Category: Crime

Excluded!

Politics, Traitors / Fifth Columnists

Firebrand CongressTotty Nancy Mace has an idea:

South Carolina GOP Representative Nancy Mace introduced a joint resolution on Wednesday proposing a constitutional amendment that would explicitly bar naturalized citizens from serving in Congress, the federal judiciary, or holding any Senate-confirmed positions.

The proposed legislation seeks to extend the “natural-born citizen” constraint — which currently applies only to the presidency and vice presidency under Article II of the U.S. Constitution — to all members of the House of Representatives, the Senate, federal judges at all levels, and prominent appointed officers such as Cabinet members and ambassadors.

If passed and ratified, the amendment would establish a strict dual-track citizenship restriction, requiring federal lawmakers and officials to have held U.S. citizenship from birth.

Okay, I need to talk about this because I am a naturalized U.S. citizen (35 years, give or take a few months), and of course I would be affected by such legislation.  (Not that I care, because age and inclination would exclude me from any of the above lofty offices anyway.)

Now I can understand why Our Nancy would be suggesting such a thing, because let’s be honest, I bet there are more than a few naturalized U.S. citizens who are bent on overthrowing the republic rather than thanking their lucky stars (as I do, every day) for being allowed to share in the American Dream.

So I can see why she would be interested in such an action.  The words “Quisling” and “fifth column” (a.k.a. Trojan horse) come to mind here, and probably with some justification.

However, allow me to point out that arch-Nazi collaborator Vidkun Quisling was not a naturalized Norwegian citizen, but native-born.  And let’s be perfectly blunt about this:  for every naturalized citizen who may be harboring evil subversive ideas about his adopted country, I can probably point to several native-born citizens who are just as evil (Ocasio-Cortez comes to mind).

However, Mace’s proposed legislation would also rid us of pustules like Ilhan Omar and Pramila Jayapal, to mention just two, who infest Congress like some malignant cancer.

So:  is Nancy Mace’s proposed legislation a Good Thing?  Here’s what else she said, in support of it:

Mace argued that the amendment simply extends the rigorous constitutional standard already required of the president to other critical positions of national trust.

…and mentions Super-Pustule Ilhan Omar specifically as evidence.

This would mean, by the way, that there’d be in essence two kinds of citizenship:  native-born, to whom all things are possible;  and naturalized, who could do anything except run the country.

This would mean that people like me — super-patriots, despite having been born in the wrong country — would be excluded from the levers of power.

In today’s political climate, though, I’m not sure that that’s a bad thing.

Feel free to argue the point in Comments.

By the way, some might ask why I refer to Nancy Mace as a “CongressTotty”.

Q.E.D.

More “Legal” Bullshit

Grifters & Cons

Here’s an interesting take:

A University of Miami law professor recently offered reasons why that the public should consider extending copyright law to include “collectively held cultural identities.”

In an excerpt of her paper “Protecting Cultural Personality” in Race, Racism and the Law, J. Janewa Osei-Tutu notes companies such as Timbuk and Louis Vuitton “have designed and marketed clothing based on traditional ethnic clothing styles or symbols” … but without the “knowledge, consent, or involvement of the cultural group” in question.

Osei-Tutu argues intellectual property laws are “underinclusive — at least in relation to valuable intangible cultural heritage from indigenous communities and local communities from the global south [which] allows corporations and those outside the community to capture and monetize this unprotected resource, which means that it is exposed and subject to misappropriation.”

Sounds like bullshit, dunnit?  Gets deeper, though:

In order to protect “cultural personality rights,” Osei-Tutu (pictured) says cultural groups should have “sufficient boundaries and markers, or indicia” by which to identify them.

Groups can be “self-defining,” and it’s “not necessary for the public to have significant knowledge of the group.”

Sure, just make it up as you go along.  Okay, I’ll play.

Supposing I composed and released a blues song in the style of, oh, B.B. King.  (Note:  “in the style of”, not a copy of.)  Am I making an appropriation of the blues culture — defined on the fly as something that is inherently of Southern Black origin?  According to this college harpy professor, probably so.

Fine.  But let’s just examine that “blues culture” thing for a moment.  It was indisputably a lament, born of a race’s suffering, and played on either piano or else guitar by Black musical luminaries such as Otis Spann and Muddy Waters, respectively.

On the piano?  You mean, that keyboard instrument invented and devised in 1700 by Italian Bartolomeo Cristofiori, a White man?  And about the guitar:  the “classical” acoustic version was invented by inter alia  Spaniard Antonio de Torres Jurado, and its electrical counterpart by inter alia  Adolph Rickenbacker and Leo Fender (to name but two).  Regardless, both instruments were invented by White men of European heritage.

If Spann and Waters had had to operate under those pesky “cultural appropriation” restrictions, it’s safe to say that the blues would still be being sung in Black Christian churches and not in concerts all over the world.

Wait:  did I say “churches”?

Doesn’t look too much like something African (or African-American), does it?

Of course, I’m just screwing around here.  But at the heart of this little piece of satire is a very serious message to the racist hustlers like this Osei-Tutu creature:

Stop fucking around and claiming that “cultural appropriation” is somehow an evil thing.  That, or don’t wear jeans (invented by White Jewish guy Levi Strauss) ever again.

And steer clear of fried chicken, while you’re about it, or else the Romans are going to declare a classical fatwa on your ass.

I could go on all day, but I think you get my point.

The Actual Totalitarians

Anarchist thugs, Marxists, Riotous Assemblies, Terrorism

Victor Davis Hanson points out (in not quite so many words) that in politics, there’s nothing new under the sun — most especially since the French Revolution, that is — and that the “Democrat Party” of today should just be honest about it and rename themselves the Jacobin Party.

Why?

Jacobinism aims to divide the nation arbitrarily between the noble oppressed and the toxic oppressors.  (Sound familiar?)

And VDH then goes on to list the offenders and offences:

BLM (actually, it’s Antifa, the only omission he makes), biological men competing in women’s sports, critical legal theory normalizing cashless bail, race-based reparations, violent felons arrested and back on the street hours later, radical abortion on demand until birth, attacks on the concept of the cultural “melting pot” and opposition to organized Christianity.

Read the whole article for the full catalogue.

Here’s the question to ponder.  Never mind what they might say;  which is the political party in the U.S. that actively supports terrorism?  And let’s be clear by what we mean by “terrorism”:  threatening assassination, supporting assassinations or calling for the same, beating up political opponents, calling for violence against those who refuse to support their policies (e.g. Supreme Court justices), using “grassroots” street protests to cow and intimidate opposition… the list goes on and on.

Yup:  that list belongs to the modern-day Jacobins — just as it was back in the late eighteenth century.  They would make history repeat itself, if they could.  And never forget that the term “Reign of Terror” was also coined during the French Revolution, by the Jacobins.  Ipse dixit.

Yeah, We’ll Never Know

Anarchist thugs, Marxists

…what the WHPC shooter’s motives were, according to that lying sack of shit Obama:

“Although we don’t yet have the details about the motives behind last night’s shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, it’s incumbent upon us all to reject the idea that violence has any place in our democracy.”

Yeah, apart from the scrote’s actual published words, that is.  The guy could have been carrying a handwritten, signed note in his pocket saying “I want to kill Trump!” and I bet Obama would still have said the same thing, the mealymouthed little motherfucker.

It’s always about “plausible deniability” with these socialist scumbags, isn’t it?

Here’s how I see it.  There are two sets of “motives” with all these so-called “random shooters”.  The first set of motives is the obvious ones, e.g. what he himself said his motives were.

The second set of motives is what I referred to in last week’s post about the Anarchists’ Playbook:

All these “Ego” Anarchists had responded to the principle of Anarchy — “The Idea”, as Barbara Tuchman described it in the Proud Tower — and its primary focus was on destruction of a state or institution, perpetrated by a lone individual guided by near-insanity or else a mind infused with hatred for “the System” and its leaders.

We’re seeing it now, all over again:  Charlie Kirk of Turning Point, assassinated by Tyler Robinson;  Brian Thompson of United Healthcare, assassinated by Luigi Mangione, and various other such attempted assassinations.

…and now we can add this latest little turd to the file of “attempted assassinations”.

Barack Obama and his merry little band of Commies can bleat all they want about unknown motives, but they are flat-out lying.  They know all too well what these motives are because they’re encouraging them, they and their little lickspittles in the media and academia.

I need to quit now before I’m accused of suggesting that Obama et al. should be dragged up the gallows stairs for being guilty of fomenting insurrection and assassinations.

Go Vols!

Crime, Good News

And following on from the above, it looks like Tennessee has the right idea:

“The Senate passed SB 1847 on April 21st. The House followed with HB 1807 on April 23rd. If the governor signs it, property owners will be able to use deadly force to prevent trespass, arson, damage to property including livestock, burglary, theft, robbery, or aggravated cruelty to animals as soon as July 1, 2026.”

“If”?

Message to criminal scrotes:  FAFO.

Just a mischievous thought:  under that “aggravated cruelty to animals” part, what about those ATF and DEA agents who go after a homeowner’s dog as part of their warrant-free home attacks?