General

Give Us The Money! Harvard Fights for Us All

/in /by

Give Us The Money! Harvard Fights for Us All

Amid the boredom of a non-Christian pope’s death and the media’s obsession with the Signal messaging app, I found myself reading about Pearl Harbor this week. It seems that as hell rained down, Marines, sailors, firemen and civilians grabbed their guns and began firing wildly in the sky at the Japanese planes.

And none of those pilots was given due process.

Obviously, the traditional history of Pearl Harbor is all wrong. It’s not about a sneak attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet. The real story is that there was ZERO due process. Americans just shot at the pilots on the theory that they were enemy aliens, but with no proof, certainly no proof that would satisfy a New York Times editor.

Not only that, but none of the Japanese pilots was given a lawyer, and there were no hearings whatsoever and no official adjudication of their guilt. I’m sure one or two of those pilots was, “Maryland Man,” “Tennessee Man” or “Ohio Man.”

Where’s the ACLU? They’ve been asleep at the switch for decades on this denial of constitutional rights. Let me tell you, if Chris Van Hollen had been alive, he would have raised bloody hell.

That was the day democracy died.

At least we can count on Harvard University to stand on its constitutional rights. As President Trump revs up a fleet of Brinks trucks to take away all of Harvard’s money, I came across some documents proving that the Framers anticipated the exact situation Harvard is in right now.

I’m going to be making the documents public soon, but it’s blindingly clear that both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were insistent that if an educational institution with a $50 billion endowment, teaching anti-White history and being led by a beclowned plagiarist president, asks for multiple millions of taxpayer dollars, that request shall not be denied.

The accidentally deleted 11-1/2th Amendment would have read: “Harvard University shall be given as much money as it wants,” and be colloquially known as the “Unf-ngbelievable Entitlement” clause.

Debate over the 11-1/2th Amendment led to some of the biggest brawls in Philadelphia (until the Eagles won their first Super Bowl), with Hamilton arguing that such a provision would be the dictionary definition of “chutzpah,” and Madison countering that Harvard would be so steeped in Jew-hating that it wouldn’t know what the word meant.

This is precisely the argument Harvard has made in its brief. Not merely that they are insisting on our money, but that they have a “constitutional” right to it, referring to the college’s “defense of its own constitutional freedoms,” and accusing the government of “punish[ing] Harvard for protecting its constitutional rights.”

Yes, exactly. It’s right there in the 11-1/2th Amendment.

The “Unf-ngbelievable Entitlement” clause doesn’t spell it out, but, as I know (and Harvard knows), under no circumstances does it apply to Christian colleges, like Bob Jones University. Only committed anti-White universities, like Harvard. Because of Bob Jones’ appalling, fundamentalist reading of the Bible and the Tower of Babel to prohibit interracial dating, the school was stripped of its tax-exempt status in 1970, and the IRS’s ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court, 8-1.

The court found that, “underlying all relevant parts of the [IRS] Code, is the intent that entitlement to tax exemption depends on meeting certain common law standards of charity — namely, that an institution seeking tax-exempt status must serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established public policy.”

Meaning, of course, that Harvard may openly discriminate against Whites, promote mediocrities based on their not being White, hire incompetents and reject qualified applicants, entirely on the criterion: “white or not-white?” — and none of that is contrary to established public policy. Do not bore me with citations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Inapposite! We’re talking about Harvard.

As Sen. Van Hollen — surely, the Democrats’ current leading candidate for president — has demonstrated, it’s not that hard to stand on principle. You just need unparallelled courage and a Mad Libs booklet.

I will fight for …

[horses, my friends, the Knicks, MS-13 gang members]

Van Hollen: MS-13 gang members!

because they are …

[deserving, pretty, undemanding, domestic violence abusers]

Van Hollen: domestic violence abusers!

who are in …

[trouble, love, the doghouse, our country illegally].

Van Hollen: our country illegally!

In the face of Trump’s approval rating soaring with every planeload of illegals he sends to El Salvador, Democrats have hit on the perfect response.

COPYRIGHT 2025 ANN COULTER

Collapse of the Legacy Media

/4 Comments/in /by

THE ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA IS CRUMBLING 🚨 For DECADES they’ve CONTROLLED the narrative, MANIPULATED the facts, and SILENCED alternative voices! Now Trump’s White House is TRANSFORMING how Americans get their news and the OLD GUARD is TERRIFIED! This changes EVERYTHING! Read… pic.twitter.com/tAdf7aameC

— Next News Network 🇺🇲 (@NextNewsNetwork) April 23, 2025

The Corrupt Stacey Abrams: Those Lucrative Green Non-Profits so Loved by the Biden Administration

/in /by

The Remarkable Rags-to-Riches Story Of Stacey Abrams

By her own admission, Stacey Abrams has made a number of “personal financial missteps” in her career. Despite a history marked by bill collectors, tax liens, and ethics investigations, the Georgia politician and Democratic Party activist has managed to amass a small fortune – while working most of her career in the not-for-profit sector.

Financial records show that when she first entered statewide politics in 2018, she reported a net worth of less than $109,000. By 2022, the last year she had to publicly file a financial report, it had grown to more than $3.2 million. Abrams is probably even better off than that, thanks to her latest venture: Rewiring America, which uses federal funds to provide low-income people with free electric appliances.

It’s just the latest in a string of investigations involving Abrams, who has presidential ambitions, and nonprofits she’s launched. Last month, Georgia lawmakers announced a special probe into her New Georgia Project and its fundraising arm, which failed to report millions of dollars in contributions and spending tied to Abrams’ first gubernatorial bid. She’s also been accused by ethics watchdogs of personally misusing political donations raised for her campaigns.

“I’ve always been concerned about her leveraging public service to enrich herself,” William Perry, who formerly led the Georgia chapter of liberal Common Cause, told RealClearInvestigations. Perry, who developed a thick file on Abrams while investigating money in Georgia politics for 15 years, said he knows of no other candidate for statewide office with more documented cases of ethics violations than Abrams.

Although Abrams’ career has been pockmarked by financial problems and ethics investigations, she has never been charged with a crime. Instead, her career illustrates the often cozy and remunerative relationship between political insiders and government entities that discharge public dollars. In previous articles, RCI has reported on the connection between those close to the Democratic Party and Biden administration green energy grants.

Continues …
..

Neocon David Brooks wants a “civic uprising” to preserve the Establishment

/3 Comments/in /by

David Brooks: “What’s Happening Is Not Normal. America Needs an Uprising That Is Not Normal.”

As a card-carrying member of the liberal-left, substantially Jewish elite, neocon David Brooks of the very Establishment New York Times is worried, and rightfully so:

We live in a country with catastrophically low levels of institutional trust. University presidents, big law firms, media organizations and corporate executives face a wall of skepticism and cynicism. If they are going to participate in a mass civic uprising against Trump, they have to show the rest of the country that they understand the establishment sins that gave rise to Trump in the first place. They have to show that they are democratically seeking to reform their institutions. This is not just defending the establishment; it’s moving somewhere new.

Sorry, it’s really defending the establishment that he so dearly loves. Basically, Brooks thinks that the progressive establishment went too far:

Many [universities] have allowed themselves to become shrouded in a stifling progressivism that tells half the country: Your voices don’t matter. Through admissions policies that favor rich kids, the elite universities have contributed to a diploma divide. If the same affluent families come out on top generation after generation, then no one should be surprised if the losers flip over the table.

In other words, a civic uprising has to have a short-term vision and a long-term vision. Short term: Stop Trump. Foil his efforts. Pile on the lawsuits. Turn some of his followers against him. The second is a long-term vision of a fairer society that is not just hard on Trump, but hard on the causes of Trumpism — one that offers a positive vision. Whether it’s the universities, the immigration system or the global economy, we can’t go back to the status quo that prevailed when Trump first rode down the escalator.

So Brooks hopes to get rid of Trump by modifying some of the reasons why Trump succeeded in getting elected. Like Biden/Harris as they prepped for the election, after allowing millions of illegals in, they will promise—PROMISE—to stop illegal immigration. Of course, they will refuse to deport anyone—even gang bangers by continuing to “pile on the lawsuits” from anyone who has the temerity to think that illegals don’t have the same rights embedded in the Constitution as American citizens. And if they get the power, they will enact an “immigration reform” bill that will radically increase legal immigration.

They will never abandon their bastions of power in the universities (and the legacy media). And deep down they love globalism which has made so many of their people wealthy and able to basically buy elections (hence the power of the Israel Lobby).

The liberal-left elite that has run the U.S. at least since the 1960s is deeply worried, and for good reason. They understand that the legacy media has lost most of its credibility after the Covid lies, the never-ending wars, and their attempts to engineer a replacement of the formerly dominant White population. And they understand that they are vulnerable—that the universities and the legacy media have lost much of their influence and that people are tuning into alternative media like podcasts and websites like this. And they realize that there is plenty of non-Jewish money to fund elections.

Sorry Mr. Brooks, the times they are a-changin’.

 

About The “Incipient Crisis” In Little Rock: The aftermath of President Eisenhower sending in federal troops is not a model of success.

/1 Comment/in /by
Bottom line:

What lesson do we draw from the “incipient crisis” in Little Rock? In my view, courts lack the power to solve all problems. Even where there is jurisdiction and law on their side, judges run out of authority. Despite what Brown said, the Warren Court couldn’t integrate schools. They barely tried after Cooper. That task fell to district court judges and federal civil rights enforcement. Decades later, consent decrees were still in force.

About The “Incipient Crisis” In Little Rock

in Reason

Today the Fourth Circuit denied the government’s motion for an emergency stay in Garcia v. Noem. Here, I will not focus on the merits of the appeal. Rather, I want to highlight how Judge Wilkinson’s opinion invokes a defining moment from the Civil Rights Era:

It is in this atmosphere that we are reminded of President Eisenhower’s sage example. Putting his “personal opinions” aside, President Eisenhower honored his “inescapable” duty to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education II to desegregate schools “with all deliberate speed.” Address by the President of the United States, Delivered from his Office at the White House 1-2 (Sept. 24, 1957); 349 U.S. 294, 301 (1955). This great man expressed his unflagging belief that “[t]he very basis of our individual rights and freedoms is the certainty that the President and the Executive Branch of Government will support and [e]nsure the carrying out of the decisions of the Federal Courts.” Id. at 3. Indeed, in our late Executive’s own words, “[u]nless the President did so, anarchy would result.” Id. . . .

It is, as we have noted, all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis, but it may present an opportunity as well. We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.

Judge Wilkinson treats the story of the Little Rock 9 in a very John-Roberts fashion: it tells a beautiful story about judicial supremacy where everyone did what the federal court said, and everything worked out for the best. The history tells a different story.

The general story of the Little Rock Nine is known, but the legal posture is not. Randy and I discuss this history in the essay on Cooper v. Aaron in 100 Cases. Please watch the video to catch up. Eisenhower’s speech is in there.

[Summary:]

In 1955, the Little Rock, Arkansas, school board approved a plan for gradual integration. However, the so- called “massive resistance” spread to Arkansas. Citizens approved an amendment to the state constitution that opposed Brown and desegregation. Based on that amendment, a state court judge issued an injunction against members of the Little Rock school board. They were ordered to stop the implementation of the federal court’s integration plan at Central High School.

In response, a federal district court issued an order to block the state court injunction. The situation escalated quickly. Governor Orval Faubus ordered the Arkansas National Guard to prevent black students from entering Central High School. The National Guard blocked nine African- American students — known as the Little Rock Nine — from entering Central High School. Neither Faubus nor the National Guard were bound by the previous court order, which only applied to members of the school board. The situation then escalated further. A federal court enjoined the National Guard from blocking access for the African- American students. In response, the Little Rock Police Department replaced the National Guard. The police had not been included in the prior court order that bound the National Guard.

Two days later, in one of the most dramatic moments of the Civil Rights movement, President Eisenhower dispatched the 101st Airborne Division to Arkansas. “Mob rule cannot be allowed to override the decisions of our courts,” he said. This storied division of U.S. Army paratroopers had fought its way across Europe in World War II and held its ground at the Battle of the Bulge. Now its troops were deployed to Little Rock, Arkansas where they escorted the Little Rock Nine into Central High School. Throughout the remainder of the year, the students attended class under the supervision of federal paratroopers.

Even after the federal intervention, the opposition to the desegregation plan did not subside. As a result, the district court granted the school board a thirty-month extension to integrate Central High School. The judge found that a delay was warranted, because the integration plan had caused “chaos, bedlam, and turmoil” in Little Rock. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s judgment because the school board did not advance a sufficient basis to suspend the integration plan.

Shortly before the start of the semester, the Supreme Court convened for an emergency hearing. The question presented in Cooper v. Aaron was fairly narrow: Was the thirty- month extension given to the school board consistent with Brown’s requirement to integrate with “all deliberate speed”? During oral arguments, the lawyer for the school board told the Court, “It was certainly not anticipated at the time [the] plan was formulated that the Governor of the State of Arkansas would call out troops to keep integration in the schools from taking place.” Therefore, he claimed, a delay was warranted. The school board simply needed more time to deal with the unexpected circumstances. The Court was not persuaded by his argument. Chief Justice Earl Warren asked the attorney, “Can we defer a program of this kind merely because there are those elements in the community that will commit violence to prevent it from going into effect?” Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the delay was not permissible: “The constitutional rights of respondents are not to be sacrificed or yielded to the violence and disorder which have followed upon the actions of the Governor and Legislature.” In an unprecedented showing of unanimity, each of the nine Justices signed the opinion.

This history teaches several lessons.

First, President Eisenhower dispatched the troops in 1957, about a year before the Court’s decision in Cooper v. Aaron (1958). (My article on the myths of Cooper should be useful reading now.) The 101st Airborne did little to stop the massive resistance to integration. Indeed, the troops had to escort the black students to school every day to protect them from mobs. Eisenhower’s action did little to stop the “anarchy.”

Second, the federal district court judge in Little Rock thought it best not to integrate the high school due to the chaos, and instead favored a thirty-month pause. Appellate judges who were not close to the judge sought to dictate the path forward. Which level of the judiciary was acting with the right amount of judicial humility?

Third, even after Cooper v. Aaron, Central High School did not integrate. Rather, the school simply shut down. Indeed, throughout the South, schools, swimming pools, and other institutions were closed or transferred to private ownership to avoid federal court injunctions.

What lesson do we draw from the “incipient crisis” in Little Rock? In my view, courts lack the power to solve all problems. Even where there is jurisdiction and law on their side, judges run out of authority. Despite what Brown said, the Warren Court couldn’t integrate schools. They barely tried after Cooper. That task fell to district court judges and federal civil rights enforcement. Decades later, consent decrees were still in force.

We need to take a sober assessment of the power of the courts. As I’ve said many times, a constitutional crisis is a coin with two sides: what are the courts doing, and what is the executive doing? Not all of the blame can be placed on one coordinate branch of government.

IQ Matters: Low-IQ Troops in the Vietnam War Paperback (2015)

/6 Comments/in /by
In 1966, President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara were desperate to find additional troops for the Vietnam War, but they feared that they would alienate middle-class voters if they drafted college boys or sent Reservists and National Guardsmen to Vietnam. So, on October 1, 1966, McNamara lowered mental standards and inducted thousands of low-IQ men. Altogether, 354,000 of these men were taken into the Armed Forces and a large number of them were sent into combat. Many military men, including William Westmoreland, the commanding general in Vietnam, viewed McNamara’s program as a disaster. Because many of the substandard men were incompetent in combat, they endangered not only themselves but their comrades as well. Their death toll was appallingly high. In addition to low-IQ men, tens of thousands of other substandard troops were inducted, including criminals, misfits, and men with disabilities. This book tells the story of the men caught up in McNamara’s folly.

Emil Kirkegaard: Bad blog posts and their costs

/4 Comments/in /by

Subscribe to Emil Kirkegaard’s Substack.

Case Decker

It’s time for another unpopular post, but the principle is right.

During human history, there has been a very large number of civil wars, coups, and state collapses due to political turmoil. During those times, two or more opposing factions started killing each other once they gave up trying to live together in peace. Sometimes political elites were assassinated. This is not unusual at all. Going from a peaceful time to a turbulent time meant that members of the various political factions started preparing for violent action, whether this involved an attempt at hostile take-over of the country (say, the French revolution), or some kind of secession (say, the American revolution). Here’s what American political polarization looks like right now:

And it’s not merely people saying they hate members of the other political faction, it’s those with guns who especially think so:

You can find more similar surveys to this one. So it might appear that the US is headed for civil war again and it makes sense to start preparing for this, such as by acquiring a gun and getting training. Further steps could be taken, but those would probably be illegal (such as having contingency plans on who to assassinate in case violence breaks out). Economics PhD student Nicholas Decker wrote a blogpost about this, from his left-wing or anti-Trump perspective. He thinks that Trump is getting close to achieving dictator status and Democrats should start preparing for war (When Must We Kill Them?):

What remains for us to decide is when we fight. If the present administration wills it, it could sweep away the courts, it could sweep away democracy, and it could sweep away freedom. Protest is useful only insofar as it can effect action. Our words might sway the hearts of men, but not of beasts.

If the present administration chooses this course, then the questions of the day can be settled not with legislation, but with blood and iron. In short, we must decide when we must kill them. None of us wish for war, but if the present administration wishes to destroy the nation I would accept war rather than see it perish. I hope that you would choose the same.

Combined with his profile showing he is a gay, queer-flag, Ukraine-flag, open borders guy:

This post sparked an outrage online, and apparently even a visit from the Secret Service. The content of the post is certainly protected speech in the USA, and no legal action was taken to my knowledge. Clearly, this is the kind of post that, although the author is clearly not well mentally, it is worth fighting back the MAGA horde on. No one needs free speech for opinions that are popular, only unpopular opinions need free speech. Apparently, Decker was stupid enough to post his address online, and some people contacted his landlord and got him evicted. Others were asking how they could give him money, but Decker stood firm on his universalist morality beliefs and suggested people give money to charity instead:

He eventually caved to pressure and made a gofundme (it has 4k USD as of writing).

While, I don’t agree with his beliefs in general or about Trump administration, I think he behaved well in this case, so I tweeted in support:

Naturally, this resulted in me also getting swarmed by MAGA supporters. I think it is worth replying to their various points.

Point 1: But the landlady was reasonable in evicting him

I agree, and it was presumably legal too because the contract has a clause about “Endangering the peace and quiet enjoyment of the property.”. Clearly, landlords should act to protect their own property and that’s not something we can fault them for much. My tweet only faults people for getting some unwell student evicted for writing an unwise blog post. Do we really want to live in a society where one has to worry about one’s rental agreements for writing blogposts? This is not a good society to live in.

Point 2: But the left would do it to you.

I am sure they would. Leftists have been harassing me for years with various large media (e.g. British Guardian, Danish Politiken) and even German national news running pieces trying to involve me in their current political thing (I don’t have anything to do with German, Danish, or American politics). However, the principle stands. The goal is to avoid escalation and violence. In the great scheme of things, I don’t see how getting some student evicted (briefly, since he has been given many new options) helps American political polarization.

Point 3: It’s war-time and everything is fair game.

It’s not war-time yet (hopefully never). And even if it was war-time, this target is rather unimportant.

I think the world would be a better place if:

  1. People like Nicholas Decker could write a vague blogpost about potential violent actions in the case of civil war could live in peace and not get evicted.
  2. Anyone else could write blogposts, engage in politics, or do science without worrying about getting debanked, stalked, fired etc.
  3. Americans and others found new ways to love their neighbors with other opinions than their own.
  4. We could have less violence, more tolerance of divergent opinions, more trade and technological progress in general.