The radical and ugly left reveals itself again

For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.


Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:

If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652


You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

They’re coming for you next: At a campaign event yesterday for Marsha Blackburn, the Republican senatorial candidate for Tennessee, leftist protesters once again revealed their ugliness and dependence on smear tactics, and they did so in mere seconds.

Blackburn called for a moment of silence to mourn for the innocent people who had been killed by a anti-Semite in Pittsburgh on Saturday. Less than two seconds into that moment, a protester shouted “Marsha Blackburn is a white supremacist!” Watch below. It only lasts a minute.

This smear makes no sense. Not only is there zero evidence that Blackburn is a “white supremacist,” the slander occurs even as she is mourning the murder of Jews, something no white supremacist would do. How stupid do these leftist protesters really think people are? This isn’t going to convince anyone, and if anything, it reveals the bigoted hate-filled mentality of this protester.

It also offends the sensibility every ordinary person nationwide who watches this, both conservative or liberal. No decent person would spit on the graves of the murdered Jews as this leftist protester does. And the protester is doing this in support of the Democratic candidate in an effort to defeat the Republican.

If you are undecided on who to vote for this coming election, just remember this moment. Every Democratic Party win, anywhere, will be an endorsement of this kind of behavior.



  • Phill O

    I thank the protester immensely. She has pushed more people to the republican vote. Nothing can help get the vote out like this can. I hope this goes viral!

    ps Bob, you may want to fix your keyboard. it put a g instead of a k in “think”

  • Cotour

    And so you find the offender and eject him or her, forcefully if necessary. (That is why security people in general are large) You make that moment of disrespect the focus and subject of your rally.

    Then you call for a moment of silence again and if another does the same you accommodate him or her by again ejecting them. Until there is the silence and the respect that is called for. Eventually through controlled vigilance there will be order and reciprocated respect. They may not love you but there will be respect.

    In their desperation the Democrats will go to ANY length to disturb and distract from what is coming down the road for them, and I think most all of them intuitively understand.

    The Democrat party’s death spiral is progressing nicely, and there is not much that they can do about it because they have so much time and subversive effort invested in it.

  • Phill O

    Cotour “I think most all of them intuitively understand.”

    The higher ups in the party absolutely. People like this protester; I wonder if they know anything for themselves, just fallow orders from above.

    PS Rich Hill’s negative comment about Trump’s tweet makes the Red Sox win so sweet. Sorry for any Dodgers fans. I like a lot of their players.

  • Cotour

    Yes, the Democrat leadership is the Democrat party’s major stumbling block, but that is expected this is the natural cycle of things.

    The one additional problem is that the new and up coming leadership that does not quite have the reigns of power yet believe their fortunes lie in an even further push left into full blown “Democracy” and the redistribution of others wealth to their party members and the culture of dependency.

    This is just one additional fatal flaw in their cycle, the greater mass of Americans who identify themselves as Democrats are not and do not aspire to Socialism nor their own wealth being redistributed for them. The mass of the Democrat party are good and true Americans, the leaders of their party however continue their delusional folly in their perverted pursuit of the acquisition of and the retention of power.

    Raw power, thats what its all about as we all understand and how they plan to once again achieve it is exactly wrong, but again it is expected. Why? because they are making moves out of desperation, desperation for an actual real Americancentric agenda and a true leader, both of which they are very wanting in.

    Tell me the Democrat party’s foundation beliefs and who leads the party. Right now they believe in forced illegal immigration, the welfare state and sanctuary cities, and their leader? Actually right now it is Hillary Clinton when you think about it.

  • Cotour

    Here is another little revelation about how the “intellectuals” intend to re imagine Democracy, and the democrat party will I am certain be very attracted to discussions like these in their quest for some direction and leadership:

    “As millions of refugees face increasing scrutiny and are turned away at borders across the world, we will ask basic questions about borders: What are they for? By what right are they created and policed? And how do we live now? Sophia Azeb, Fabienne Brugère, Gauz, Aleksandar Hemon, and Guillaume le Blanc. Moderated by Stephanie DeGooyer.”

    This is the brave new world the “Intellectuals” are discussing in order to make everyone “equal” and “free”. They appear by their names to be mostly of the French brand of “intellectuals”.

    What are borders for and by what right are they created and policed? The beginning of the end, with the best of intentions of course. We are all apparently scheduled to meet in hell some time in the future.

  • Phill O

    I need a new keyboard. That fallow should have been follow.

    PS Cotour, that link is scary. The way the brain can be deviated: Reminds me of the Wannsee conference. Just change Jew to conservative and we have (I think) the current mentality of the left,

  • Cotour

    Talk about scary, chew on this a bit. A friend asked me to provide him citations to establish that Hillary was a classic psychopath, and not surprisingly there are quite a few to choose from. I asked him if he liked having his eggs scrambled like this.

    An interesting read but this is the money shot:

    “We were infiltrated by those who are essentially Republicans in Democratic clothing. And Hillary Clinton is one of those. She is still a Republican, but she had done what the classic psychopath does; “keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.” And that, is why she changed publicly from a Republican to a Democrat.”

    I also included the following back up to establish her strangeness:

  • wayne

    Pink Floyd
    “Your Possible Pasts”

    “They flutter behind you your possible pasts.
    Some brightened and crazy, some frightened and lost.
    A warning to anyone still in command, of their possible future, to take care…
    In derelict sidings the poppies entwine, with cattle trucks lying in wait for the next time.”

  • Cotour

    Wayne, Hillary a classic psychopath or is there some other more accurate diagnosis?

  • wayne

    “Set Your House in Perfect Order before You Criticize the World”
    Jordan Peterson/Akira

  • wayne

    That’s a difficult one to nail down from long distance. First, you have to evaluate if she has an underlying personality-disorder, then you have to narrow down the sub-type(s).
    For my money— she does have a personality disorder, and I might go with narcissistic and/or sociopathic tendencies. However, in her case—I’m not giving her a pass that easily. I’d convict her as being “guilty but mentally ill,” that way it’s not a cushy Federal Prison, but rather a State Hospital. Every thing she has ever done, is completely with malice-aforethought, so no matter how “crazy” she actually is, she’s still 110% legally responsible.

  • Cotour

    Interesting analysis.

  • Edward

    I wonder how often there are chants of “USA! USA!” at Democratic campaign rallies.

  • wayne

    A: Never
    (I know you’re just being rhetorical!)

  • Phill O

    Cotour, the top article did not explain the traits of the psychopath; we are left only the authors word for it.

    Some have discussed the traits of the sociopath as it relates to con-artists and several from the political arena, even upper management. One friend had an uncle who was a psychologist and classified his son as a sociopath. My buddy indicated the traits were similar to Hillary.

    Also, the author indicated psychopaths are born not made. Pathological lying is learned in the Muslim countries and seemingly India. I worked for one that came from India. He had a constant relationship with a lawyer.

    An in-depth discussion of the differences between psychopaths and sociopaths would be interesting but might require a separate thread. Will do some reading myself.

  • wayne

    way tired today—I’ll try and whip up some good psycho-babble on Hillary and catch up with you later. (To be clear, I’m just some civilian on the interweb, no Warranties are expressed or implied, I’m just thinking out loud.)
    –Essentially, you have Thought, Mood, and Personality disorders. Personality disorders are the hardest to “fix,” at best you manage them, and not allow those people to get into positions of Power over Others. (They generally go full tilt totalitarian, if you let them.)

    Thought disorders cover schizophrenia & major psychotic type episodes. The mood-disorders cover mania, depression, and anxiety. Personality, covers ‘everything else.’
    (Tangentially– I’m convinced she has a neurological disorder, but we’ll never see her records. She has some form of Parkinson’s with maybe Lewy Body dementia starting. When she finally falls-to-pieces, she’ll crash hard. But again, we’ll never be told the truth.)
    Bill is more of the classical “psychopath,” or “sociopath,” he’s somebody that would have made a very good used-car salesman, or a politician. All his raping and woman-abusing activities, points to anti-social disorder (and he’s a narcissist.)

  • John L

    I was just reading about Republican party headquarters “vandalized” by “at least 4 bullets” in Volusia county FL. Vandalized? I would have reported it more like, “worthless cowardly scumbags shot up the place, because they are hateful and intolerant people”. But that’s me, and I guess that makes me a racist.

  • wayne

    “Shots fired inside Fox affiliate in Washington, D.C.”
    october 22, 2018

    “Fox 5 WTTG reporter describes the scene where a man was shot trying to break into the station building.”

  • Phill O

    I stand correct Cotour Found this stuff on the net. psychopath vs sociopath

    Psychopaths are more “cold-hearted” and calculating. They carefully plot their moves, and use aggression in a planned-out way to get what they want. If they’re after more money or status in the office, for example, they’ll make a plan to take out any barriers that stand in the way, even if it’s another person’s job or reputation.

    The biggest differences I found were:
    1: Psychopaths are organized and can fake emotions to get what they want and thereby, seem to fit into society better
    2: Sociopaths are impulsive and disorganized with uncontrolled outbursts and aggression.

    ‘Cold-Hearted Psychopath, Hot-Headed Sociopath’

    It’s not easy to spot a psychopath. They can be intelligent, charming, and good at mimicking emotions. They may pretend to be interested in you, but in reality, they probably don’t care.

    Brain Differences

    Recent research suggests a psychopath’s brain is not like other people’s. It may have physical differences that make it hard for the person to identify with someone else’s distress.

    The differences can even change basic body functions. For example, when most people see blood or violence in a movie, their hearts beat faster, their breathing quickens, and their palms get sweaty.

    A psychopath has the opposite reaction. He gets calmer. Kipnis says that quality helps psychopaths be fearless and engage in risky behavior.

    “They don’t fear the consequences of their actions,” he says.
    Both are referred to as Antisocial Personality Disorder? symptoms include narcissistic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and histrionic personality disorder.

  • wayne

    Phill O:
    that’s a pretty good short-hand description

    >Look up “DSM-5” and “diagnostic criteria sociopath” (Diagnostic & Statistical manual 5th edition) and you can find the exact diagnostic criteria. (somebody will have it excerpted somewhere, the dsm people want you to pay for the access through them.) You are more likely to get free access to version 3, but they (literally) changed 70% of all criteria compared to version 5.
    Accurate diagnosing is part skill and part art, (or rather, experience) however— for some disease-states, if you fit the criteria dead-bang, that’s what you are. (everything else is nuance.)

    Weather Underground Announces Fall Offensive
    ABC News, October 6, 1970

    “October 1970 – Bernardine Dohrn announces a “fall offensive of youth resistance.” Two days later three cities were bombed on the west coast.”

  • Cotour

    Having one hell of a good time.


  • wayne

    She’s high on her Adderall. (And her extra-special g-friend Huma, is STILL Muslim Brotherhood up to her eyeballs.)
    (Hillary’s a nobody…. we’re wasting too much mental energy on her. I don’t think it’s exactly “news” that HRC is a power hungry mastermind.)

    Pivoting back to the thread;

    Blackburn is, the exact opposite of a “white supremacist.” (is she not an Evangelical? and a long time supporter of Israel.)
    This disruptor knows so little, it’s laughable, but these people are seriously-dangerous. Harsh measures will have to be taken to prevent them from dragging us all into their twisted delusions & illusions.

  • Chris

    Getting in late on this…
    I read the book The Sociapath Next Door. Short but interesting.

  • Kirk

    Segueing to the President’s recent remarks on Birthright Citizenship, the least sensational headline I’ve found so far comes from The Washington Post: “Trump again raises much-debated but rarely tested question of birthright citizenship”.

  • wayne

    This topic deserves it own thread. (‘birthright citizenship’)

    There is no such thing as “birthright citizenship,”– under the 14th Amendment; “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
    –The KEY phrase is: “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”
    That has never (ever) meant you could just show up on American soil, have a baby, and that baby would be an automatic citizen. Doesn’t work that way.
    (the left is going to go nuts over this, we haven’t seen anything yet….)

  • wayne

    “Mark Levin explains ‘birthright citizenship’ and the 14th amendment”

  • Cotour


    “A woman who is clearly in poor health and is a psychopath at the minimum and can reasonably be seen as the nexus point of a conspiracy to spy on and remove a duly elected president, a criminal master mind of the first order, will once again run to lead the free world.”

    Hillary is the defacto leader of the Democrat party when you think about it, as bizzare as that seems. So what you propose here.

    “(Hillary’s a nobody…. we’re wasting too much mental energy on her. I don’t think it’s exactly “news” that HRC is a power hungry mastermind.)”

    Is a bit premature, she will hold the Democrats hostage until she is either the candidate once again, OR she is the king maker and has a big say in who is who and what is what, thats how she plays the game. Lay down and go away and allow the cream as it is to rise to the top? When she is room temperature from natural causes is when that will happen. George R.R. Martin, where do you think he is getting his best material from?

    So understanding Hillary and her activities is still key because she is going to be pulling strings even if she is not attached to one of them, everything we are going through today goes to and through, Hillary. She is the nexus of the two sets of laws that have been fraudulently created to facilitate her presidency. She is the Ma Barker of the Left.

  • Cotour

    PS: And that is why it is imperative that the Republicans hold on to power in the Congress and the Senate in this particular mid term election.

    And the argument could made that with a bulldozer like Trump in the Oval Office and the decisive speed and intensity that he operates at that it might be best for the Democrats to dial down his drive by relieving him of the ability to operate at that level. (I once again do not know what they will do if this comes to be, will they go nuclear? And what does nuclear mean in the context of the total loss of power for the Democrats? Desperation and a wild animal do not make for a pretty scene.)

    Or, the argument could be made that in order for Trump to do what must be done in government to in fact save the country and the Constitution from the Globalist road it can easily be once again diverted to that he must retain power in order to do so. Reshape what needs reshaping and box it up so the power structure would have to be replicated in the Democrats favor in order for it be undone. And that power structure combination is few and far between and is only attainable under true the true disgust of the people with their existing leadership and true new leadership.

    Choose one.

  • wayne

    Excellent Ma Barker, reference!

    tangential related classic gangster clip-
    White Heat (1949) –
    Cody’s mother is dead…

    –I don’t necessarily disagree with you on HRC. I’m just sick of her. ( although I did jump right in and pile on) I’m wondering her (further degraded) state-of-being, just 2 short years from now, as well.

    Back to a more generalized frame;
    This disruptor at the Blackburn event– what exactly is she ‘protesting’ about? It’s a total non sequitur. It’s just Chaos for the sake of Chaos.
    It was an actual, classical, self-avowed, white-supremacist, that went nuts at the Synagogue.
    I thought Bush was Hitler, or was that Rumsfeld? Now Trump is Hitler, ad Blackburn is Eva Braun? I can’t keep all their lies straight….

  • wayne

    Jordon Peterson/Akira read Nietzsche’s short story -musical cut
    October 29, 2018

  • Jim Davis

    …even as she is mourning the murder of Jews, something no white supremacist would do.

    I’m not sure this follows. Although the overlap between white supremacists and anti-Semites is large, it is by no means total. I am acquainted with (and, regrettably, related to) a number of white supremacists who are ardent supporters of Israel, for example. Indeed, it is by no means inconsistent, for a Jew to be a white supremacist, although I know of no examples offhand.

  • Cotour

    I think the general public’s perception of “White supremacists” is = NAZI = Hates Jews, blacks, minorities in general.

    As is the general public’s perception of “Nationalist”. Nationalist = NAZI = Hates Jews, blacks, minorities in general.

    I think in the most recent example of president Trump and his identifying as a “Nationalist”, he should have / must own the word / term and revisit the subject and coin a new term “American nationalist” and clearly define it. Meaning concerning all Americans including all races and creeds and their interests and the securing of the Constitution.

    Trump is allowing the left to define terms and words and make them stick to him, this must be dealt with in a very direct and forthright manner. Something that the Democrats and the left can not defend against.

  • Kirk

    wayne> The KEY phrase is: “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”

    Agreed, and this is what would have to be settled in a Supreme Court case if the administration decides to press the issue.

    Plyler v. Doe (1982) interpreted the phrase “within the jurisdiction” from the due process portion of the first section of the 14th Amendment in a way which could be read as supportive of Birthright Citizenship, but that was only a 5-4 decision. I’d imagine the administration would be more willing to press this if they first had the opportunity to appoint a replacement for Justices Ginsburg or Breyer.

  • pzatchok

    Handle the birthright problem like Europe and most of the world does.

    The child has US citizenship but goes back to the parents homeland until their 18. Then they get to decide what nation they want to live and participate in.
    If they join the military of or vote in their parents homeland they have chosen to be a citizen of that nation. They have until 21 to make the decision.

  • Phill O

    Do away with this idea totally. Then there can be no abuse!…………………..

  • pzatchok

    By making this change though there are no legal hurdles to jump.

    All interpretations of our constitution stay in place unchanged.

    And as other nations have found most children end up staying in their parents nation.

    We can always ad in a language requirement later.

  • wayne

    good stuff.
    RUSH is going over this right now.

    14th amendment was designed to specify freed slaves and their descendants would always be citizens. It’s written the way it is, to accomplish the full goal in the fewest words.
    (the word “jurisdiction” is key as well)

    –This birthright-stuff, is a relatively new invention.
    –Between the 1920’s- early 1960’s, we had very restricted immigration quota’s. Assimilation was always the goal and the expectation. This “let-everyone in” mentality happened within my lifetime.

    The children of Foreign diplomats are never automatically made US citizens, they aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US, the parent’s are not citizens and it doesn’t matter if the child was physically born on US soil.
    –If you are here illegally, you are not a citizen and not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

  • Kirk

    wayne, I don’t know about you, but I am pretty skeptical of anything new any politician says immediately before an election. Specifically regarding this issue, I figure that if they thought they could get away with it, then they would have acted already. Perhaps the calculus has changed with Justice Kavanaugh, but I doubt they could count on the Chief Justice in such a case, and they may consider it best to await a possibly more favorable future court.

    And regarding a future court, I know that both Senators Grassley and Graham have stated that they wouldn’t consider a Supreme Court nominee from President Trump in 2020 (should an opening arise) to be consistent with what they did in 2016 with Judge Garland, but I just can’t see the Senate sitting on such a nominee (assuming the Republicans maintain control as they are expected to do).

  • Kirk

    wayne> –If you are here illegally, you are not a citizen and not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

    The majority decision in Plyler v. Doe (1982) opined that, “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment “jurisdiction” can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” But it was only a 5-4 decision.

  • Edward

    Kirk wrote: “I am pretty skeptical of anything new any politician says immediately before an election.

    Trump did not raise the issue of birthright citizenship. It was an answer to a question. Probably a set-up question, just to trap Trump into a controversy. Such set-ups have worked before, but I doubt that they will work this time, because too many people already know the truth about the 14th Amendment.

    But then again, such set-ups are just another form of leftists’ radical ugliness.

  • wayne

    thanks for reiterating, it was a question to Trump.
    And yeah…more of a set-up question, than not.

    Mark Levin spent considerable time on tonight’s show (first block) explaining the 14th Amendment and historical practice & intent, well worth a listen.

  • pzatchok

    Didn’t Russia use the “plight” of Russian citizens in Crimea as an excuse to invade them?

    How many counties in the southwest and California could vote to return to Mexican Rule and then have the Mexican Army move in, with assistance from the UN(since it was a vote and the will of the people)

    Stop ALL immigration until those we have now are assimilated for at least a generation.
    Vote on and approve a national language. Make English official.
    Stop ALL government services in languages other than English. Force integration. Unless it for tourist services.
    Standardize ALL id cards across all states. ID cards, Drivers Licenses, CCW cards, pilots licenses, any and all licenses. Each type will look different from each other but the same across all states. Associate a fingerprint and picture with each. The same with ALL Social Security cards. Foot and finger prints as soon as the child is born.

  • Kirk

    Edward> Trump did not raise the issue of birthright citizenship. It was an answer to a question.

    Thanks! I seldom watch news video, and hadn’t seen that mentioned anywhere, even in stories that really should, such as Fox’s Dems blast Trump’s ‘birthright citizenship’ plan, call it midterm election gimmick, which writes, “Trump told “Axios on HBO” …”. Looking further, I found a couple of articles (one informative Politico piece, How Trump’s ‘birthright’ idea went from the fringe to the Oval Office, plus a WaPo/ Jennifer Rubin opinion piece) which make it clear that “Axios had introduced the topic, unprompted”.

    In a way, this reminds me of Trump’s supposed red line for the Mueller investigation, which is typically reported as “Trump set a red line …” or “Trump drew a red line …”, when in fact it was entirely a construct of the New York Times interviewers. (One of the few places I’ve seen that accurately reported is in WaPo’s Trump didn’t invent his ‘red line’ on Mueller.)

    > Probably a set-up question, just to trap Trump into a controversy.

    Just now watching the Axios clip for the first time, it does seem set up, though not so much as a trap, but instead as a question provided to the interviewers to prompt a desired discussion. To my ear, President Trump’s response made it sound as if it was something he did want to talk about, even with what might be feigned surprise at the end, with his “That’s a very interesting question. I didn’t think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one.”

    In any case, it looks to have been prompted by someone with inside information (not that the subject is anything new, but that an EO is “in the process. It will happen.”), if not from directly inside the White House, then by someone with continued ties, such as Michael Anton. I wonder if the back story will eventually come out.

    Then again, despite my impression, the question might just have been “a good guess”, as claimed by the interviewer.

  • wayne

    Highly recommend you listen to the 1st hour of the Mark Levin Show from last night. He covers the entire history of the 14th amendment.

    (tangentially– Paul Ryan = what a lying know-nothing RINO, he is!)

    There just has never been “birthright citizenship” here, in the way the radical left wants it interpreted in the here and now. If your parent’s are legal citizen’s, then yes— your children are legal citizens.

    John McCain for example– born in the Panama Canal Zone, parents were lawful Americans and subject to the jurisdiction of the US, John was a citizen at birth. Military personal overseas that have children– parent’s are lawful citizens and subject to the jurisdiction of the US. American Diplomats overseas that have children– same thing.
    Foreign diplomat who has a baby on US soil = not a citizen of the US. Not subject to the jurisdiction.

    You can’t break into my house, have a baby, and demand I put you on my Deed! That’s not how it has historically worked, ever! (and they never want to be put on the Mortgage now, do they?!)

    If a pregnant mother is here illegally, her newly born child is not an American Citizen.
    This crap where Chinese-communist oligarchs fly their pregnant wives’ to America and suddenly their newly born children are American Citizen’s— what is that all about??
    This started popping up in the 1980’s– INS/ICE started to internally reinterpret their own laws & regulations and it’s been insidious ever since.

    –Historically, we have never had an “illegal alien” problem, this is a relatively new thing– and is all a result of leftist activity in the mid-1960’s. And historically– we had extremely restrictive immigration policies from the 1920’s to the 1960’s, precisely because we wanted everyone who arrived prior to that to fully assimilate.

    ICE is an Executive branch agency and they work for the President. He has absolute authority to direct his own Agency to enforce the laws. The Judicial Branch doesn’t get to play in this sandbox.
    That’s why we have Election’s and election’s have consequences. The Judicial Branch needs to stay out of this, but… that’s how the left operates, and useful idiots on the right always play along. (always)
    They want you to know— if you don’t vote for them, they will attempt to delegitimize ANY choice you make at the Ballot box by judicial subterfuge.

    I would just make one last observation– we have been pulled so far to the left, when Trump does anything to drag us back toward the center, he’s painted by main-stream-fake-media, as some sort of “Hitler” character bent on rewriting the Constitution.

    Talk about “projection,” yow! EVERYTHING the left accuses us of doing– they have already done, in spades, over-and-over again.

  • wayne

    “The Times They Are A-Changing”
    Social Justice: The Musical
    Chris Ray Gun- 2016

  • wayne

    “Tyranny, one tiny step at a time: How ideology, group identity & collective guilt destroy societies”
    Jordan Peterson/Joe Rogan experience 2016

  • Kirk

    Above, I wrote that Plyler v. Doe interpreted “jurisdiction” in the Fourteenth Amendment in way which appeared supportive of Birthright Citizenship, but noted that it was a 5-4 decision. However today, John Yoo wrote a piece for Fox News in which he said, “All nine justices [in Plyler v. Doe] agreed that “no plausible distinction with respect to the 14th Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.””

    I’ve not independently verified that the dissenting justices concurred with the majority on that point, and don’t really have the time to dig that deep into the decision, but wanted to note here that I appear to have been wrong in my implication that the interpretation of that phrase was split.

    John Yoo, 2018-10-30, Fox News, Trump is wrong to want to end birthright citizenship – conservatives should preserve it

  • wayne

    Not a fan of Yoo myself! (he’s less of a conservative than he puts forth)
    Definitely check out the Levin show if you want some more factoids, he touches upon the Case you cite, and relevant others.

    here is an extended excerpt– (but get the whole show directly from him)

    Mark Levin on birthright citizenship “Paul Ryan has no idea” + Daniel Horowitz interview

  • wayne

    “Smells Like Social Justice”
    (Nirvana Parody Song)

  • pzatchok

    My father was in the service in Germany.
    My mother, an American, was living with him there.
    I was born in a German hospital and have a German birth certificate.

    I am American but by German law if I wanted citizenship I could have asked for it when I turned 18. Until I participated in US government (voted) or joined the US military. I joined the military and then voted.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *