Supreme Court Apprentice (Season 2)

10 07 2018

Washington, D.C.

Guten Abend aus Karlsruhe.

First off, just how do you pronounce Karlsruhe, anyway?

Because Lemay has a street by that name, people in and near the area have had the necessity to try to pronounce it.  And they just about always say Karl-Shrew.  Which means that how I learned to say it, and how I’ll pronounce it until the end of my days, in spite of the fact that, as of today, I now know better.  In reality, it’s pronounced more like Karl-Screw-It. Or more accurately, Kaaah-rel-screw’d.

Onward and upward.

The winner of Supreme Court Apprentice Season 2 is:

Hunter Wallace, of Occidental Dissent.

Sure looks like him, though, doesn’t it?

ICYMI, Neil Gorsuch won Season 1.

Strange the way it worked out.  Because Trump’s announcement was in the middle of the night for me, I knew I’d have to wait until I woke up, checked my tablet, to find out who the winner was.  Having to see a man about a horse woke me up in the middle of the night, and after I did, I checked the tablet, and saw this photo on Drudge, and thought of Hunter Wallace.  But before I could fully grok the name, I fell right back to sleep.  When I woke up for good this morning, there was an internet service outage that affected the Strasbourg hostel where we stayed that night and the night before.  And the way things worked out, it wasn’t until mid-afternoon, by then we already headed north through the Alsace and seen Lauterbourg, (a representative small Alsatian town), then crossed back into Germany, and made it into Karlsruhe in the blink of an eye, that we had lunch, and I used the public WiFi finally to find out with my full capabilities of comprehension that Brett Kavanaugh won.  You’re hired.

The whole irony of it?

Karlsruhe is where the German Supreme Court is based.

This isn’t the only time this trip has engaged in cosmic ironic trolling of your Blogmeister — But, once again, for the travelogue.

The German Supreme Court — Bundesverfassungsgericht — Is based in a very nondescript new-ish plain unremarkable building that’s next to the Karlsruhe Palace, and in fact, fronts to the same entrance courtyard of the Palace and abuts the same parkland and botanical garden. Nobody would think that this out-of-sorts building hosts a crucial government function in Germany just by looking at it if they already didn’t know or couldn’t translate long ass German compound run-on words, and I would have never guessed myself had our particular tour guide told us.  While the “Bundes” to start the Court’s name was a hint, my first guess, based on place, was that it was some German government agency for botanical and plant research or preservation. In contrast to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is in the city where one would expect it to be, and in a building that looks like important public functions take place inside. So why did the German Supreme Court get stuck in this tacky glass shack in front of a bunch of flowers in Karlsruhe of all places?  (I hope none of the judges have allergies.) I have my own theory, which I’ll save for the travelogue.  (Hint:  Think of a power that the German Supreme Court has that the American Supreme Court does not.)  Needless to say, I don’t buy the official explanation of Karlsruhe and not Bonn (West Germany days) or Berlin (reunified Germany) because of the avoidance of politics. After all, German elected politicians have to elect for Supreme Court judges, no matter where those judges work. If the U.S. Supreme Court was based in San Diego, but had the same nomination/confirmation procedure they do now, it would be stupid to think that they’re in San Diego to avoid political influence.

Now, back to the home side of The Big Ocean, I saw a story in my feed reader maybe about a week ago that feminist women wanted to start a Lysistrata campaign, to have women deny sex to pro-life men. That’s all rooted in the fear that now that Anthony Kennedy has retired and a Trump appointee will replace him, that Roe v Wade could be overturned. I think they have no reason to worry, because the President who appointed Kennedy’s replacement doesn’t exactly have a reputation as a rock-ribbed social conservative for one, a SCOTUS with nine Scalias wouldn’t overturn Roe these days for two, and for three, even if SCOTUS did, legal aborticide has the political wind to its back because rich white Republican women in blue cities/counties/states and their simp husbands make the crucial marginal difference, which in turn means within 24 hours of any SCOTUS reversing Roe, there would be passed and signed Federal legislation removing aborticide from the jurisdiction of the Federal judiciary and hard wiring it as a penumbral Fourth Amendment privacy right.  Kavanaugh has already tipped over his hand that he would keep Roe, for four.

But this business about denying sex to pro-life men: First off, the kind of women who are campaigning for that are the kinds of ugly hags that nobody is checking for, meaning they’re already living the Lysistrata life. That’s like saying a cat is going to give up lettuce for Lent. Second, pro-life men won’t have to worry about not getting sex, because they already get sex from their pro-life wives. And then I have to see all this bullshit that Lysistrata style campaigns have made a difference. Where? When? Mind you, Lysistrata the play was just that, a play, a fictional work, not representative of something that really happened in Athens during the Peloponnesian War. In the real world, both Fifth Century B.C. and Twenty-First Century A.D., women really put out to warriors. The Lysistrata thesis has not yet ever been tested, and probably never will be.

Oh boy, I bet you all have really missed my red pill dispensation for all these weeks.

Side notes:  Kavanaugh succeeded Harriet Miers as White House Staff Secretary in the Bush 43 White House.  Miers, in case you don’t remember, was Bush’s failed false-start crony pick for SCOTUS, and when she flamed out, Bush appointed Sam Alito.  Kavanaugh is Yale Law, so this pick does not break the Harvard-Yale duopoly on the Bench.  My civic pride had me rooting for Raymond Gruender, and while he’s on the permanent Trump “long” short list for open SCOTUS slots, I saw in the days leading up to the winner being revealed that he was not on the “short” short list for this slot.  Immigration patriots seem to be really raving positively about Kavanaugh, but I think that no matter who Trump would have picked out of his Federalist Society-curated “long” short list grab bag, one would be just as good as the other on the kind of immigration matters to which SCOTUS grants cert.  The Federal Appellate Courts tend to get way more into the weeds on immigration matters than does SCOTUS.

Advertisements




A Time For Growing Up

29 01 2017

Your Blogmeister’s Desk

One of the Orange-Crowned God-Emperor’s many decrees from his first week after ascension.

First off, this is no surprise.  The Mexico City Policy gets enacted and reversed with every change of political party in the Presidency.  In the particular case of the most recent change, Trump is probably conceding this as horse trading for when he never approves of cutting off domestic public funds to Planned Parenthood.

Predictably, some of us here in Pepetown are having a fit.  You know how that goes:  ZOMG NO BIRTH CONTROL FOR BLACK AFRICA THEIR POPULATION WILL EXPLODE LOL~!!!!!1!1!!1

First off, ordinary forms of birth control aren’t part of the Mexico City Policy.

Second, even with or without the Mexico City Policy, concerns about a population explosion in black Africa are moot.

That leads me to the real meat of this missive.

It’s time for our side of the aisle to do some serious growing up about these things.

For the purposes of the rest of this post, I will include aborticide, abortifacient drugs, contraceptives and prophylactics in the definition of birth control, and I have to qualify that because there are gradations and nuances in the sociopolitics of the matter.  Some object to all forms, some object to abort-* only, some object to none of them.

It does not matter if there are any religious objections to birth control.

It does not matter if there aren’t any religious objections to birth control.

It does not matter if there are any ethical objections to birth control.

It does not matter if there aren’t any ethical objections to birth control.

It does not matter if there are any secular objections to birth control.

It does not matter if there aren’t any secular objections to birth control.

It does not matter if there are any moral objections to birth control.

It does not matter if there aren’t any moral objections to birth control.

It does not matter if every form of birth control is free of charge for every end user on Earth.

It does not matter if the above is not true.

We could literally make it rain birth control, including free coupons for those procedures at the aborticide mill, and all the other forms of birth control, too, in every populated place on Earth, and it would make virtually zero difference anywhere.

The people who we wish would use it won’t use it.

Because they want to procreate.

Why?

Educated guesses include:

(1) Economic.  More children equals more gibs of some sort.  Foreign aid, welfare checks, child support, general pity and sympathy giveaways.  In some cases, procreation is the young woman’s only viable career track.

(2) Evolutionary.  For almost the entire history of the existence of identifiable black African peoples, they were on and off teetering on the verge of extinction.  It behooves such a people to be more r in the r-K life history spectrum, which means reproduce like they vote in Chicago, early and often.  The natural pressures which threatened their existence were not ameliorated until relatively recently, and evolution needs a little bit of time to catch up.

(3) Psychological.  A big tent that includes such explanations like, “I want a baby so that I can have someone that loves me.”  Or, “I want to be able to prove that some man loved me so much that he was willing to run up in me raw, because I’m otherwise so homely and hideous.”  Some women are such bitches that they want the kid so they can manipulate the legal paradigm of the child support system to use it as a weapon in their contempt for the child’s father.  A few of us in Pepetown have speculated that NAM women are on a subconscious level waging demographic warfare against white people by jettisoning birth control and giving birth, and it’s plausible enough to take seriously, even though I think there are better fits.  The history of mass immigration shows that immigrant women will have large broods to paper over their homesickness, their TFR is only temporarily high for that reason, and future generations will regress to their ethnic median, both the ethnic TFR median back in their home country and among their coethnics in their new country.

The Mexico City Policy is a meaningless piece of paper, except for the NGOs that directly benefit from it not being enforced, which is the only reason why there’s any row at all, because those NGOs and their allied sociopolitical fellow travelers can do a lot of stuck pig squealing that gets amplified by the narrativemongers’ megaphones.

The only way to get the kind of people who we wish to use birth control but won’t to use it is to force them to use it.

Good luck with that.

It is virtually impossible in the current political climate for there to be any governmental-based and -enforced or any quasi-governmental (QUA/NGO) -based and -enforced, restrictions on the fecundity of reproductively-capable girls and women that happen contrary to their wishes.  The reason is that any such restrictions are assumed to be necessarily hooked into the precepts of eugenics, racial enmity and the suggestion of genocide, and they will call up allusions to Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, Jim Crow, Segregation, Apartheid, and Slavery.  Furthermore, one of the officially accepted definitions of genocide is engaging in either state or quasi-state action that precludes the births of babies for their mothers’ or parents’ racial or ethnic lineage.  (“Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.”)

What this means is that, until we get over this Hitler paranoia, any talk about forced birth control is blowing smoke out of our dark places.





Nina Burleigh Redux

4 10 2016

Manhattan; Brooklyn; Washington

Yahoo:

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd says that the momentum behind the women’s movement took a hit during President Bill Clinton’s scandal-plagued years in the White House.

“Feminism sort of died in that period,” Dowd told Yahoo News Global Anchor Katie Couric on Monday. “Because the feminists had to come along with Bill Clinton’s retrogressive behavior with women in order to protect the progressive policies for women that Bill Clinton had as president.”

It’s just a fancy way of the more blunt way that Nina Burleigh put it in 1998 to Howard Kurtz in the WaPo:

I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.

You know, I was alive in 1998, and for the previous years of the Clinton Presidency.  Not only was I alive, I was coherent and well paying attention; Clinton was first inaugurated just a few months before my 16th birthday, and the Burleigh quote was a few months after my 21st.  And you know, I don’t remember any acute or any actual threat to legal aborticide during that time period that B.J. swooped down wearing his SuperCigar cape and heroically beat back.  I was just as WTF Nina when I first read the story with that quote as I am now.

The only conceivable substantive way that there was a “threat” to legal aborticide was that Bill Clinton appointed Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court early in his administration, and the guess is that if George H.W. Bush had won re-election and been the one filling those seats, that the Federal judicial politics of the aborticide issue would have had a way different history from 1994 to the present.  But I doubt it.  The other way to explain this is that social issue leftists are a paranoid lot; they think that everyone is out to get them and deprive them of their “rights,” and will latch on to the flimsiest and most ridiculous evidence to justify their mindset.

Put this all together, and what Couric, Dowd and Burleigh mean by “progressive policies for women” means nothing more than a Democrat being President.





Too Much Irony to Unpack

9 08 2016

Manhattan

nation-abort-ferguson

As if irony was a skyscraper, this is ironic on so many levels.

Including for the fact that Planned Parenthood’s official Twitter account tweeted a link to this.

Though there’s no need to wax too philosophical here.  This is nothing more than the aborticide people trying to piggyback on the BLM cause, as for all intents and purposes, BLM is now the straw that is stirring the left’s entire drink.  “The vessel through which all progressive causes can flow.”





Lawfare, Confirmed

31 07 2016

Houston

Let’s see if the news of the withdraw of all charges becomes as big of a national media story as their initial filing.

Let’s see if the DAs are called out for their abuse of power.

Answer to the first question:  No, because narrative.

Answer to the second question:  It’ll happen the same day Marilyn Mosby is punished.





Hide This News From NARAL

26 04 2016

Chicago

Because it’s just a non-viable tissue mass.

Crickets from the “ZOMG WE MUST RESPECT SCIENCE 1000% OF THE TIME LOL~!!!!!1” crowd.





A Time For Kidding

31 03 2016

Manhattan

There’s no reason for Trump to obfuscate or fumble.

We all know he’s pro-aborticide in his heart, while for the purposes of political expediency, he would pursue a moderate-right position on the matter as President, meaning generally pro-life but allowing for exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, and that he also holds a triangulatory position on the Planned Parenthood matter.