, admittedly, the Romans did not go around extending citizenship owing to any romantic precursor philosophy ancestral or antecedent to the French “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité“, but because, face it, mere conquest is NEVER enough for the conqueror; a real conqueror wants to keep gouging the conquered people for taxes so long as his empire endures…. and you can ONLY Tax Citizens (or in Rome, you could only tax citizens).

But Britain never learned from its mistakes and never extended any sort of rights to the colonial peoples except to self-government UNTIL THEY ABOLISHED THE EMPIRE—and then, by the British Nationality Act of 1948 they basically admitted that all their former and soon-to-be former “Colonials” were going to be British—and thus they set up the uncontrolled colonization of Britain by former colonials.  Truly, there must be a defect in our Anglo-Saxon genes when it comes to conquest and colonialism, because the British, really and truly, honestly and sincerely, never got ANYTHING right at the right time, not even once.

But anyhow, Dinesh D’Souza basically presents the hypothesis that the British conquest and colonization of Kenya was something that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., really resented, and Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., has sought to use the Presidency of the United States to wreak vengeance on the Anglo-Saxon peoples of the world for his father’s sake.  This is kind of a “reverse Oedipus-syndrome”, I guess, where Obama is symbolically killing his mother (by killing and impoverishing “her race, her people”) for his dead and always absent Father’s sake.  Except of course, that Obama’s mother was one of those early 1950s and 1960s communist traitors herself, from a family and long line of communist traitors, who already WANTED to wipe out her own culture and civilization (and apparently divorced her second husband Lolo Soetoro because he DIDN’T).

I have no idea how real American conservatives can look at the history of Stanley Ann Dunham and the Obama family and NOT be totally in favor of abortion.  Not just wishy-washy “abortion on demand” but mandatory, Chinese-style forced abortion for any father who already has at least two children…..as Obama’s father did back home with an (unfortunately undisclosed) first wife.   In every sense Obama is the product of the Brave New World and the more I learn about h Barack’s mother the more I think Montana Judge Richard Cebull of the United States District Court for the District of Montana (born 1944) has been the victim of a real “politically correct” hatchet job….**

In any event, one of the most interesting moment’s in D’Souza’s movie is when Barack Obama’s brother, who lives in a slum dwelling in Nairobi, comments that Barack and his (own) father were both wrong: the British were GOOD for Kenya and should have stayed until Kenya was actually ready for Independence.

Any way you look at it, whether it’s a good movie or not, and as movies go, it’s really not, Dinesh D’Souza makes some really interesting points.  I’m not at all sure that his pseudo-Freudian psychoanalysis of Obama is correct, because, basically, Obama was raised by his white mother and SHE was a communist, Obama’s white GRANDPARENTS were communists, and they (the Dunham family) apparently associated primarily with black communists.  

It is beyond incredible that anyone like Barack Hussein Obama ever became President of the United States.  It is a tragedy of almost unparalleled proportions.   I personally wish we had been conquered by the Soviet Russians during the Cold War instead of betrayed by our own mind-dead, media manipulated electorate into electing this Trojan Horse for President—it would have been a MUCH more honest and sincere way to introduce communism to North America.  

*AKA E. Wyllys Andrews V, Ph.D. Tulane, born October 10, 1943, retired in 2009, son of Harvard & Carnegie Institution of Washington archaeologist E. Wyllys Andrews IV, 1916-1971)

** Cebull “reported himself for judicial misconduct” to the Ninth Circuit under extreme pressure to resign after he circulated an e-mail about Obama’s birth: “A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m black and you’re white?’ His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!‘”  I rarely endorse a vulgar joke, but I would tend to nominate Cebull to the next vacancy on the Supreme Court, myself….  I would simply add to the joke, after the word “bark”, the words “in Russian or Chinese”, because all evidence is that Obama’s mother and all of what Dinesh D’Souza calls Obama’s “founding fathers” were all the reddest of the red in the USA…. candidates for the firing squad after trial and conviction for treason, every one of them.