General

Nick Griffin: It’s the maps, Stupid!

/2 Comments/in /by

It’s the Maps, Stupid!

Trump’s War Will End Up Destroying the Whole Gulf — As It’s Meant To

 

Trump is an insane megalomaniac, surrounded by crooks getting rich through insider trading. Trump has been fooled, bribed or blackmailed by Netanyahu into going to war for Greater Israel. Trump is just a patsy for the World Economic Forum, which sees the Gulf energy crisis as the perfect way to shrink our carbon footprint and advance their depopulation agenda.

Broadly speaking, those are the three main explanations for the war on Iran and the energy crisis it has all too predictably unleashed. They are not mutually exclusive, of course, and the most realistic view is that each of these things is a factor, with different ‘elite’ factions favouring war and energy chaos for their own specific reasons.

As I wrote the other day at the end of ‘Say Goodbye to Normal’ however, it is also possible to see it as the purely materialistic, coldly calculated response of the American financial/military/industrial elite to challenges which they found themselves unable to stop, but whose results they still hope to turn to their advantage.

Say Goodbye to ‘Normal’

Nick Griffin
·
Mar 31
Say Goodbye to 'Normal'

If you ever wondered what it was like to be a young man in the early autumn 1914, you know now. Regardless of your age, the war on Iran has already ended that last carefree summer. It is now only a matter of days, and one more escalation in the clashes already occurring, before the comfort and ease you grew up regarding as ‘normal’ have gone forever.

Read full story

To understand this, we have to start with the petrodollar. As I explained, this has been the way the global oil market has worked since 1974. In very simple terms, America agreed to provide the military support to keep the corrupt, Islamist-fanatic House of Saud in power. In return, the Saudis agreed to price their oil – and every barrel of oil sold on the planet – in dollars. Everyone wanting to buy oil had to buy dollars, which the Federal Reserve simply printed. Anyone who tried to sell their oil in anything but dollars ended up like Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein or Maduro.

The vast sums of money and bargain-basement priced raw materials and finished goods which have poured into America as a result have been the foundation of US prosperity at home and military power abroad. Washington’s global imperium of the last fifty years has only been possible because of the petrodollar and the petrodollar recycling system.

The grip of the U.S. dollar over global oil purchases was already weakening in the early 2020s. Several countries—especially China and Russia—began increasing the use of their own currencies for energy trade. This didn’t immediately break the system, but it signalled that the dollar monopoly was no longer unquestioned.

The petrodollar faced being ground down by the increasing independence and clout of the expanding BRICS alliance but, in the end, the lethal blow was delivered by America’s old partner – Saudi Arabia. When the fifty-year-old agreement came to an end in June 2024, the ruling clique of the House of Saud declined to renew it.

Much of the Saudi oil trade has continued to be in U.S. dollars, but payments are now also accepted in yuan, euros, yen, and rupees.

This event fits squarely into the broader trend of de-dollarisation, where central banks globally have been diversifying their foreign exchange reserves away from the US dollar. Its share in global reserves has declined from 73% in 2001 to 58.4% in 2023. Ironically, the weaponisation” of the US dollar through sanctions, particularly against Russia, has provided a strong impetus for many countries, especially the BRICS nations, to seek alternatives and enhance their economic sovereignty.

Historically, shifts in global reserve currencies, such as the Spanish Silver Dollar, the Dutch Guilder, and the British Pound Sterling, have always coincided with the collapse and replacement of successive hegemons. The current shift is a powerful indicator of a move towards a more multipolar financial system – and the end of the short ‘American Century’.

The end of the petrodollar left the Beltway/Wall Street elite with the Mother of All Problems: How to preserve US hegemony and their own bottom lines when they have lost the financial mechanism which made their global hegemony possible? They certainly had to do something, America’s debt mountain is so enormous that the cutting off of the imperial tribute system would not just end their power abroad, but quite likely create so much stress at home as to plunge the whole place into civil war.

Something had to be done. For a few years they seem to have hoped that they could continue business as usual. They strove to break the BRICS challenge by ousting Putin and turning Russia back into their Yeltsin-era quarry, then confronting an isolated China.

Orange Puppet

When this feat turned out to be impossible, a new ‘solution’ emerged, and Donald Trump was lined up for a second term in order to provide the larger-than-life mannikin for the puppet show.

With no possibility of keeping the petrodollar and global hegemony, what is now going on is an effort to concentrate on saving the finance capitalist system in North America, and to preserve US power, not by competing with everyone else, but by reducing them to ruin.

Obviously, the war in Iran is a large part a consequence of the enormous power of the Israel lobby over US politicians, and the madness of the Christian-Zionists and the Rapture heretics. Trump’s family connections to the equally barking mad Chabad Lubavitch are also clearly a factor.

But Trump can be manipulated in other ways too. Imagine his reaction when briefed on the fact that the Saudi refusal to renew the petrodollar had put America on the road to financial Armageddon:

“Those camel-f*cking ingrates. We protected them for fifty years and they turn round and stab us in the back. Well, if they won’t pay for protection, they won’t get it. And, boy, do they need it! In fact, we’ll make sure they need it. Then they’ll come crawling back for a deal, which we could give them, but probably won’t, because we don’t use their oil, but China does. So, if their oil industry goes up in flames, the gooks get burnt too.”

Continues…

Jesus Dressed as a Monkey, Crucified, Hammered on Israeli TV: An Intolerable Insult to Christianity

/6 Comments/in /by

https://lemediaen442.fr/jesus-grime-en-singe-crucifie-frappe-au-marteau-a-la-tv-israelienne-une-insulte-intolerable-au-christianisme/‌

The scandal surrounding the Israeli show “Toffee y el Gorila” is beyond comprehension. This television series, created by Erez Hyman and Shaul Betzer, violently attacks one of the most sacred figures for billions of Christians: Jesus Christ. He is depicted as a monkey, crucified, and beaten with a hammer amidst mocking laughter.

https://cdn-production.lemediaen442.fr/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/26095131/crucifiction-videoplayback.mp4?_=1‌

‌

A frontal attack against Christianity

The offending episode features Toffee, played by Dawn Rosenzweig, accompanied by Shuki, a gorilla. In a chilling exchange, Toffee calls Jesus a “Nazi,“ claiming he was an ”enemy of the Jewish people” who wanted to convert Jews to Christianity. The remarks are of unprecedented violence, but this is only the beginning of this blasphemous parody.

When the gorilla character mentions his desire for “assimilation,” a term used here to signify a union with a non-Jewish person, Toffee reacts indignantly, declaring, “Assimilation means sleeping with a Goya (non-Jew). That’s something neither you nor I obviously want.” Under the guise of humor, these dialogues stigmatize not only Christ, but also Christians and any idea of interfaith reconciliation.

How can such a lapse be tolerated? In France, a simple caricature of the Jewish community leads to legal action and unanimous condemnation. Yet, when it comes to attacking Jesus Christ, a central figure for more than two billion Christians, the reactions are far less vehement. This double standard is unacceptable and fuels a growing sense of injustice among believers.

A grotesque crucifixion

The scene reaches its climax when Toffee forces the gorilla to play the role of Jesus Christ. The latter, disguised as a monkey, is then subjected to a grotesque reenactment of the crucifixion. Amidst laughter, insults fly: “You’re a Nazi, Jesus, a coward!” Even worse, he is struck repeatedly in the face and body with a hammer.

An attack on fundamental values

The scene, presented under the guise of humor, goes far beyond satire. The treatment of Jesus Christ in “Toffee y el Gorila” is a slap in the face to Christians worldwide. Disguised as a monkey, crucified, and humiliated amidst widespread mockery, this caricatured Christ symbolizes a contempt that must no longer be tolerated.

Spain Gave the Death Penalty to the Victim, Not the Rapists

/5 Comments/in /by
Celina’s Substack
Spain Gave the Death Penalty to the Victim, Not the Rapists

Noelia Castillo and the Demonic Rot Devouring the West
Celina101

This is how broken the West has become. On Thursday, March 26, 2026, in a clinically sterile room within an assisted living facility in Barcelona, Spain, the government executed a twenty five year old paralysed rape victim. Her name was Noelia Castillo Ramos.1 Noelia did not die of a terminal illness, nor did she pass away from natural causes. Rather, she was administered a lethal injection by the Spanish state that had dismantled her family, forced her into a hostile and horribly dangerous environment, ignored her horrific violation, and ultimately deemed her broken existence too inconvenient to maintain.2

A still from Noelia Castillo’s Antena 3 interview on March 24.

While Noelia Castillo’s heart was stopped by a cocktail of state-sponsored chemicals, the unvetted migrant men who gang-raped her, shattered her mind, and drove her to fling herself from a fifth-floor window continue to walk the streets of Europe, entirely shielded from justice. They faced zero consequences. She faced the death penalty.

These were the last words that her grandmother said to Noelia: “I love you, my girl; someday we will be together again.”

The fate of Noelia Castillo stands as a single almost perfect, undeniable illustration of everything that is broken, evil, and actively suicidal about modern Western society under progressive, woke, open-border, and secular-left governance. Progressive Europe has functionally and legally decided that native European women and girls are a disposable commodity, just collateral damage in the grand suicidal project of multiculturalism.

I write every piece on this Substack independently, and it’s only possible because of reader support. If you want to help keep this work going, consider becoming a subscriber.

Noelia Castillo’s story began when the Spanish government decided that a struggling Christian family was an entity to be dismantled rather than supported when they needed it the most.

As a vulnerable teenager, Noelia lived in Barcelona with her parents and her grandmother. Akin to countless working-class families across a rapidly economically unstable Europe, her family experienced severe financial hardship. In a traditional European society, financial struggles are met with community support, charity, the intervention of the Church, and social policies designed to keep the family unit, the fundamental building block of any surviving civilisation, intact.

However, under secular-left governance, the state views the traditional family with inherent hostility. Financial hardship was immediately weaponised by the authorities as a convenient pretext to intervene and claim ownership of the child.3

The terrifying brutality of the state’s intervention cannot be overstated. To remove this vulnerable teenager from her home, the Spanish police deployed twelve armed officers. Twelve officers were dispatched to physically tear a crying, terrified teenage girl away from the desperate, weeping arms of her mother and grandmother.

The progressive state possesses the infinite capacity, funding, and willingness to deploy overwhelming force against impoverished native citizens who pose absolutely no physical threat. The state will send a heavily armed dozen to destroy a family over financial struggles. Yet, as the subsequent chapters of Noelia’s life cruelly elucidate, that exact same state apparatus will suddenly become entirely paralysed, blind, and pacified when tasked with protecting that same girl from actual, violent, predatory criminals. The twelve officers who ripped Noelia from her grandmother were nowhere to be found when she was screaming for help in the dark.

The Slaughterhouse of Multiculturalism

Having violently separated Noelia from the protective, loving environment of her family, the Spanish government assumed total legal and moral responsibility for her safety. The state placed her in a government-supervised “teen shelter” for unaccompanied minors.4 However, under the suicidal dictates of modern open-border policies, these facilities have ceased to be safe havens for local orphans or troubled domestic youth.

The shelter Noelia was forced into was overwhelmingly populated by unvetted Muslim migrants.5 The elites of Western Europe have spent over two decades facilitating the mass importation of military-age males from the Third World, flooding local communities and state institutions with populations that hold deeply ingrained demographic, cultural, and religious hostility toward the host nation.

It was within the walls of this taxpayer-funded, state-supervised facility that Noelia Castillo experienced the ultimate horror. She was brutally gang-raped. The violence was absolutely horrific, she was first assaulted by three men, and then subsequently violated by even more.6 The disgusting savagery of a pack of men hunting and violating a vulnerable girl inside a government institution is an atrocity that should have brought the entire country to a standstill. It should have resulted in immediate arrests, severe criminal sentences, and a total overhaul of the immigration and shelter system.

Continues…

Justice in Oz’s Multicultural Police State

/12 Comments/in /by

Nationalist activist Joel Davis granted bail after 133 days in isolation for Telegram post

Nationalist activist Joel Davis has been released on bail after spending 133 days in solitary confinement in an unsafe and dilapidated Sydney prison for an alleged Telegram post.

Mr Davis, 31, was arrested at a Bondi café on November 20 and charged with “using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend” for allegedly urging his followers to “rhetorically rape” federal MP Allegra Spender, and was refused bail on three previous occasions.

He appeared in the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday where he applied for bail again in front of Justice Natalie Adams, who found he did not present an unacceptable risk to the community, and ordered his release from Long Bay Correctional Complex.

Justice Adams imposed almost 20 bail conditions, including that Mr Davis not be in possession of a smart phone, not use social media or encrypted devices or apps, report to police three times a week, and not contact or approach Ms Spender or NSW Liberal leader Kellie Sloane, who the court heard he had also allegedly posted about on his Telegram channel.

Mr Davis is also banned from entering the MPs’ electorates of Wentworth and Vaucluse in Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs, and from going within 100 metres of their offices, and must take part in a program run by the NSW Court Chaplains’ Association.

He will be required to reside with his mother in Sydney’s west, and Justice Adams told the court she would not have released him to his previous residence in Bondi, in part due to alleged online comments about the Jewish community.

The court heard Mr Davis was now facing nine new charges laid on March 20 in relation to the post, and that if the case went to a trial before a jury in the District Court it could occur as late as the “backend of 2027”.

In handing down her decision Justice Adams noted that Mr Davis had spent more than four months in “onerous” and “unusual conditions” in custody, and that he had only had one visit since his arrest on November 20.

“Because of his suspected political affiliations he’s being kept in segregation and hasn’t been outside since the 24th of December and is only having a shower once every four days,” she told the court.

Mr Davis’s barrister Sebastian De Brennan, assisted by Sheena Swan for Paladin Lawyers, told the court it was his client’s first time in custody, that he missed the birth of his child, and that his experience behind bars had been “salutary” and made him “examine how he expressed his views”.

Mr De Brennan presented a report from a psychologist who stated he that while Mr Davis has not changed his beliefs he has reflected on how he communicates them, and assessed that Mr Davis was a man on the “precipice of change”.

Barrister Sheridan Goodwin for the Crown asked the court to refuse bail, arguing that Mr Davis “posed a risk to the emotional safety of other individuals”, and that there was an unacceptable risk he would reoffend or “incite others” to make similar social media posts.

But Justice Adams found the risk of “breaches to social cohesion” could be ameliorated by the strict conditions she imposed, and that the evidence before her suggested Mr Davis would comply with the conditions.

“The applicant holds extreme political views and had expressed them in the past, but it seems to me the applicant may have changed his mindset, he is now the father of a young baby, and is going to have to live with missing the birth for rest of his life,” she told the court.

She told the court that while Mr Davis knew he was due to become a father at the time of the alleged offending, the birth was a “pro-social factor that should help him comply with bail conditions”.

Justice Adams further found that all of his current charges, including for a belt buckle with an eagle on it in South Australia and for “hate speech” in Victoria, related to his former membership of the National Socialist Network.

“[The NSN] is now disbanded, so that platform no longer exists,” she told the court.

She also noted that in a police interview after his arrest Mr Davis had insisted that he and his former organisation were “non-violent except in self-defence”, and that he had no history of violence.

The court heard Mr Davis’s alleged post was made in response to Ms Spender calling for him and other then-members of the NSN to be jailed for a protest against Jewish lobby influence in Australian politics outside NSW Parliament on November 8.

NSW Police last week confirmed in a note to parliament that the protesters broke no laws during the rally, which they approved beforehand.

Header image: Left, right, Joel Davis at demonstrations in Melbourne and Syddney (supplied)

 
Justice Natalie Adams NSW Supreme Court
 
Stephen Wells Telegram post on Joel Davis’ release on bail:
[2/04/2026 8:40 PM] Stephen Wells Triggers Everyone: I am conflicted about Joel Davis being granted bail today. On the plus side he is out, he will be free from the horrendous treatment he was subjected to in prison. 133 days in solitary confinement is over. He has abiity again, to get sunshine on his face, have a shower every day. Read books. All things that were denied him. He gets to see his baby son for the first time since he was born and his partner and mother of his child.

On the negative side of the equation are the bail conditions imposed upon him and the fact that to refuse to accept those bail conditions would have meant rotting in that jail cell until the end of 2027, which is how long it is estimated it will take before all of his bullshit charges make it to trial.

From the Noticer:

“Justice Adams imposed almost 20 bail conditions, including that Mr Davis not be in possession of a smart phone, not use social media or encrypted devices or apps, report to police three times a week, and not contact or approach Ms Spender or NSW Liberal leader Kellie Sloane, who the court heard he had also posted about on his Telegram channel.

“Mr Davis is also banned from entering the MPs’ electorates of Wentworth and Vaucluse in Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs, and from going within 100 metres of their offices, and must take part in a program run by the NSW Chaplains’ Association.
He will be required to reside with his mother in Sydney’s west, and Justice Adams told the court she would not have released him to his previous residence in Bondi, in part due to alleged online comments about the Jewish community.”

The only Bail condition that was appropriate was that of not contacting or posting about Ms Spender. This is the alleged victim of the alleged offence and is the only person who should be taken into consideration by the court.

Everything else that the Court has imposed is nothing less than an actual rape (not a “rhetorical” one) of the British based justice system for the purpose of deliberately silencing an opponent of the Government for an extended period of time.

This is the same thing that was done to me last year. Another bullshit charge and a trial date dragged out for months on end with bail conditions that would have silenced me whilst I waited for the system to get around to holding it.

Sign the bail conditions, or rot in jail with your presumption of innocence made into a sick farce.

I chose to rot. 110 days before the bullshit charges were dropped. Joel has already spent 133 days in jail before he even was given the option to take or refuse bail.

What would you do?

I expected that if the prosecution in my own case would have carried their nonsense to trial I would have had to wait about seven months in jail. In the worst case scenario a year. Joel’s trial is estimated to take nearly two years for the court and the prosecution to get off their corrupt and disfunctional backsides and do their jobs.

Its a disgrace. Its an outrage. Its a dysfunctional system that is less fit for purpose than the cesspool of a medieval prison than Joel was left to rot in. There can be no justice if an accused has to wait months or years in prison before he can receive it.

This situation is systemic for every accused person in the justice system, not just political prisoners like Joel or myself. On my last day in prison I shared a cell with a man who had been waiting 5 years in remand prison to go to trial on a murder charge.

Ask yourself, what if he’s innocent?

In political cases the prosecution knows it can make up any bullshit charge it likes and silence or jail the accused with impugnity. The verdict of the trial is irrelevant. The maximum jail sentence for the offense Joel is charged with is two years in jail. The maximum jail sentence for loitering for me was three months jail and for displaying “a symbol associated with Nazi ideology”, one year jail. I spent nearly four months in maximum security prison.
[2/04/2026 8:40 PM] Stephen Wells Triggers Everyone: My 15 co accused were silenced for the same amount of time, before the publicity around our cases became too politically damaging to continue the charade with and all charges were just dropped.

There has been no apology. No compensation. Just continued injustice.

I spent 4 months in jail without trial, but it could have been a year. Joel could have also faced just as much time in jail waiting for his trial as the maximum penalty for being convicted of the charge.

So what would you do if something like this happened to you? I ask you again.

Would you walk back on the things youve said to try and get out of jail as soon as possible, as Brandon Koschel did? Would you not compromise on your political beliefs but accept bail conditions that will silence you for months or years anyway, like Joel has done? Or would you sacrifice your freedom and rot in jail for as long as it took, like I did?

My personal circumstances were much easier than those of Joel or Brandon. If you believe you would follow my path, just know that when my wife begged me to take the bail conditions and come home, I nearly broke. As far as I know, neither Joel or Brandon held my views about defiance regardless of the cost, before they were jailed, either. Many people, including some friends with my political views just think I was nuts! So think twice before saying you would choose my path (even though I believe in it).

The Government’s new hate speech and hate group laws have penalties of up to 15 years in jail for bullshit. No different to the bullshit charges against Joel, Brandon, Tom Sewell, Jacob Hersant, Jim Roberts, myself or any other political dissident jailed for their views in this country over the last 5 years.

What is the best way to deal with the injustice?

Some argue that get out of jail at any cost is the best way to respond. That coerced confessions and retractions are meaningless and that its tactically better to just lie and tell our enemies what they want to hear. Get out of jail. Go home. See your loved ones again. You achieve nothing behind bars.

I argue for absolute sacrifice and defiance regardless of the cost. The smaller the thing the enemy wants from me and the greater the punishment for defying them, the more defiant I want to become. Easy to say. Potentially soul crushing to follow through with.

Others argue somewhere in between. A balance between pragmatism and idealism. Weigh up the pros and cons in each situation and then decide.

Whatever path you think you will choose, dont judge others for their choice. Until you are sitting in a cell yourself with your loved ones outside, you just dont know how it will affect you. Evaluate your choices now though, before you are arrested for some bullshit thing you might say one day. Because more and more people are going to be arrested on bullshit charges in the years to come and the penalties are only going to get harsher. Best to at least try and decide how you want to respond before hand.

Mark Wauck: Two Federalist articles on birthright citizenship

/in /by

Birthright Citizenship At The SCOTUS

Yesterday the Birthright Citizenship case was argued before the SCOTUS. Trump was in attendance. In my opinion this is a very important case, but lots was going on in geopolitics so I wasn’t able to follow the arguments. I still don’t have that amount of time, but I did see that Jonathan Turley’s takeaway was that there didn’t appear to be a clear majority. This is understandable. Notions of citizenship have deep roots in history, but the age of easy travel has changed a lot of things. I’m not suggesting that we should ignore Common Law notions of citizenship and sovereignty but, by the same token, we can’t ignore developments in travel. The history of constitutional amendments should also suggest to us that treating amendments that were passed in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War as dispositive for large issues of citizenship is probably misguided. In general, these matters are probably best left to the Legislative and Executive branches, in principle—no matter how they’ve screwed these things up in the past.

The Federalist ran two articles yesterday that may be useful resources for readers on this issue, at least as starting points.

In the first article, Clarence Thomas offers some common sense on the appropriate weight the Court should place on what the 14th Amendment has to say. It’s true that the 14th has traditionally been interpreted—for 150 years or so—to allow birthright citizenship. But reasonable people should be able to see that that is not a self evident interpretation:

If SCOTUS Upholds ‘Birthright Citizenship,’ It Will Do So At Its Own Peril

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on the Trump administration’s challenge to the decades-long practice of interpreting the 14th Amendment to allow foreigners to obtain American citizenship simply by being born within the boundaries of the country. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of this view, allowing any foreigner circumstantially (or intentionally) born on U.S. soil to be automatically adopted into the Union as a citizen, it will mean the end of actual American citizens taking the high court seriously.

As Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out, the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to black people and freed slaves after the Civil War. Making the point further, Thomas asked, “How much of the debates around the 14th Amendment had anything to do with immigration?” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer noted that there was very little, if any, which suggests that the intent of the 14th Amendment was never to be the international migration boondoggle it has become.

While Thomas appeared to recognize that reality, it was difficult to tell where the rest of the court stood on the issue at times — except for the other reliable conservative, Justice Samuel Alito.

The emancipation of African American slaves—non-citizens who had been present in the US for generations—presented an obvious and urgent problem. The same can hardly be said for modern birthright citizens.

The second article references the SCOTUS case that is usually claimed to be definitive: Wong Kim Ark (1898). It also takes John Roberts to task for an ill considered quip, while offering what I consider to be an intelligent critique. The exchange between U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer went approximately like this:

Sauer: The 14th Amendment world is not the same world that currently exists. “Eight billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who is a U.S. citizen.”

Roberts: It may be a “new world, it’s the same Constitution.”

Dear Justice Roberts: The ‘Same Constitution’ Would Never Authorize Anchor Babies

Originalists are supposed to ask what the Constitution’s words were understood to mean at the time they were adopted. The idea that the framers of the 14th Amendment would have understood the amendment to grant birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens or customers of a birthright tourism company is risible because such problems did not exist — they are indeed part of a new world. Retrofitting the 14th Amendment to cover unprecedented circumstances is not originalist.

A few decades after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court issued a decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The case involved a man born in the United States to Chinese parents who were not citizens but were legally residing in the United States. The court ruled in his favor. But the case did not rule on whether children born to parents illegally residing in the country are granted citizenship, nor did it rule on whether the children of temporary visitors who come to the U.S. via birth tourism companies to give birth and then return to their native countries satisfy the criteria for citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

Extending the 14th Amendment — or Wong Kim Ark’s holding — to apply to millions of illegal aliens’ children is not originalist by any standard. If the original meaning of the text is supposed to be the guide — and the original text did not in any way foresee mass illegal migration or birth tourism — then it’s not originalist to broaden the scope of the amendment to fit the current political circumstances.

The Constitution has not changed — nor is that the debate. The debate is whether the current application of the Constitution reflects what the framers originally had in mind when drafting it.

There are multiple complicated factual issues involved in immigration law. That’s exactly why the SCOTUS should not be in the business of applying broad brush, ideologically inspired—with little grounding in history—one size fits all “solutions”. For better and/or worse, that should be the province of the elected representatives of American citizens—which SCOTUS justices are not.

Paul Craig Roberts: A Delusional President

/2 Comments/in /by

A Delusional President

Paul Craig Roberts

President Trump’s 19 minute speech tonight was an extraordinary collection of blatant lies and fantastic delusions.  He repeatedly claimed over and over that Iran was decimated.  So why isn’t the war over?  Why does it have to continue for another month?  

Trump addressed no issue.  He did not acknowledge that it is US and Israel’s radar sites that have been decimated along with American bases.  He did not acknowledge that Israeli-America has run out of interceptor missiles, and that Poland, a NATO ally, has refused Trump’s pressure to release the US missiles systems in Poland to Israel.

The facts on the ground are that Israel and US bases on the Persian Gulf are defenseless and cannot stop incoming Iranian missiles that strike at will.

Does Trump really think 19 minutes of hot air can hide the tremendous defeat that Trump has suffered from starting a war that his own hand-picked Chairman of the Joint Chiefs advised him against as the US lacked sufficient munitions to continue the war more than a few weeks?

Many hoped that tonight Trump would declare victory and with the war declared won pull out and go home.  Apparently, the powerful Israel Lobby was able to prevent Trump from extricating himself from the trap in which he foolishly placed himself.

Tonight Trump presented the world with an a delusional American president divorced from reality.  Will anyone notice–certainly C-Span’s commentator Matthew Kroenig did not–or do they, like Trump, prefer delusion to reality?

 

Poland refuses to lend Patriot missile systems for Iran war 

https://www.rt.com/news/637004-poland-refuse-us-patriot-request/