That is precisely the kind of Wordist attitude that the Constitution could not operate in. The Constitution uses a system of checks and balances where personal preferences are allowed because the different branches of government will keep each other in check. The final appeal was to the people.

But when the WWII Generation took power, there was no “people.” They were all Americans. The people did not have any existence except as Good AMERICANS. So they had to appeal to a Federal Branch to tell them what Good Americans were.

Whereas the Tenth Amendment made it specific that the final appeal would be to the people or the states, Good Americans do not see any separate entities of this kind.

So the World War II Generation’s Final Appeal is to the Federal Courts.

Why should one Julio get five times the wages of another Julio because he has papers?

When the Immigration and Naturalization Acts were passed in 1921 and 1923, it was decided that America was made up of a certain people, and immigration would keep that identity. Calling something illegal immigration made sense, since those laws followed a racial and cultural policy.

But for a melting pot, where the choice of citizens is openly random, no one can really take the word “illegal” seriously. In terms of American policy today, nothing about you matters except the papers.

The documents.

The term “undocumented worker” should be “undocumented citizen.” A bumper sticker ought to say, “I’m not a citizen, I’m just documented.”

Our borders are collapsing because we have declared they no longer make any sense.

A melting pot cannot be selective.

I have not been elected Pope, though I came within a hundred votes every time.

So on to copyright law.

Almost anyone who does a lot of writing, as I hope you will, has concerns about copyright law. One of the jokes I tell goes this way:

“The Bible is the best selling book, by far, in all of history. In fact it is by far the best-selling book on earth every single year.”

“If the Jews are such great businessmen, why the hell didn’t they COPYRIGHT it?”

In other words, the idea of copyrighting the Bible was a joke to me.

Which shows how little I know about lawyers.

I found out recently why there are so many honest differences about the wording in the Bible Back when I was a by and snakes still had feet, “the Bible” where I came from meant the St. James Version. There was also a CATHOLIC Bible. But these were both far too old to have any copyright.

Then came The Revised Standard Version of the Bible, which my conservative kin referred to as “The Communist Bible.” The Revised Standard Version came with a copyright. Strictly speaking, when you quoted it you were in violation of the law.

The law allows you what is called the “fair use” doctrine, which allows you to quote text without permission up to a certain number of words. “Fair use” makes provision for reviewers and so forth, but like all legal concepts, it is not nailed down specifically. You can’t just take a chapter out of a famous author’s book and use it to sell your anthology, for instance.

In the case of most copyrighted books you get permission or you get sued. But all over the web you will find comparisons of huge slabs of the Bible from different versions, most of which are still copyrighted. The fact is that the people holding the copyright COULD sue but they DON’T. After all, the ostensible purpose of retranslating The Book is to spread it.

All this is fairly recent news to me. It may be to some of you.

More clear evidence of the blessings of diversity!

This link is the FBI’s wanted list, for violent crimes – murders:

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/fugitives/vc/murders/vc_murders.htm

And this is the FBI’s wanted list for violent crimes, additional (meaning other than murder, I guess):
?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/fugitives/vc/additional/vc_additional.htm

ME:

Please note that the mot waned include one who comitted “Murder with a Deadly Weapon” and one who is charged with”Murder and Failure to Appear.” I wonder if anyone but me finds anything to mull over about these?

What all that airport security guarantees is that if a terrorist wants to take over a plane, everyone on board is absolutely helpless against him.

The hundreds of thousands of people who have held concealed weapons permits for over a decade now have a MUCH better record with their guns than ANY police agency does. If you ever saw one permit holder do something stupid with his gun it would be on the front page coast-to-coast.

How many times have you seen or seen it reported the POLICE used their guns recklessly?

Why is this true?

Police work often destroys the nerves. A permit holder is not subject to the constant pressure a policeman is.

Ask any police psychiatrist whether every policeman he knows is fit to be armed twenty-four hours of every day.

They are all REQUIRED to be so armed. Look at THAT before you panic over “Letting citizens carry guns.”

If terrorists are enough of a threat to make strip-searching grandmothers and all the rest necessary, the simple fact is that permit holders are demonstrably FAR less dangerous than that.

And even the possibility of ONE permit holder with a gun would destroy all the plans a terrorist can make.

I was, as everyone always does, taking it from the wrong end.

In the real world courts must decide on cases which involve more than one country. They have no choice. There is nothing theoretical about it. The courts in each country must pick its own precedents. American judges use a lot of British precendents and vice-versa, since both have a basis in the Common Law.

It had not occurred to me before I took the course that such cases HAVE to be decided, and the result is called international law, thought it is not international.

We have a similar problem with regard to interstate relations in the United States. The Constitution requires each state to give “full faith and credit” to the laws of other states. In other words, if one state allows homosexual marriage every other state must recognize it.

But they don’t. Since the beginning states have refused to extradict people convicted of criminal acts to the states where they were convicted.

There is the provision for full faith and credit, but there is no ENFORCEMENT mechanism. “Full faith and credit,” like international law, is a guideline, not a law.

If the Supreme Court told the president he had to use force to make one state extradict to another he would do it. Today the courts rule absolutely. But historically that was not the case.

When America extradicts a murderer from abroad, it has to guarantee the country extradicting that the nice guy will not face the death penalty here. Massachussetts can and probably will do exactly the same for murderere who escape there.

In Massachussetts the state supreme court decided that it didn’t like the state law that required that people cannot be married unless they are of different sexes. No other state accepts that.

In the United States you can be legally married to two different spouses. About 1945 North Carolina decided it would not accept Nevada’s easy divorce law. In fact until 1948 there was NO divorce law in SOUTH Carolina.
The court had no way to force North Carolina to accept Nevada divorces. So a man who was divorced and remarried in Nevada remained married to his original wife when he was in North Carolina but he was also legally married to his new wife in Nevada and states that accepted Nevada law.

As a matter of fact tens of thousands of people were and are legally married to two different partners in the United States. If any of them contracted a gay marriage in Massachussetts, they would legally married to three different people.

Under international law, America in general did not accept the easy Mexican divorces, even Nevada. So you could have your fourth spouse down there.

In case you think this is pure theory, remember that a person married to an American citizen has the right to permanent residence in the United States.

Here is a person married to an American citizen in half the states but not in the other half. If both wives are foreigners, which one gets the permanent visa?

Which gives you an idea of what international law looks like.

The right “hides behind the first amendment.”

This is hte official language used in the media. So Holocaust deniers who do their denying on the internet are, according to official media language, “Hiding behind the first amendment in the United States.”

In plain English, that means that they avoiding the years in prison that they deserve.

But the first amendment isnot a very safe hiding place.

Many years ago the Supreme Court decided that treaties are not subject to constitutional guarantees. The treaty that established the United Nations is exempt from the Constitution.

In case you think this is a detail of history, Senator Bricker of Ohio fought for years for his constitutional amendment which would overrule the Supreme Court and make treaties subject to the United States Constitution.

They are NOT.

So the first amendment does NOT protect you from extradition to Europe for internet Holocaust denial. The UNited Nations, which is exempt from the first amendment, has demanded it.

Under present so-called constitutional law, which means whatever the Supreme Court feels like, the United States is obligated to extradict any person to France if he violates French Holocaust Denial law.

Or Israeli Holocaust denial law.

If that were NOT the case, the Bricker Amendment would have passed. Bricker fought for it a LONG time. It’s the real thing.

It happens to be true that if the United Nations declared worldwide gun control, the United States is obligated to obey.

It happens to be the case that if the United Nations says that Americans accused of war crimes by Sweden must be extradicted, what we call constitutional law requires us to do it.

And when the UN gets wround to THAT, the conservatives will start screaming, just as they did with Roe versus Wade, “How could THIS have happened?”

These things ALWAYS start with “a blow against racism” like the 1968 Supreme Court decision voiding all state antimiscegenation laws. The conservatives ALWAYS fail to notice it.

Then it ALWAYS comes home to roost.

Like other European countries, Austria requires that anyone extradicted to the United States be guaranteed to be exempt from capital punishmentand is on record as officially condemning the United States for having capital punishment.

So what respectable cosnervative has even whispered any criticism of Austria’s arrest of Irving for saying what he believes?

Nada.

Canada arrested and extradicted Ernst Zundel for Holocaust Denial to Germany. He will get six years as I understand it.

On November 1, 2005 a UN Resolution which was not voted on but passed unanimously outlaws Holocaust and requires every country inthe UN, including the United States, to extradite Holocaust Deniers.

How many respectable conservatives have mentioned this?

Nada. And they won’t.

When the cops come for them for supporting capital punishment, they will squeal as loudly as the pope did when the Supreme Court decided Roe vs. Wade.

But the Catholic wildly applauded when the Supreme Court openly declared both constitutional intent and indeed any reference to the Constitution unimportant by voiding all state miscegenation laws in 1968. That decision very openly made the Constitution anything the Supreme Court dfecides is “modern.”

Catholics are still whining about Roe vs. Wade, but do they say about the decision that gave the Supreme absolute power?

Nada. They approved it. The Church will fight for it.

So you have to be extradicted for expressing any doubts about the official version of the Holocaust.

What ARE the details you cannot deny?

Irving says about 300,000 Jews died in the Holocaust. He does not deny there was one, the way French historians almost unanimously denied the Ukrainian holocaust, the starvation where between five and 22 million Ukrainians died.

Alan Colmes has stated flatly that comparing the death of Ukrainians to the death of Jews is “trivializing the Holocaust.” So I may be subject to arrest for the paragraph above.

In Germany, if you deny that a full six million Jews died in the Holocaust, you face an automatic prison term which is not a minimum of two years. But I read an official French Government publication which states that only 5.3 million Jews “disappeared” under Hitler. That includes Madelein Albright.

This is pretty serious business. If you are to feel safe traveling in Europe, just how many Jews must you say died in the Holocaust?

They recognized that he was running against a crook.

No one cared that the crook didn’t give a damn about Louisiana or that David Duke loved and cared about the state in which he was born and raised. That didn’t matter because he dared to care about his race, too.

So they elected his opponent, knowing he was a crook and that he didn’t give a damn about Lousiana. And gthe establishment in the City of New Orleans, which had elected the integrationist Hale Boggs as its congressman long since, led the charge against Duke.

They have been electing the same kind of people ever since, people who did not care about their welfare but who also didn’t about their race, which was the only important thing. You can’t love your country and hate your race. You can’t love your state and hate your race. You can’t love your city and hate your race.

“Democracy,” it has been said, “Is a system of government where people get what they deserve.” That is tragically true.

New Orleans was afraid of what might happen to its tourist trade if Duke were elected. Thanks largely to the kind of people they elected to avoid political boycotts, the tourist trade in New Orleans will not be a problem for a long, long time.

Maybe, just maybe, something good could come of this tragedy. Maybe they are ready for a revolution in Louisiana. Maybe when the streets are drained the people of Louisiana will want a chief executive who will make them safe as well.

Duke for Governor.

James Jackson Kilpatrick pointed out years ago that the United States Supreme Court was described as “handing up” a decision. I have no way of searching this out in a reasonable amount of time.

Today the courts “hand down” decisions. They “hand down” a decision that overruled an overwhelming vote by the California plebescite against giving benefits to illegal aliens. They “handed down” decisions that enforced racial busing against the wishes of eighty to ninety percent of the public, including a majority of blacks.

Before the World War II Generation gave us Obedience Training, “We the People of the United States of America and OUR posterity” were the only purpose of the Constitution. Before the World War II Generation was obedience-trained, “We the People of the United States of America” were the only source of authority the Constitution had.

But now the guys in robes hand DOWN decisions to us. They ARE the Constitution.

We are allowed to debate questions until the guys in the black robes hand a decision DOWN to us. Then they not only make the Final Decision, they can put us in jail for contempt of court if we discuss it.

Teacher’s College Seeks to Lift Licence of Dissident Teacher

Three gruelling days of hearings are over and the farce has been adjourned until early July. It takes two hours of preparation for an hour of cross-examination. In 1997, after six years of lobbying the Canadian Jewish Congress and the League for Human Rights (well, not free speech rights) succeeded in pressuring the Peel Board of Education to fire me from my position as an English instructor, after a 24 year career, where I’d been hailed by former Director Robert Lee as an “exemplary teacher.” I had never used the classroom to preach politics. My sin was that I had expressed criticism of Canada’s lunatic immigration policies and had stood up for free speech on my own time, outside of school hours. For having been a heretic and not shown the proper respect for multiculturalism and ethnocultural equity, I was fired.

Now, seven years later, the forces of repression want to take my teaching certificate and I am again on trial for my political views.

Tuesday began with my motion to adjourn for a month. As this is a political trial, I may wish to move that one or more of the three-man Tribunal recuse themselves for political bias. Current law requires a person to raise this issue at the earliest moment. How can I investigate the panel unless I know who they are. I asked repeatedly but was denied this information until Tuesday morning. My motion for adjournment was turned down.

The Ontario College of Teachers is represented, in one way or another by four lawyers. I always enjoy even odds. There’s just me to oppose the strike force from McCarthy Tetrault, the pricy downtown Toronto firm that represents the Teachers’ College – the body that licences Ontario teachers.

Today, I got to start my cross examination of a former Department Head of mine. Her testimony was so whiney, it was laughable. She complained that my very presence made her and her leftist allies afraid and stressed. She admitted that I hadn’t preached at them or discussed my views. It seems that my very existence was an afront to them. So much for tolerance.

They feared for their lives and families, oh not from innocuous me, but from my “associates.” When asked whether my associates — members of the Heritage Front — had ever threatened her, she had to admit they hadn’t. She loves to deal in generalities and flees from specifics. She had heard — she couldn’t be sure where or when or how — that I was “linked” — they love that word — to the Ku Klux Klan. Well, had she ever seen me in a bedsheet? (I probably should have phrased that more delicately.) Well, no. Did she ever ask me about it? Well, no.

I’ll continue this report in a few days.

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

p.s. A big thanks to John and Lynda for sitting through these three days and watching my back. Even bigger thanks to my backstage lawyer who has given me the advice and the legal research to be able to mix it up with the lawyers from McCarthy-Tetrault. Thanks to all those who’ve e-mailed me with their support. Tuesday night there was a lengthy item on the CTV news and this article appeared in the Toronto Star on Wednesday. This morning, I appeared on the John Oakley radio open-line show in Toronto. All three callers, including a former student, backed my right to free speech.

.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1106693414504

On trial for views, fired teacher says
2005-01-26 07:53:20 [Education]
A Peel teacher fired in 1997 for allegedly fraternizing with white supremacists and neo-Nazi groups in his free time has pleaded not guilty to discreditable conduct. Paul Fromm, 56, who is representing himself at a disciplinary hearing before the Ontario College of Teachers, yesterday described the proceedings as “a trial of my political views.” Leslie Ferenc reports.

On trial for views, fired teacher says
Fired for alleged links to white supremacists
Now faces charges from profession‘s governing body

LESLIE FERENC
STAFF REPORTER

A Peel teacher fired in 1997 for allegedly fraternizing with white supremacists and neo-Nazi groups in his free time has pleaded not guilty to discreditable conduct.

Paul Fromm, 56, who is representing himself at a disciplinary hearing before the Ontario College of Teachers, yesterday described the proceedings as “a trial of my political views,” saying teachers have the right to express their opinions on their own time.

“You will have to make a decision about teachers and their outside political activity and if it should be censored,” he told the tribunal hearing his case.

Fromm faces several misconduct charges, including failure to maintain professional standards, not complying with college regulations and bylaws, disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional and/or unbecoming conduct, and practising while in a conflict of interest. If found guilty, he faces anywhere from a reprimand to losing his licence to teach in Ontario.

In his opening remarks, Fromm noted that of the 57 cases of alleged professional misconduct on the college’s list of discipline cases, his is the only one involving a teacher’s political or religious views. Some 90 per cent relate to inappropriate sexual acts with students, while the rest deal with such issues as theft, inability to manage a classroom and forgery of credentials.

“I’m embarrassed to be in such bad company,” he said.

Despite years of highly publicized political activities outside of work, Fromm said he kept his views to himself in class and there were no complaints about him professionally.

His request for a one-month adjournment was denied. He wanted the delay so he could do background checks on the panel members to determine their political opinions and if they would be biased against him.

Fromm said he wants to hold on to his teaching licence “as an option,” calling it “a matter of principle and honour.”

His off-duty political activities, including co-founding Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform Inc. — which, according to the notice of hearing, attacked the “principles of multiculturalism and tolerance” — did have an impact on his students, colleagues and the community, argued college lawyer Caroline Zayid. According to the seven-page notice of hearing, Fromm attended numerous political meetings over the years, including a 1990 Martyr’s Day rally. During a speech, he hailed John Ross Taylor, who promoted hatred with anti-Semitic messages taped on his phone machine, as a hero. Taylor died in 1994.

Fromm’s remarks were recorded on videotape and played yesterday. Among other things, it showed some participants giving Nazi salutes and a swastika banner in the hall.

In 1991, Fromm was at a Heritage Front meeting to celebrate Adolf Hitler’s birthday. In 1994, he attended a rally of the white supremacist group the National Alliance, where he sat on stage with former Ku Klux Klan head David Duke.

“Can a person engaged in such off-duty activity be a teacher in the first place?” Zayid said.

She acknowledged that Fromm has the right to freedom of speech, “but it doesn’t mean he can also be a teacher.”

Retired Peel District School Board superintendent Sandra Birthelmer testified that Fromm was reprimanded in 1991 for blurting out the words “scalp them” during a Toronto race-relations committee meeting, while a speaker talked about the need to curb racist groups.

Despite a warning, he continued his activities, she added.

The hearing continues today.
————-

I repeat.

Political Correctness is not like a religion, it IS a religion.

ZERO tolerance. Scorched-earth policy — no competing religious doctrine or thought allowed or unpunished.

Ex-communicate. Neutralize.

Press Release
For immediate release – January 18, 2005
Contact: B...@whyjohnny.com

The firing of the TV weatherman in Las Vegas for a slip of the tongue makes it ever clearer that Martin Luther King’s birthday is the true Holy Day of America’s state religion. Move over Jesus. Martin Luther King is now the god of America’s state religion.

In my book Why Johnny Can’t Think: America’s Professor-Priesthood I have a chapter titled “Who Is The God Of America’s Established Religion?” I explained that it was Hitler. Now I’m claiming that it is King. Am I contradicting myself?

Not at all.

In order to get Christians and those shaped by Christian values in America to change their religion, the left couldn’t immediately take them away from the worship of the good Christian God to the evil leftist god Hitler. No, they needed a “good” leftist god. That god is Martin Luther King.

Jesus taught that we were to worship God not in word, but in deed. Jesus did what He taught, He “practiced what He preached.” He was a living example of His teachings.

Martin Luther King was also a living example of his teachings. Namely, that it doesn’t matter what you do, if you articulate the right ideology.

The Pharisees worked tirelessly to catch Jesus in one little contradiction so they could destroy Him. The friends and promoters of MLK write openly about his sordid life. FBI and other government files on MLK’s private life were so embarrassing that they were officially sealed for fifty years and will probably never all be released.

G. K. Chesterton once wrote that making people accept in practice what they reject in principle is a form of religious persecution. What else is Political Correctness? None of the tenets of Political Correctness work. They have all proven disastrous over and over again. But not even the slightest deviation from PC orthodoxy is allowed from anyone.

Every day it seems, someone is being fired or attacked for the slightest gaff. A TV weatherman in Las Vegas for a slip of the tongue. Prince Harry for wearing a swastika to a costume party.

This is nothing but the meanest and most small-minded religious persecution ever witnessed on the face of the earth. The slightest infraction results in immediate damnation and eternal penance. Even Shylock would have been shocked by the mercilessness of the cult of Political Correctness.

This is the predictable result of giving college professors complete control of our educational system. The seminaries for the religion of Political Correctness are called Universities and Colleges. Every member of the media, every government school teacher, every government bureaucrat, and every corporate executive MUST attend an approved seminary and be blessed by its Priesthood.

Professors are the Priesthood of Political Correctness. The blessing bestowed is called a diploma. Academia is a completely isolated and inbred system that becomes further and further removed from reality. That is because they are not held accountable by anyone. No one demands that what they teach actually works in the real world.

Professors are tyrants. They create and bless little tyrants with diplomas, who then spread this system far and wide. We must cut it off at the root. We must DEMAND an end to the teaching of the religion of Political Correctness NOW. We PAY for these universities. They are accountable to US.

If we don’t, we will get more of the same. Early Americans held the Boston Tea Party to protest a much less preposterous outrage. Why don’t we learn something useful from our history for a change?

Robert Whitaker

RE:
TV weatherman fired over racial comment on air

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-other/2005/jan/17/518137390.html

and
“Martin Luther ‘Coon’ Day gets TV weatherman axed”

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42421

Stop Religious Persecution. Fight Political Correctness.

England’s Prince Harry committed the unpardonable sin against the de facto religion of the West. He wore a swastika to a costume party. Major media and Jewish organizations are demanding that he make a visit to Auschwitz to atone for this. In religious parlance, this is called a pilgrimage.
This type of thing is becoming a daily occurrence. French politician Jean Marie Le Pen is under criminal enquiry for the following heretical statements, about World War II:

“In France at least the German occupation was not especially inhumane, even if there were a number of excesses — inevitable in a country of 550,000 square kilometers.”

“If the Germans had carried out mass executions across the country as the received wisdom would have it, then there wouldn’t have been any need for concentration camps for political deportees.”

“It’s not just from the European Union and globalization that we need to deliver our country, but also from the lies about its history.”

Anyone who has visited Paris knows that the city did not have to be rebuilt. The Nazis despised Communists and modern art, but Pablo Picasso was able to live out the war in Paris without being arrested. And even Le Pen didn’t mention the fact that the Allied liberation of France resulted in thousands of rightists and conservatives being executed there.

Ernst Zundel, a sixty-five-year-old pacifist has been in solitary confinement in Canada for two years, as a “national security threat,” even though he has never advocated or even been accused of a violent crime. He is a “holocaust denier,” so that is all that is required to strip him of every right.

What would the world think if France or Canada were putting people in prison for denying the historicity of the gospels, or denying the existence of God? How loud would the outcry be?

Political Correctness is not LIKE a religion. It IS a religion. It is the established religion of all Western governments. Political Correctness is running a world-wide Inquisition which makes the much-maligned Spanish one look like a tea party.

G. K. Chesterton once wrote that making people accept in practice what they reject in principle is a form of religious persecution. What else is Political Correctness? None of the tenets of Political Correctness work. They have all proven disastrous over and over again. But not even the slightest deviation from PC orthodoxy is allowed from anyone.

So a twenty-year-old kid must be pilloried in the world media for wearing a costume that is verboten to a costume party. No one told him he couldn’t wear it beforehand. He is expected to know. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” is based on the premise that law is reasonable and just. A normal person can easily see where that applies to murder, or rape, or theft. This is simply the “Golden Rule.”

But how is Prince Harry supposed to “know” that wearing a Swastika to a costume party is the unforgivable sin? How are Le Pen and Zundel supposed to “know” which details of history can be repeated and which ones can’t? Is it something that is “written in their hearts” as the Bible says of Christians? Is it reasonable and just and obvious to any objective person?

Of course not. It is pure, unadulterated political propaganda. It is not written in the heart by God, but drummed into the head by the schools and the media. Religious leaders are taught in seminaries. The word “seminary” has the same root as semen and inseminate. It is where the seed is planted.

The seminaries for the religion of Political Correctness are called Universities and Colleges. Every member of the media, every public school teacher, every government bureaucrat, and every corporate executive MUST attend an approved seminary and be blessed by its Priesthood.

Professors are the Priesthood of Political Correctness. The blessing bestowed is called a diploma. Academia is a completely isolated and inbred system that becomes further and further removed from reality. That is because they are not held accountable by anyone. No one demands that what they teach actually works in the real world.

Professors are tyrants. They create and bless little tyrants with diplomas, who then spread this system far and wide. We must cut it off at the root. We must DEMAND an end to the teaching of the religion of Political Correctness NOW. We PAY for these universities. They are accountable to US.

If we don’t, we will get more of the same. If they will do this to Prince Harry, what will they do to your twenty-year-old? Where will this stop?

Early Americans held the Boston Tea Party to protest a much less preposterous outrage. Why don’t we do the same?

Download an armband to support Prince Harry. Hold a costume party of your own on a campus near you. Use any graphics where you think best.

READBOB.COM/harry/

One Big Man, a real biggie, laid out the parameters. He said, “We must only have regulations we can actually enforce.”

This was serious stuff. Everybody in the room had the necessary grave expression on his face, except for one complete idiot who just had to say something stupid. So that idiot said,

“You know, God Almighty is still trying to enforce ten.”

They laughed. I will not tell you who that idiot was.

The legal rule is that the Federal courts do not interpret STATE constitutions. So, from the point of view of Federal courts, the state constitution of Massachusetts requires gay marriage.

In 1968, twenty states had anti-miscegenation clauses in their constitutions. But the Supreme Court said that, regardless of the fact that all the states that ratified the Constitution and almost all the states that ratified the fourteenth amendment and had enforced anti-miscegenation laws, the United States Constitution did not allow anti-miscegenation laws.

There was NO question of constitutional intent in that 1968 decision. The Supreme Court made no pretense that they were interpreting original intent. They were making law, and they said so.

On the day that decision was issued, it was Federal law that constitutional intent means absolutely nothing. Unless you object to that decision, constitutional intent means nothing.

And no one dares to question it.

But in that case, the Supreme Court was interpreting the FEDERAL constitution. They agreed with state courts as the final word on the fact that state law banned interracial marriage, but they said the Federal Constitution overruled the state constitutions.

So the Massachusetts law stands.

The next question is whether a gay marriage performed in Massachusetts is valid in other states. The Federal Constitution requires every state to give “full faith and credit” to the acts of other states. But there is no enforcement clause in the “full faith and credit” statement. The Federal courts have consistently refused to enforce it.

The most important case relating to one state recognizing a marriage in another state was when North Carolina refused to recognize the easy Nevada divorce law. A person who was divorced in Nevada found that, according to the North Carolina Supreme Court, he was still married when he came back to North Carolina.

The Federal Supreme Court decided that the North Carolina decision was right, and that North Carolina had no obligation to recognize a Nevada divorce. So even today you can be legally married to two different people in two different states.

When a state refuses to extradite someone convicted in another state, that is a violation of “full faith and credit,” but they have done it hundreds of times.

So a gay couple is legally married as long as it stays inside the state of Massachusetts, and nothing less than a constitutional amendment is likely to change that.

My own opinion is that if you don’t want the courts to own the institution of marriage, you will have to condemn the 1968 decision first. And NOBODY has the guts to do that.

For many years South Carolina had rigid limitations on serving alcoholic beverages. This was a huge handicap to restaurants.

While the rest of South Carolina enforced these restrictions, there were open bars in Charleston. It is said that in the 1940s Governor Johnston (“a personal and political dry”) once called the Mayor of Charleston and told him to close those bars.

The Mayor replied, “You close them.”

That was the end of the debate. Charleston stayed wet while the rest of the state played with liquor-by-the-drink laws.

Finally a bartender in Columbia hit upon a grand scheme. He sold SETUPS. He GAVE away little liquor bottles the customer could pour into the nonalcoholic setup he bought.

A judge ruled in his favor. The judge said, “There is no law against a man giving away his liquor.”

Liquor by the drink became legal. That’s why so many South Carolina bars give you those little bottles. But this was not judge-made law. This was jury-made law.

The reason the judge made that decision was because no jury would convict those who served mixed drinks any more. The juries had repealed the law.

Exactly the same thing has happened over and over in Anglo-Saxon history. The laws on the books in the early ninteenth century still made picking pockets a capital offense, but no jury would convict because they simply wouldn’t hang a ten-year-old child.

In 1834, Andrew Jackson did what no president since had the guts to do. The Supreme Court made a decision, and Jackson said, “The Supreme Court made this law. Now let the Supreme Court ENFORCE it.”

If any President since had had that kind of courage, there would be no judge-made law.

The unique characteristic of Anglo-Saxon law is that everyone has a right to a jury trial. The legislature may have passed the law unanimously, but it doesn’t mean a thing if the jury won’t enforce it.

When I was coming up, if anyone had sold drugs on school grounds, a parent would have blown his head off, in public, with a twelve-gauge shotgun loaded with 4s.

Under the law, that was cold-blooded, premeditated, first degree murder.

And no jury would have convicted him.

Back then, nobody sold drugs on school grounds.

“We don’t stand for that!”

AOL has a feature about a girl who was grabbed on the street, screaming, and not one of the many, many passers-by even called 911, much less interfered.

They didn’t want to get involved. And for good reason. If you are street-wise and don’t interfere, you can’t get sued. You can’t get in trouble for using excessive violence.

I’ve used excessive violence.

But if you know how to exploit that, you don’t end up with a record. I tell the cops: “OK, this is one hell of a chance for me to write a press release. Let’s GO for it!”

First of all, your average cop is a decent human being. He thinks that the fact that you beat the hell out of somebody chasing some helpless person is great.

He just can’t do it.

Trial Lawyers, you know.

So the girl, prostitute, drug addict, whatever, runs and the average Street-Wise Citizen ignores her.

I will beat the hell out of her attacker. I’ve done it.

Maybe I am the last person on earth to say, “I won’t stand for it.”

What an honor!

All the preachers agree that almost the entire Jewish population in 69 AD was in Israel. Their entire attitude about Jews is based on the idea that all the Jews were driven out of Israel in 69 AD and that someday the Jews will come back to their homeland.

There were six million Jews in the Roman Empire. The total population of Israel, Samaritans included, was a couple of hundred thousand.

When I point out facts that, I show that the professors and preachers are just plain silly.

Nobody says I’m wrong. They say I am being “cynical.”

A cynic makes fun of the people he is criticizing. In almost every case, when you expose the absurdity of today’s accepted ideas, you cannot help but make fun of the people you are criticizing.

The Supreme Court strikes down laws made by Congress because the Supreme Court is the Constitution. But that same Constitution cites only one reason for the United States Government to exist. That same Constitution also cites only one authority:

“We the People of the United States of America … and OUR Posterity.”

Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter got sick of cynics like me a long time ago. Justice Frankfurter declared:

“To say that a law means what it says is a case of PERNICIOUS oversimplification.”

People like me are not just cynical. We are just plain mean.

That was about 1956. Two of the prisoners there were Tokyo Rose, a Japanese-American who had broadcast from Japan during World War II, and Axis Sally, a German-American who had broadcast from Berlin during the same period.

They used to hold plays, and in one play Axis Sally played the part of George Washington.

Alderson is a lovely place, very near White Sulfur Springs Resort.

It was off season, and my Austrian bride and I happened to be in White Sulfur Springs. It was my wife’s first Thanksgiving in America and I asked where we might get some turkey and so forth. She told us to go to a certain country club.

It turned out that one of the members of that country club had been a traveling salesman. Many times he had been away from home on Thanksgiving. So he had retired to his home town and every Thanksgiving he set out a spread and drinks for absolutely anybody in White Sulfur Springs.

We ate, we got drunk, we met everybody.

As for Martha Stewart, if she had not said her conviction was a “right wing conspiracy,” I would be on her side.

I have seen a lot of prisons from the inside. Alderson was the best of them.

A rich liberal deserves much, much worse.

This assumes that Hispanics born in the United States are loyal to their fellow Hispanics who are illegal aliens than they are to other American citizens. The vote shows that is true.

In fact, every political expert assumes that Hispanic loyalties are to Hispanics, not to America, no matter where they were born or their grandparents were born or what citizenship they hold. That is a simple fact of political life.

So the American border guards and the INS or whatever it is called now are regarded as enemies by Hispanics. Most big cities openly refuse to cooperate with Federal immigration officials or enforce Federal law because of their growing Hispanic vote.

Today the way real Hispanic loyalty shows itself is the way every other anti-white sentiment shows itself. Both liberals and conservatives look to interracial marriage as the final solution to the white problem, which they call “the race problem.”

They propose no such immigration and integration solution to any “race problem” in Asia or Africa. There is no “race problem” in non-white countries. Solving the race problem means solving the white problem, in the same sense that Hitler referred to solving the Jewish Problem.

As I say, liberals and conservatives agree that the white problem must be solved once and for all.

But liberals are more outspokenly ANTI-white, and they want to take money from the whites and give it to the coloreds. So Hispanics, like every other minority, show their loyalty by using their votes to make California a solidly Democratic state. Schwarzenegger is a fluke.

To repeat, so far Hispanics are the liberals’ Faithful Colored Companions. But as Hispanics become a majority, they are not going to stand for that Anglo border that splits the Hipanic majorities — or potential majorities — away from each other at the Rio Grande.

So far, Hispanics have been pretty meek about the whole thing. But the time will soon come when they stop being nothing but Faithful Colored Companions to white liberals.

They will start ambushing their INS enemies.

That is the next logical step after major cities have declared that the INS is the enemy.