Natural Born Citizen? Obama and the Fourth American Revolution, Part Two

/127 Comments/in /by

The Sovereign People as Higher Law-Making Authority

For decades now, progressive constitutional scholars such as Professor Bruce Ackerman have long urged the Supreme Court to recognize the higher law-making voice of the sovereign people.  Obama’s second term will provide the Court with the ideal opportunity to do just that; indeed, his entire life story reads as if it had been crafted as a hypothetical problem in a constitutional law examination on the natural born citizenship issue.

If the sovereign people decide that issue in Obama’s favour, the already threadbare claim that the American republic is a historic nation grounded in the shared blood, language, and culture of a homogeneous people will have lost its sole constitutional mooring.

Once the citizenship status of the President no longer matters, it is difficult to see how immigration patriots can object to the future extension of the political and civil rights now associated with citizenship to all immigrants, legal or illegal.

Birthers fear that Obama’s successful re-election amounts to a constitutional amendment by stealth.  Many portray Obama’s putative Presidency as a criminal conspiracy.

But the campaign to re-elect Obama is much more than an undercover conspiracy to deceive the American people. Read more

Natural Born Citizen? Obama and the Fourth American Revolution, Part 1

/34 Comments/in /by

Introduction

Old-stock Americans need to understand the metapolitical significance of the Presidential election in 2012.  On a strict reading of the Constitution (i.e., in accordance with the “original intent” of the framers and as described more fully below), there can be little doubt that Barack Hussein Obama has never been eligible to the Office of President.

During the 2008 election campaign neither the GOP candidate Senator John McCain—whose own eligibility had been questioned as a consequence of his birth in Panama—nor the globalist mainstream media had the incentive or inclination to compel candidate Obama—so obviously a progressive and cosmopolitan   citizen of the world—to establish that he is a natural born American citizen as required by Article II, section I of the Constitution.

But such negligent disregard for foundational constitutional norms is no longer surprising among political, corporate, and legal elites in the United States.  Already in the early Eighties, when I was a graduate student at Harvard Law School, such formalistic constraints were being reduced to fossilized irrelevance.  Decades of legal realism combined with the nascent critical legal studies movement to foster the legal amnesia implicit in the progressive ideal of the “living constitution.”

Three decades on, bien pensant contempt for “originalism” is even more deeply entrenched upon the commanding heights of the Constitutional Republic.  We can be sure, therefore, that the apparently “unconstitutional” re-election of putative President Obama will not be a story of politics as usual.  It will mark instead yet another momentous turning point in American constitutional history; namely, the inauguration of the Fourth (Transnational) Republic. Read more

Sheldon Adelson: Israel and Immigration

/134 Comments/in , , /by

VDARE.com’s Patrick Cleburne has a nice article on Sheldon Adelson (“Has Romney Sold Immigration Policy To Sheldon Adelson?“), the billionaire who has emerged as the largest single donor in the current presidential campaign, promising up to $100 million for the Republicans. After supporting Gingrich in the primaries, Adelson has thrown his considerable weight behind Romney. We all know what that money buys: fealty to Israel. Throughout the campaign, Romney and Gingrich competed on who would be more slavish to Israel; Gingrich must have seemed slightly more reliable to Adelson, but Adelson must have been impressed with Romney as well.

There is no question about Adelson’s support for the most racialist and nationalist elements in Israel. Adelson owns an Israeli newspaper that supports PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s hard right Likud government. And there can be little question of where his loyalties lie. He has stated that he wishes he would have served in the Israeli military rather than in the US Army, and that he wants his son to grow up to “be a sniper for the IDF.”

All we care about is being good Zionists, being good citizens of Israel, because even though I am not Israeli born, Israel is in my heart. … All we care about is being good Zionists, being good citizens of Israel, because even though I am not Israeli born, Israel is in my heart,” he said toward the end of his talk.

I was surprised to read that Senator John McCain, referring explicitly to Adelson, complained that foreign money is entering the US presidential election race. This seemed too good to be true, and it was. It turns out that he was only making the point that a lot of Adelson’s money comes from his casino operations in Macau. What McCain should have been saying loud and clear is that Adelson is for all practical purposes a citizen of Israel with no demonstrated loyalty to the US and that he should not be allowed to influence the US political process.

But he won’t.  Read more

“Careful reflection” about having children: Christine Overall and Paul Ehrlich

/160 Comments/in /by

Christine Overall, a philosopher at Queen’s University in Ontario, writing in the New York Times, says we should think long and hard before we have children. Accoring to her website,  her expertise is ” feminist philosophy (especially questions about gender, sex, sexuality, trans identities, disability, age, or socioeconomic class),” so it’s not hard to guess her politics. An exemplar of the contemporary academic culture of the left, rewarded with prestigious titles and an op-ed in the Times promoting her book. Just the thing for liberals to be seen reading at the beach this summer.

The title of her essay  is “Think before you breed.” The word ‘breed’ in the title, perhaps bestowed by a New York Times op-ed editor, is a clever way to link human reproduction with our animal natures in a negative way. Breeding is what animals do. Unthinking and brutish. Humans must strive to get above all that and do the right thing. One is reminded of the common label of “breeders” bestowed on heterosexuals by homosexual activists.

Overall opines:

The question whether to have children is of course prudential in part; it’s concerned about what is or is not in one’s own interests. But it is also an ethical question, for it is about whether to bring a person (in some cases more than one person) into existence — and that person cannot, by the very nature of the situation, give consent to being brought into existence.  Such a question also profoundly affects the well-being of existing people (the potential parents, siblings if any, and grandparents). And it has effects beyond the family on the broader society, which is inevitably changed by the cumulative impact — on things like education, health care, employment, agriculture, community growth and design, and the availability and distribution of resources — of individual decisions about whether to procreate.

So we get the image of educated White people earnestly and anxiously weighing the pros and cons of procreation. Will it stress the health care system? Will the community be too crowded? Is it good for Africa? Read more

Review of Jack’s War: Through the Gates of Hell

/90 Comments/in /by

Jack’s War: Through the Gates of Hell
by C. C. Conrad
CreateSpace, May, 2012; 188 pages

Jack’s War  is the latest effort at White advocacy through the medium of fiction. It is confessedly a work of propaganda; as one of the book’s characters observes: “propaganda is really no more than an effort to convey one’s point of view to another.” The novel is authored by C. C. Conrad, with editorial assistance from Kevin Strom.

The title character is Jack Corr, an all-American boy who grew up to serve in the Air Force. His plans for a career are interrupted when he meets the love of his life, Libby Springfield. As the book’s afterword explains, the character of Libby is intended to represent White people “as we could and should be in the future—provided of course that we apply proper evolutionary and eugenic principles to our lives.” The description of this ideal feminine type is not my cup of tea, but the book is not primarily intended as a love story in any case. Read more

Not just a Religion

/53 Comments/in , /by

Not just a Religion: The American psychologist Kevin B. MacDonald observes Judaism from the perspective of evolutionary psychology 

Thorsten Thomsen, editor of, Hier und Jetzt, reviews the German translation of Separation and Its Discontents

Translated by Tom Sunic

Absonderung und ihr Unbehagen. Auf dem Weg zu einer Evolutionären Theorie des Antisemitismus
Kevin MacDonald
Libergraphix, Gröditz 2011, €22.80

Introduction, by Tom Sunic

Much has been written and said in TOO about the self-constrained, self-contained and self-censored intellectual and cultural life in today’s Germany. In the modern Federal Republic of Germany, a state that officially brags about being “the freest of all states in Germany’s history,” even a minor politically incorrect joke can cause somebody a lot of legal troubles, something (as of now) inconceivable in the USA. In this sense the recent appearance of a classy, scholarly, right-wing nationalist quarterly in Germany, Hier und Jetzt, containing over 150 well-illustrated pages, feels like a breath of fresh air. What follows below is the review by Thorsten Thomsen of Prof. Kevin MacDonald’s book Separation and its Discontents in its recent German translation. Thomsen’s review of MacDonald’s book was published in # 18 of the Spring issue of the journal this year. Mr. Thomsen’s language and style, reproduced here in the English translation, may give a brief hint to an American reader about the overall political, intellectual and rhetorical climate in today’s Germany.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The psychologist and professor Kevin B. MacDonald from California State University has the reputation of being a “controversial” scientist in the USA. Controversial because his published research does not please certain influential circles and earns him therefore the sweeping label “unscientific.” Therefore, the high- flying American society cannot add up MacDonald to the circle of its friends, similar to a colleague of his, J. Philippe Rushton—also dubbed “controversial”—or the other authors who write in his journal The Occidental Quarterly, such as Tom Sunic and Alex Kurtagić, or the British psychologist and IQ researcher Richard Lynn. Read more

Johan Galtung on Jews

/494 Comments/in , , , , /by

Johan Galtung

Johan Galtung is a prominent Norwegian academic, the founder of the field of peace studies and author of more than 100 books and more than 1000 scholarly papers. He has also been officially labeled an anti-Semite as a result of recent statements, at least some of which are sensible.

Galtung believes that historical anti-Semitism is based at least partly on Jewish behavior: On the rise of anti-Jewish attitudes in Germany during the 1920s,  he says that it was “not unproblematic that Jews had key niches in a society humiliated by defeat at Versailles.”

He distinguishes between predicting anti-Jewish behavior and justifying it: “In no way, absolutely no way, does this justify the atrocities. But it created anti-Semitism that could have been predicted.” In the same way, he argues that medieval pogroms were motivated by the role of Jews in usury: “The Jews played a role in demanding payment from indebted peasants.”

This of course violates the dogma that all anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior are completely irrational—the result of things like Christian religious ideology or individual psychopathology—rather than reality-based conflicts of interest. In the modern world, Galtung claims that “the Jews control U.S. media, and divert for the sake of Israel.”

“Six Jewish companies control 96% of the media,” wrote Galtung. He included the names of journalists, publishers, TV networks, and movie studios, that he claims are controlled by Jews. Media mogul Rupert Murdoch was also included on the list. “He’s not Jewish, but many of the people under him are,” wrote Galtung, in reference to Murdoch. “Many of them are fanatically pro-Israel,” he pointed out. Immediately following these claims, Galtung wrote that “seventy percent of the professors at the 20 most important American universities are Jewish.” Galtung bases his doctrine on an article written by William Luther Pierce, founder of the “National Alliance,” a white supremacist organization.

In a later article defending his position, Galtung provides some great quotes, as from Ruth Wisse of Harvard: “to young Jewish journalists, that they should not ‘see themselves as seekers after wisdom and truth, but as part of the Israeli Defense Forces’ (13/02/12).”

The  issue of the loyalty of American Jews is a canard?? Read more