Monthly Archives: September 2023

How About Some Reparations?

Posted on by
Reply

The lede says it.

No human remains have been found from excavations at a Canadian Indian residential school two years after allegations were made that more than 200 Indigenous children were buried at the site. In the aftermath of the claims, Canada experienced a rash of burning and vandalizing of dozens of Catholic churches.

This has occurred two years after

the British Columbia First Nation Band Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc announced that a radar survey had found “confirmation of the remains of 215 children” near the former Kamloops Indian Residential School.

As a result of that false claim, a dozen Catholic churches were razed through arson, and dozens more were vandalized. The Canadian government paid $320 million CAD ($234,320,672 USD) to Indigenous communities and an additional $40 billion CAD to those who were allegedly abused at the schools.

Minegoziibe Anishinabe Chief Derek Nepinak insists that these excavations’ results take nothing away from the difficult truths experienced by our families who attended the residential school in Pine Creek.

That’s as may be, but the smear of mass graves of 215 children is separate from that. Maybe it’s time to reclaim those $360 million CAD that were paid out on false accusations and to begin holding to account those responsible for the smear.

Just Like a Progressive-Democrat

Posted on by
Reply

Republican Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy says—and he’s actually serious—that, as President, he would deport the US-born children of illegal migrants.

I favor ending birthright citizenship for those whose parents entered the country *illegally* because we shouldn’t reward those who violate the law with the intent of exploiting the citizenship rules. The Framers of the 14th Amendment never intended this & it’s arguably not even what it says (don’t forget the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause which is often ignored). That’s common sense.

For good or ill, the 14th Amendment of our Constitution is quite clear on this. Here’s the first sentence of the first Article of that 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.

There’s no caveat, there’s no exception, for when a baby born in the United States can be ruled not a citizen of the United States—not even for when that baby is born to illegal aliens. Whether that’s a good or a bad blanket deeming of citizenship is for We the People, and only us, to decide, through our decision to amend our Constitution, or our decision not to amend it on this matter.

Arguably…. What Ramaswamy has chosen to “forget” is that the Supreme Court has ruled that that is precisely what it says. The Court also has ruled that subject to the jurisdiction thereof means being on American soil. (That’s one of the reasons al Qaeda terrorists were (and some still are) held in Guantanamo and not in a stateside prison.)

Aside from that, what’s common sense is adhering to our Constitution and statutes, not disregarding inconvenient parts.

Just like Progressive-Democratic Party politicians, though, Ramaswamy would blithely ignore any part of our Constitution that he finds inconvenient to him, instead of doing the actual work of getting an Amendment ratified—or even proposing one.

Vivek Ramaswamy: too much like a Progressive-Democrat to be an actual Republican.

It Really Is…

Posted on by
Reply

…all about the Benjamins. Minnesota’s Progressive-Democrat Congresswoman Ilhan Omar just targeted the wrong group. California’s Progressive-Democrat Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi has said out loud another bit of the quiet. In talking to Politico, she said,

You may not know this, but if you’re not a candidate, you really can’t raise money for yourself. And raising money for myself enables me to spend that on other people.
…
For the House Democrats, though, I needed to be able to still raise significant money for them as a candidate[.]

You bet. She’s channeling Jerry Maguire. Pelosi isn’t running because she thinks she has something to contribute to the House of Representatives for her constituents. Not at all.

The Cowardice of Dishonesty

Posted on by
Reply

An all too typical example is provided by climatista Patrick Brown, Johns Hopkins University lecturer and “doctor” of “earth and climate sciences.” He has confessed, now that his damage has been done, that he

“left out the full truth” about climate change, blaming it primarily on human causes, to get his study published in a prestigious science journal.

His rationalization for his lie by omission:

And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society[.]

Here is Brown confessing that he put his career aspirations ahead of his morality and his integrity. He committed his lie of omission because he was too much of a coward to stick to the whole truth; he wanted to get published prestigiously, instead of published in a lesser, but honest, journal.

Brown’s rationalization:

He blamed his angle on the pressure scientists face to get their studies published in prestigious articles and the need to create catchy abstracts that can be turned into headlines.

No, this is his cowardice. “Scientists” and real scientists only feel the pressure they choose to feel, and they make that choice because they subordinate morality and integrity to their ambition.

Sadly, those “editors of these journals” are able to get away with their own dishonesty because climatistas as a class are too cowardly, too dishonest, to go elsewhere for their publications, and too many other climatistas, even knowing these journals’ censorship, still take the journals’ articles seriously.

Queen Michelle Lujan Grisham

Posted on by
Reply

New Mexico Reina Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has said the quiet part out loud: the solemn word of a Progressive-Democratic Party politician is worthless.

Reina Grisham has taken it upon herself to completely suspend our Constitution’s 2nd Amendment, and with that, she is actively barring the open or concealed carry of firearms in her realm, even by New Mexico citizen-subjects who are duly licensed to do so.

What’s also—and possibly more broadly—dangerous is that Grisham’s suspension demonstrates her belief that her oath of office is not absolute. She can walk away from any part of it whenever that oath, or anything her oath binds her to and to do, becomes inconvenient to her and/or to her politics. Here she is as plain as can be (listen to the whole four minutes, or scroll ahead to about 2:25):

No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute.

This is what the New Mexico constitution requires in the way of an oath of office. Article XX, Section 1:

Every person elected or appointed to any office shall, before entering upon his duties, take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation that he will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution and laws of this state, and that he will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of his office to the best of his ability.

She is required to support…the constitution and laws of this state. There is no caveat giving the governor of the State an out for whenever she doesn’t feel like keeping her oath. Further, that bit about faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of his office explicitly demands that the State’s constitution and laws be enforced fully; no part of either of them can be set aside whenever they become inconvenient to the governor.

With specific reference to our Federal Constitution’s 2nd Amendment, the New Mexico governor also is explicitly sworn to support the constitution of the United States, again without exception, caveat, or instance of inconvenience.

This is the degree of integrity of the members of the Progressive-Democratic Party. Grisham has made it explicit: Party member commitments, promises, even oaths of office are utterly worthless. They—each of them—will walk away from their promises the moment that promise becomes personally or politically inconvenient to them.

Oh, and one more thing. This is what Article IV, Section 36, of New Mexico’s constitution says about impeachable offenses:

All state officers and judges of the district court shall be liable to impeachment for crimes, misdemeanors and malfeasance in office….

Grisham’s conscious, deliberate violation of her oath of office is, very clearly, malfeasance in office, and so she is plainly impeachable and convictable for her violation. However, with strong Progressive-Democratic Party majorities in both houses of the New Mexico legislature, that will never happen.