PayPal

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Questions about Evolution (Fred Reed)

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

I thank the old buddy, who just sent this to me.
 

Me, Derbyshire, and Darwin
An Excavation
By Fred Reed
July 28, 2014

jetpossum-readers@yahoo.com
Note: If emailing, do not remove the slashes that appear in the subject line as
otherwise, to avoid spam, your email will be heartlessly auto-deleted. You can
add a subject before or after the slashes.
 

Over the years I have occasionally expressed doubts over the tenets of
evolutionism which, perhaps wrongly, has seemed to me a sort of political
correctness of science, or maybe a metaphysics somewhat related to science. As a
consequence I have been severely reprehended. The editor of a site devoted to
genetic expression furiously began deleting any mention of me from his readers.
Others, to include Mr. John Derbyshire of Taki's Magazine, have expressed
disdain, though disdaining to explain just why.

In all of this, my inability to get straight answers that do not shift has
frustrated me. I decided to address my questions to an expert in the field,
preferably one who loathed me and thus might produce his best arguments so as to
stick it to me. To this end I have settled on Mr. Derbyshire.

He has the several advantages of being highly intelligent, an excellent writer,
ardent of all things evolutionary and genetic, and well versed in them. I would
profit by his instruction in things in which I am only an amateur-should he be
so inclined. (He may well have other things to do.) To this end, I submit a few
questions which have strained my admittedly paltry understanding for some time.
They are not new questions, but could use answers. I agree in advance to accept
his answers (if any be given) as canonical.

(1) In evolutionary principle, traits that lead to more surviving children
proliferate. In practice, when people learn how to have fewer or no children,
they do. Whole industries exist to provide condoms, diaphragms, IUDs,
vasectomies, and abortions, attesting to great enthusiasm for non-reproduction.
Many advanced countries are declining in population. How does having fewer
surviving children lead to having more surviving children? Less cutely, what
selective pressures lead to a desire not to reproduce, and how does this fit
into a Darwinian framework?

Two notes: (1) The answer cannot rely on contraception, which is not a force
imposed from outside. Just as people invented spears because they wanted to kill
food and each other, they invented condoms because they wanted not to have
children. The question is how that desire evolved. (2) The non-evolutionary
explanation is clear and simple. "We could have two children and a nice condo,
or fifteen and live in a shack."

(2) Morality. In evolution as I understand it, there are no absolute moral
values: Morals evolved as traits allowing social cooperation, conducing to the
survival of the group and therefore to the production of more surviving
children. The philosophical case for this absence of absolutes usually consists
in pointing out that in various societies everything currently regarded as
immoral has been accepted as acceptable (e.g., burning heretics to death).

I cannot refute the argument. However, I thnk it intellectually disreputable to
posit premises and then not accept their consequences.

Question: Why should I not indulge my hobby of torturing to death the severely
genetically retarded? This would seem beneficial. We certainly don't want them
to reproduce, they use resources better invested in healthy children, and it
makes no evolutionary difference whether they die quietly or screaming.

(3) Abiogenesis. This is not going to be a fair question as there is no way
anyone can know the answer, but I pose it anyway. The theory, which I cannot
refute, is that a living, metabolizing, reproducing gadget formed accidentally
in the ancient seas. Perhaps it did. I wasn't there. It seems to me, though,
that the more complex one postulates the First Critter to have been, the less
likely, probably exponentially so, it would have been to form. The less complex
one postulates it to have been, the harder to explain why biochemistry, which
these days is highly sophisticated, cannot reproduce the event. Question: How
many years would have to pass without replication of the event, if indeed it be
not replicated, before one might begin to suspect that it didn't happen? For all
I know, it may be accomplished tomorrow. But the check cannot be in the mail
forever.

(4) You can't get there from here. Straight-line evolution, for example in which
Eohippus gradually gets larger until it reaches Clydesdale, is plausible because
each intervening step is a viable animal. In fact this is just selective
breeding. Yet many evolutionary transformations seem to require intermediate
stages that could not survive.

For example there are two-cycle bugs (insects, arachnids) that lay eggs that
hatch into tiny replicas of the adults, which grow, lay eggs, and repeat the
cycle. The four-cycle bugs go through egg, larva, pupa, adult. Question: What
are the viable steps needed to evolve from one to the other? Or from anything to
four-cycle?

Here I am baffled. As best I can see, the eggs of the two-cycler would have to
evolve toward being caterpillars, which are enormously different structurally
and otherwise from adults. Goodbye legs, chitinous exoskeleton; head, thorax,
and abdomen, on and on. Whatever the first mutation toward this end, the
resulting newly-hatched mutant would have to be viable-able to live and
reproduce until the next mutation occurred.

It is difficult to see how the evolution from insect to caterpillar could occur
at all, or why. But if it did, it would lead to a free-standing race of
caterpillars, a new species, necessarily being able to reproduce. Then, for
reasons mysterious to me, these would have to decide to pupate and become
butterflies. Metamorphosis from caterpillar to butterfly is enormously complex
and if you don't get it right the first time, it's curtains. Where would it have
gotten the impossibly complex genetic blueprint of the butterfly?

Among intellectual loin-cloth-wearers like me, there seems no answer. I do not
doubt that Mr. Derbyshire can provide one. Upon receiving same, I promise to
shut up.

(5) You can't get anywhere else from here. Mr. Derbyshire believes strongly in
genetic determinism-that we are what we are and behave as we do because of
genetic programming. I see no flaw in this. From the baby's suckling through
walking and talking, the adolescent's omniscience, making love and war, and
cooling off with age things seem undeniably genetic.

Behavior less obviously biological also seems built-in. Political orientation,
for example. Note that conservatives usually see the world as dangerous and
life as struggle; to have intense loyalty to the pack (patriotism), to reverence
the military, to feel empathy for members of their tribe (our fallen heroes,
etc.) and none at all for enemy dead; to favor capitalism; and to be hostile to
or disdainful of other racial and ethnic groups. That these traits tend strongly
to appear together though they are logically independent suggests a genetic
basis.

In his book, We Are Doomed, Mr. Derbyshire describes the brain, correctly as far
as I can tell, as an electrochemical mechanism, and somewhat delicately hints at
chemical determinism in that organ. I see no way of avoiding this conclusion.

But again, does one not have to accept the consequences of one's suppositions? A
physical (to include chemical) system cannot make decisions. All subsequent
states of a physical system are determined by the initial state. So, if one
accepts the electrochemical premise (which, again, seems to be correct) it
follows that we do not believe things because they are true, but because we are
predestined to believe them. Question: Does not genetic determinism (with which
I have no disagreement) lead toa paradox: that the thoughts we think we are
thinking we only think to be thoughts when they are really utterly predetermined
by the inexorable working of physics and chemistry?

(That was fun. I recall Samuel Johnson's remark on the existence of free will:
All theory is against it, but all experience is for it.)

(6) The evolutionary noise level. In principle, traits spread through a
population because they lead to the having of greater numbers of children.
Consider the epicanthic fold, the flap that makes the eyes of East Asians seem
slanted. In evolutionary writings this is often described as an adaptation
either to save energy or to protect the eyes from icy winds. We will here assume
that actual studies have shown that it actually does so.

I do not understand how the fold evolved.

Unless it results from a point mutation, (and I do not think it does), it must
have evolved gradually. This means, does it not, that even a partial fold
conferred so great an advantage in survival that the possessor had more children
than their unfolded relatives.

Being as I am untutored in these matters, the idea seems ludicrous. Did the eyes
of the unfolded freeze, leaving the Folded One to get all the girls? Did the
folded conserve so much energy that they could copulate more vigorously?

While grounds can doubtless be found for dismissing the example of the
epicanthic fold, countless instances exist of traits that become universal or
nearly so while lacking any plausible connection to greater fecundity.

Here I sink into a veritable La Brea of incomprehension. Genes already exist in
populations for extraordinary superiority of many sorts-for the intelligence of
Stephen Hawking, the body of Mohammed Ali, for 20/5 vision, for the astonishing
endurance in running of the Tarahumara Indians, and so on. To my unschooled
understanding, these traits offer clear and substantial advantage in survival
and reproduction, yet they do not become universal, or even common. The
epicanthic fold does. Question: Why do seemingly trivial traits proliferate
while clearly important ones do not?

(7) The universality of the unnecessary. Looking at the human body, I see many
things that appear to have no relation to survival or more vigorous
reproduction, and that indeed work against it, yet are universal in the species.
For example, the kidneys contain the nervous tissue that makes kidney stones
agonizingly painful, yet until recently the victim has been able to do nothing
about them. Migraine headaches are paralyzing, and would appear to convey little
advantage in having more children. ("No, honey, I have a violent headache..")
Sensing pain clearly has evolutionary advantages. If you fall on your head, it
hurts, so you are careful not to, and thus survive and have more children
(though frankly I have sometimes thought that it might be better to fall on
one's head). Wounds are painful, so you baby them, letting them heal. But,
Question: What is the reproductive advantage of crippling pain (migraines can be
crippling) about which pre-recently, the sufferer could do nothing?

(8) Finally, the supernatural. Unfairly, as it turned out, in regard to religion
I had expected Mr. Derbyshire to strike the standard "Look at me, I'm an
atheist, how advanced I am" pose. I was wrong. In fact he says that he believes
in a God. (Asked directly, he responded, "Yes, to my own satisfaction, though
not necessarily to yours.") His views are reasoned, intellectually modest, and,
though I am not a believer, I see nothing with which to quarrel, though for
present purposes this is neither here nor there. Question: If one believes in or
suspects the existence of God or gods, how does one exclude the possibility that
He, She, or It meddles in the universe-directing evolution, for example?

A belief in gods would seem to leave the door open to Intelligent Design, the
belief that the intricacies of life came about not by accident but were crafted
by Somebody or Something. The view, anathema in evolutionary circle, is usually
regarded as emanating from Christianity, and usually does.

Though this column is not about me or my beliefs, to head off a lot of email let
me say that I am not remotely a Christian but a thoroughgoing agnostic, more so
it seems than Mr. Derbyshire, and my suspicions regarding Intelligent
Design-suspicions is all they are-are not deductions from Christianity but
inferences from observation. To my eye, the damned place looks designed. By
what, I am clueless.

To close, I ask these questions in a spirit of inquiry, not of ideological
warfare. Mr. Derbyshire is far deeper in these matters than I, who can barely
distinguish a phosphodiester bond from a single-nucleotide polymorphism. All I
seek are clear, straightforward, unambiguous answers devoid of the evasion I
have so often encountered. I do not doubt that he can help me if so inclined.

How Many New Yorkers Will Communist Mayor Bill DeBlasio Kill in Fires? Previously Meritocratic FDNY Now Desperately Seeks After the Most Pathetically Unfit Specimens to Pay to be “Fire Fighters”

 

MSM images of NYC Mayor Bill Wilhelm DeBlasio are photoshopped, to make him look human, but WEJB/NSU has obtained an unaltered image of the Mayor
 

Choeurlyne Doirin is being babied by the FDNY, say her colleagues; she maintains she has an injury preventing her from working harder. Photo: AP
 

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

DeBlasio isn’t hiring these people in spite of their being unfit, and in spite of that requiring his refusal to hire the fit, but because of it.

 
FDNY ‘babying’ cadet who can’t pass fitness tests
By Kenneth Garger and Daniel Prendergast
July 26, 2014 | 2:07 a.m.
New York Post
[Absolutely no comments permitted!]
 

She walked through her running tests and got winded climbing stairs, yet a physically unfit female FDNY probie was still allowed out in the field like a normal graduate — and given a year to pass, The Post has learned.

“She’s literally the most pathetic specimen of physical fitness I’ve ever seen,” fumed an academy classmate of Choeurlyne Doirin, 39, who was given a uniform and a “light-duty” assignment even though she did not graduate on June 2 with the other 286 cadets.

Prospective firefighters are required to complete a grueling 18 weeks of academy training that includes being able to run 1¹/₂ miles in 12 minutes without gear.

But the over-the-hill Doirin failed to meet the required time, taking more than 18 minutes to huff-and-puff her way across the finish line.

“She started walking halfway through the run,” the source said. “She couldn’t even make it up the stairs to the locker rooms without taking a break.”

Doirin, a former EMT and mother of two, said her age and physical fitness had nothing to do with her abysmal performance — claiming she had been hampered by an injury she received during training.

“I was injured toward the end of the class during training,” Doirin said when reached at FDNY headquarters. “They put me on light duty until I was able to try again.

“If the rigorous training causes you to be injured, I would guess they would allow you to heal first.”

She would not say what type of injury she sustained.

Doirin said she was one of several candidates — both male and female — whose ailments prevented them from completing the course, and who were still brought aboard and given light-duty jobs.

FDNY spokesman Frank Dwyer said, “The probationary firefighter in question suffered an on-the-job injury and is currently assigned to an administrative light-duty position, which is standard FDNY protocol.”

“It’s a scam,” said a veteran FDNY source with knowledge of the admission process. “You’re getting full pay and benefits and all this extra time to prepare either physically or academically for the next test.

“You can twist your ankle and they put you on light duty.”

Additional reporting by Aaron Feis

Like the Late Yasser Arafat, "Obama" Speaks Differently to Different Audiences (Cartoon)

 

GOP Colluded with Democrats, to Cover-Up “Obama’s” Ineligibility to Run for the Presidency

 

 

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Behind All the Scandals is a Lie So Big That It Could Utterly Destroy Obama
"In the age of Obama, we have witnessed the complete metamorphosis of the media..."
By Lawrence Sellin
July 22, 2014
Western Journalism

The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see – Ayn Rand

Many Americans believe that the US Government, the Democrat and Republican Parties, and the media are deliberately misleading the American people, hiding the most heinous fraud and Constitutional crisis in the history of the United States.

Individuals at the highest levels of the federal government may have aided and abetted a deception, which included willful ignorance, misinformation, false interpretations of the Constitution, outright lies, and the creation of fraudulent documents and computer records to protect an ineligible, ill-prepared ,and unworthy candidate for the office of President of the United States.

In the age of Obama, we have witnessed the complete metamorphosis of the media, no longer objective journalists but partisan liberal activists who control, manipulate, and even create news to support a left-wing political agenda.

On April 27, 2011, Barack Obama presented as his official birth certificate a digital image so riddled with anomalies that only counterfeiters or the complicit could vouch for its authenticity.

Evidence has been reported claiming that Barack Obama has been using a fraudulent Connecticut Social Security Number (SSN) since at least 1986. That number, 042-68-4425, issued in 1977, was set aside exclusively for Connecticut residents, a state in which he never lived nor did any member of his immediate family. In addition, SSN Verifier Plus showed the birth year 1890 linked to that number. Because SSNs are not re-issued, multiple birth dates for one card suggest a stolen number.

The data and documents associated with Obama’s Selective Service registration also contain inconsistencies. Most noticeably, Obama’s registration card has a two digit year ‘80″ on the postal stamp, unlike the four digit year stamp “1980″ found on all other registration cards completed at the same time in Hawaii and other states. It appears that a 2008 postal stamp was cut, the 08 inverted and reinserted into the stamp to mimic a 1980 registration. Interestingly, Obama’s SSN 042-68-4425 appears on his 1980 Selective Service registration, which is six years before that number can be found in personal background databases.

I believe that Barack Obama did not register with the Selective Service in 1980 because he was attending Occidental College with a foreign student status and in 1981 traveled to Pakistan using an Indonesian passport. According to the law, failure to register with the Selective Service would forever prevent Obama from working in the executive branch of the US government.

One could readily conclude that Obama lied and flouted the law to get elected. It should come as no surprise then, that he would lie and flout the law to implement his policies.

I believe Obama succeeded in 2008 because the Republicans struck a deal with the Democrats not to question Obama’s eligibility for office and his personal history. Furthermore, the liberal media took radical steps to protect their favored candidate, killing negative stories about Obama and even threatening to accuse his opponents of racism in order to make them “sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.”

In addition to the apparent creation of fraudulent documents and the doctoring of computer records by Obama supporters, then- Democratic National Chair Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) prepared two different Certifications of Nomination, an action unprecedented in US history, presumably to hide Obama’s ineligibility for office.

And so committed has the liberal media been to protect their investment in Obama, they continue to dispense with gusto misinformation, disinformation, or no information.

The conspiracy of silence continues out of complicity or fear. The political-media establishment realizes that if the truth is told about Barack Obama, the system from which they accrue enormous personal power and profit will collapse.

Republicans will oppose Obama; but they will not expose him because by doing so, it will reveal their own dereliction of duty. Many believe, and with reasonable cause, that all the hearings and lawsuits conducted by the Republicans are a subterfuge meant to run out the clock.

It doesn’t matter if Obama thinks he is right or if he thinks he is being virtuous. The policies he is pursuing are destroying the country. Even if one rejects treachery or treason as motives, the unrealistic and impractical far-left liberalism promoted by Obama and his acolytes is an inevitable march from altruistic dreams to coercion, oppression, and, ultimately, failure.

You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality – Ayn Rand


Jeff Sessions: Patriots Need to Phone Their Representatives and Insist that the Constitution be Followed, to Stop Obama’s Illegal Plan to Executive Amnesty Millions of Criminal Invaders

 

 

By Nicholas Stix

At VDARE.

Monday, July 28, 2014

Gary Varvel: The Oval Office Answering Machine (Cartoon)

 

Sarah Palin Agrees with Peter Brimelow: We Must Impeach the Dictator Calling Himself “Barack Obama”—Before It’s Too Late!

 

Never mind Hillary, could she become America's first female President? If she had headed the 2008 ticket, she already would be.
 

 

By Nicholas Stix

Clearly, at least one Palin staffer has been consuming VDARE for months.

With ever greater frequency, I’ll read an article on immigration policy at some other Webzine, with another author’s name on it, and think to meself, “Did Peter or one of my VDARE colleagues ghostwriter this?”

Some of you are surely wondering if Gov. Palin is gearing up for a presidential run in 2016. At present, she is certainly the most popular GOP politician by far, and that is because she's showing leadership, she's pretty, and millions of American patriots decided already in 2008, "She's one of us." Personally, I prefer Sen. Jeff Sessions, but I'm learning to like Palin more each day. But if we don't topple the tyrant, there won't be any election.

Roger Goodell to NFL Players: 'Murdering Your Wife Will Result In Automatic 4-Game Suspension'

 

 

ISSUE 50•29 • Jul 25, 2014
The Onion
 

Permalink—but there’s no article, just the pic and hed.

The Wages of Modern Libertarianism is Cultural Marxism

By Nicholas Stix

My favorite blogger has recently come out of the closet—as a philosopher—but please don’t hold it against him.

NFL Coach Gets 3-Game Suspension for being Normal

By Nicholas Stix

The friend who sent this writes,
Given its dusky makeup, I don’t follow football. However, it is worth noting that the Sodomites, along with the Congoids, now set the standards.
“Homophobic NFL Coach Gets 3-Game Suspension” (DiversityInc).

FSU Professor Dan Markel was Talking on Cell Phone When His Killer Shot Him—but Does This Clarify or Confuse Matters? (ABC)

By David in TN

Now they say he was talking on his cell phone while entering the garage. It might have been "random" after all. They suspect the ex-wife from the "acrimonious" divorce.

Support the Fine Arts--Shoot a Rapper (T-Shirt/Poster)

 

Hundreds Demonstrate in Boston Against Obama’s Crusade for Young and Not-So-Young Central American Gang-Bangers

 

 

By Nicholas Stix

At VDARE.

Breaking News! Mass Murder in Saco, Maine: 5 Corpses Discovered Sunday Aft. Shot to Death Inside Water St. Apt.; Parents, 3 Kids Found Around 1:24 P.M.

By Reader-Researcher RC

In the Press-Herald.

Laurel, Maryland: Two Men Posed as a Father and Son over the Internet to Lure a 14-Year-Old Girl and Then Allegedly Gang-Raped Her

By PeeGee County Expat

Whose sons might they be?

Federal Judge Rules D.C. Ban on Gun Carry Rights Unconstitutional

By Prince George’s County Expat

A federal judge in the District of Columbia on Saturday overturned the city’s total ban on residents being allowing to carry firearms outside their home in a landmark decision for gun-rights activists.

Misleading first paragraph.

Those in the 'hood have always been able to carry firearms outside their homes.

It just wasn't legal to do so.

But this hasn't stopped the Democrats.

That's why D.C. has such a high murder rate.

Dictator Obama Had Planned a Waco/Ruby Ridge-Style Bloodbath Against White American Patriots in Murrieta, CA; Border Patrol Agents Averted Massacre, by Threatening Mutiny! (Federale)

 

The smirking dictator, in late July, 2014
 

Vicki Weaver, about one hour before FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi murdered her, on August 21, 1992, at Ruby Ridge, and shot her husband, Randy, in the back. Horiuchi killed Mrs. Weaver, while she was holding her 10-month-old infant in her arms. Horiuchi was charged with manslaughter, but a judge threw out the charges.
 

Waco: Tanks and fire, on February 28, 1993; the feds slaughtered 85 Branch Davidians
 

By Nicholas Stix

At VDARE.

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Extra, Extra! Get Your Sunday Wrap-Up, of Local and Regional (St. Louis), Chicago, Immigration, National and Miscellaneous News!

By Nicholas Stix

At Countenance.

“Canadian Man”: Police Storm Grounded Plane at Pearson, Arrest Mississauga Man | Toronto Star

By Reader-Researcher “W”

FOX described him as a “Canadian man.”

Chicago: 13-Year-Old Boy Killed, 6 Others Shot on West Side; No Knifings, Bludgeonings, or Strangulations

By Reader-Researcher RC

The locals call it "Chiraq."

"Why can't we all just get along?"

Police Arrest 6 for Murder of Amos Jones in Suitland, Including Several MS-13 Gang Members

By PeeGee County Expat

At WJLA.

You can thank George Bush, globalist extraordinaire, for giving "temporary" protected status to these gang-bangers.

Southwest Houston: Driver Shot, Crashes into Building

By A Texas Reader

The comments are the best.

Associated Press Reporter Tom Hays Wins Duranty-Blair Award for “Boosgate” Hoax

By Nicholas Stix

AP reporter Tom Hays has won the Duranty-Blair Award for Journalistic Infamy, for his 2004 “Boosgate” hoax. Hays is the fifth Duranty-Blair laureate. The previous four were CBS News producer Mary Mapes in 2004; seven reporters and editors at the New Orleans Times-Picayune in 2006; ABC News reporter Brian Ross in 2012; and Peter Berger, of The American Interest, in 2013.

On September 3, 2004, during the presidential campaign pitting Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry (MA) against incumbent Republican President George W. Bush, Bush gave a speech in Madison, Wisconsin. During the speech, President Bush announced that Democratic President Bill Clinton was suffering chest pains, and might need coronary bypass surgery, and led the Christian crowd in prayer. Tom Hays fabricated an incident, in which the crowd of thousands booed President Clinton, so as to make Republicans sound as heartless and sadistic as Hays and his Marxist comrades.

Hays’ bosses at AP supported him, and did not punish him in any way, much less fire him, presumably because they were as rabidly Democrat as he was.

Audience boos as Bush offers best wishes for Clinton's recovery
By Associated Press, 9/3/2004 13:57

WEST ALLIS, Wis. (AP) President Bush (news - web sites) on Friday wished Bill Clinton (news - web sites) "best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery."

"He's is in our thoughts and prayers," Bush said at a campaign rally.

Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wisconsin, booed. Bush did nothing to stop them….


As I wrote at the time,

In fact, however, the crowd had responded with respectful applause.

The false story was immediately caught and reported to conservative talk radio shows and blogs. Less than one hour after the story first went out on the wire, under the byline of AP reporter Tom Hays, it was retracted, corrected, and the original link killed. The new title was "Bush offers best wishes for Clinton's recovery." There was no mention of the changes; however, the later version without the "boos" run by the New York Times-owned Boston Globe still carried the title "audience boos as bush offers best wishes for clintons recovery" in its
URL….
At press time, AP corporate communications had not responded to telephone and e-mail requests for comment from this reporter on Sunday night, reporter Tom Hays had not responded to a Sunday night e-mail seeking comment, and no message was posted regarding the false story at the AP Web site.

Knight-Ridder’s Web site also did not refer to the story.
Tom Curley is AP’s president and CEO. (AP Corporate Communications: E-mail: info@ap.org ; tel.: 212-621-6060.)

I wrote two reports on Hays’ hoax:
“AP Reporter Invents Anti-Clinton ‘Boos’ at Wisconsin Bush Rally”; and

“‘Boos’ Scandal Widens: AP Stonewalls; Knight-Ridder Also Distributed Hoax,”

both of which I reprinted together in 2012 as Associated Press Reporter Tom Hays’ Classic ‘Boosgate’ Hoax.”

The Boosgate Hoax was one of a string of dirty tricks pulled by Democratic operatives passing themselves off as journalists, and trying to steal the presidential election for Marxist John Kerry. Two other episodes that I covered were CBS News producer Mary Mapes’ Memogate Hoax, in which tried to cost President Bush the election by using fraudulent documents claiming he had been AWOL while a member of the Texas Air National Guard, and the media/DNC plan to steal the election on election night, in a repeat of 2000. (For 2000, see here, here, here, http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2011/12/chip-off-old-block.html>here, here, here and here) 2000. John Kerry himself put a stop to that criminal conspiracy. (So, the old communist ain’t all bad.) The day after the election, Katie Couric and some of her comrades sought to cause another constitutional crisis, by asserting that because the election was so close, President Bush didn’t have a “mandate.” Of course, they never would have made such a ridiculous and seditious claim, had Kerry won such a close election.

During the 2000 post-election siege of the White House, Democrats had made it clear to the nation that for them, “It ain’t over, til the Democrat wins.”

The Duranty-Blair Award recognizes those journalists whose work embodies the spirit of Walter Duranty and Jayson Blair, two of the most notorious journalists in the history of the Fourth Estate. It is no accident that both men worked for the New York Times.

Walter Duranty wrote a series of early 1930s dispatches from the Soviet Union, where he was Times Moscow bureau chief, in which he lied about the Ukrainian Holocaust, in which Stalin deliberately starved millions of Kulaks (peasants) to death, through a man-made famine. Instead of reporting the truth, Duranty reported that the peasants were happy and well-fed, and was rewarded for his lies with a Pulitzer Prize.

Jayson Blair (here, here, and here) was an early 2000s black affirmative action hire who alternately plagiarized reporters at other newspapers, and fabricated articles out of whole cloth, all for stories set hundreds and even thousands of miles away, while he sat in New York City caf├ęs.

Previous Duranty-Blair winners have been producer Mary “Memogate,” aka Rathergate Mapes of CBS News; New Orleans Times-Picayune reporters Brian Thevenot, Gordon Russell, Jeff Duncan and Gwen Filosa; managing editors, news, Peter Kovacs and Dan Shea; and editor Jim Amoss, for their September 26, 2005 attempt to “untell” the story of the savage black violence that befell New Orleans just before and after Hurricane Katrina made landfall on August 29 of that year (1,900-word version; two-part, 3,900-word version (here and here; and 9,900-word version); ABC News Chief Investigative Correspondent” Brian Ross, who in 2002 had sought, on behalf of the Justice Department/FBI, to railroad innocent weapons scientist Dr. Steven J. Hatfill for the fall, 2002 anthrax murders, and who in 2012 falsely asserted that Aurora, CO movie theater mass murderer, James Holmes, was a member of the TEA Party; and Peter Berger, of The American Interest, in 2013 for his support of, and cover-up of the ongoing genocide against South African whites.

The Dr. Steven J. Hatfill Files

 

This was during a speech Dr. Hatfill gave during August 2002, in which he took the offensive against AG John Ashcroft. The blown-up photograph is of his girlfriend's home, which the FBI had trashed in a "search." The FBI and the media were, in my opinion, trying to drive Hatfill to commit suicide.
 

By Nicholas Stix

I just looked for my reports on the attempted railroading by the Bush/Ashcroft DOJ and the media of patriot-scientist Dr. Steven J. Hatfill for the five anthrax letter murders in fall of 2002 through my blog, and came up with only one out of at least 12 articles. (I also gave a talk on a panel with Hatfill, his friend and spokesman, Pat Clawson, and anthrax sleuth/conspiracy theorist, Ken Dillon, at an Accuracy in Media conference in October, 2002, but have yet to post it online, and don’t know where the heck it is.) I was able to come up with nine more articles through the one that came up internally, but that leaves two more I have to find.

 

Dr. Hatfill's two chief public tormentors were U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft (press conference, October 21, 2002), and...
 

I have had several similar such experiences of late. The internal search function within my blog has become worthless for items posted more than three years ago. I have to go to Google to find stuff on my own blog! And sometimes Google fails, as well, for really old material. You have to periodically re-post blog material, at least at Google's blogs.

Much of this stuff was once linked at Wikipedia, but of course the Wikicensors eventually sent it all down the memory hole.
 

“Calling Agent Frank Black: Anthrax, the Left’s Dr. Strangelove, and TV’s Millennium;

“Hunting America’s Leading Anthrax Hoaxer: Dr. Strangelove Strikes Again – in Scotland!”;

“Dr. Strangelove Disarms America”;

“The Crucifixion of Dr. Steven J. Hatfill”;

“A High-Tech Lynching: ABC News, the FBI, and the ‘Greendale School’ Myth”;

“FBI Anthrax ‘Person of Interest’ Positively ID’d In Princeton, NJ;

“FBI Terrorizes Hatfill”;

“DOJ Ordered Hatfill Dismissed: Should AG John Ashcroft Be Next?”;

“Scientist with Rhodesian Past Still Center of Media Crosshairs”; and

“The Anthrax Case: Hatfill Tormentor Back in Business.”

 












Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a tenured, communist activist. The picture on the left, from Hermes Press, is either of the wrong person, or is a good 40 years old, even though they used it during the early 2000s. The picture on the right is from around the time Rosenberg was trying to railroad Dr. Hatfill.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979); Jerry Goldsmith’s Complete Soundtrack

 

 

 

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

I am re-posting this score, without first listening to it at Youtube, following warnings that the track is larded there with commercials. This is increasingly a problem with YT, but so far, the commercials don’t play on blogs. I can only wish that were the case with news videos!

I thank the reader who responded to my July 21 Jerry Goldsmith Memorial Concert five days ago by recommending this score, which he believes rises to the level of the greatest 20th century orchestral composers, in particular, the theme, “Spock’s Arrival.”

Enjoy!

 

Jerry Goldsmith, with his Oscar for The Omen, 1977
 
 

Upload and table of contents by David Molinarolo.
 

Published on Dec 21, 2013
Title: Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Composer: Jerry Goldsmith
Genre: Soundtrack
Original Copyright: 1979
Label: Columbia/Legacy
Release Copyright: 1999 (All Rights Reserved)
 

 


 

1. Ilia's Theme - 0:00
2. Main Title - 3:03
3. Klingon Battle - 4:26
4: Total Logic - 9:54
5: Floating Office - 13:39
6. The Enterprise - 14:43
7. Leaving Drydock - 20:43
8. Spock's Arrival - 24:14
9. The Cloud - 26:15
10. Vejur Flyover - 31:15
11. The Force Field - 36:14
12. Games - 41:18
13: Spock Walk - 45:00
14: Inner Workings - 49:20
15: Vejur Speaks - 53:23
16. The Meld - 56:14
17. A Good Start - 59:23
18. End Title - 1:01:50

 

Star Trek: The Motion Picture back of score (1979)
 

Soundtrack re-release (1999)

Saturday, July 26, 2014

On Top of Obama’s Ongoing Success at Pauperizing Nation, He Will Further Illegal Amnesty with 5,000,000 Illegal Work Authorizations of New Invaders (Drudge)

 

An American dictator: Who will stop this man?
 

 

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix, via Countenance.

3 Siblings Killed, 3 Wounded After Carjackers Run Down Crowd at Fruit Stand

By Reader-Researcher RC

The dead kids apparently are Black. No description of the carjackers and the woman they carjacked.

At NBC Philadelphia.

Wichita Horror: Carr Brothers “Exonerated”! Kansas Supreme Court Justices Find Pretext to Thwart Justice for Five Murder Victims; Huffington Post "Disappears" the Victims, and Blocks/Deletes Thousands of Comments

 
















Left: Clockwise from top left: Jason Befort, Heather Miller, Aaron Sandler, Bradley Heyka; right: Ann Walenta. The Carr Brothers murdered them all, as well as gang-raping Miller and another woman who miraculously survived, when the gunshot meant to kill her instead glanced off a steel hairpin. She then lay on snow on a frozen football field, playing dead. As soon as the Carrs drove away, she ran naked through the snow, to knock on doors. When a family let her inside, in spite of her bleeding profusely form her head wound, she insisted that the people wait to listen to her recounting of the Carrs' description and their crimes before going to call 911, because she was afraid she was going to die, and that the could get away with it their crimes. The victim survived and recuperated from her wounds, and later met the only other surviving victim of the Carrs. The two victims fell in love, and married. On a microcosmic level of resurrection following an atrocity, it was analogous to me to Israel arising from the ashes of the Holocaust.

 
These are the Kansas Department of Corrections mugshots of racist mass murderer/gang-rapists Jonathan and Reginald Carr that the Huffington Post published at the top of the story below, but the HP blew the pictures up to about 20 times the size I'm publishing. You'd think these monsters were heroes.
 

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Thanks to my partner-in-crime, David in TN, for this article.

“Exonerated” alludes to the promoters of the Central Park Five Hoax, who have maintained that, since the five attackers’ convictions and sentences were “vacated,” that they were therefore “exonerated.” Nothing of the sort was true, but in the world of racial socialism, it ain’t over ‘til the black felon wins. The Carr Brothers' sentences were likewise vacated by the Kansas Supreme Court.

Ten years ago, the Kansas Supreme Court illegally “repealed” the state’s death penalty law; the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the KSC. It then took 10 years for six justices on the KSC to find yet another pathetically flimsy pretext to subvert justice by overturning the Carrs’ death sentence. If the case were so obvious, it would have been 14 years ago. Now, they’re claiming that the killers should have had separate death penalty hearings (they had one joint hearing).

The reason the black-robed thugs didn’t come up with this story 10 or 14 years ago, is because then they were banking on abolishing the death penalty, in toto.

It’s all a game to these mooks. Every 10 or so years, they will move the goalposts yet again, so as to waste the maximum amount of taxpayer money, and in the hopes that the racist monsters die in prison, without justice ever being meted out to them.

In reality, these corrupt, racist judges are against the death penalty for blacks who murdered whites.

Note that, as usual, the wikicensors have kept the entry at The Pretend Encyclopedia clean of any pictures of killers or victims. But that won’t satisfy Racist Black Cut-Throat Fan Club at the Huffington Post, so they posted 13 photographs, including huge ones of the killers, at the top of the story, but completely disappeared their victims, who are neither depicted nor even named.
 

Kansas Supreme Court Overturns Brothers' Death Sentences in “Wichita Massacre”
Reuters/Huffington Post
July 25, 2014 1:20 p.m. EDT; updated July 25, 2014 3:59 p.m. EDT

CHICAGO, July 25 (Reuters) - The Kansas Supreme Court on Friday overturned death sentences for two brothers convicted in the 2000 execution-style murder of four people on a snowy soccer field in Wichita, ruling that the trial judge erred in refusing to conduct separate penalty phases for the two men.

Jonathan and Reginald Carr were sentenced to death in 2002. Their December 2000 crime spree, known as the Wichita Massacre, included the kidnapping of three men and two women in a home invasion that included rape and sexual humiliation.

The five victims were shot in the head; one survived.

The court affirmed some of the convictions against the two brothers, including murder, but vacated the death penalty for both of them, sending the case back to district court for new sentencing.

"The Eighth Amendment was violated in this capital case when the district judge refused to sever the penalty phase of the proceedings," the court wrote in the ruling.

The Supreme Court said the mitigation cases of the two men were at least partially antagonistic, so they should have been treated separately, and said the joint treatment allowed evidence against both of them that might have been excluded in separate proceedings.

Six judges on the seven-member court joined the majority opinion on overturning the death penalty, while one dissented. (Reporting by Fiona Ortiz; Editing by Leslie Adler)

Nicholas Stix

The Carr Brothers violated seven people. They murdered five; committed attempted murder against a sixth; beat a seventh almost to death; and gang-raped two women. Every one of their victims was white. They had no interest in victimizing non-whites. Why are there 13 pictures here, but not one picture of their white victims, none of whom is named?

That was a rhetorical question.

Nicholas Stix, Uncensored
[This was the last of five comments I sought to to post at HP, but the only one the censors didn’t block.]

Jeff Mellott

A day of celebration for the Left. How perverse.


Andrew Steele

Your hatred is more perverse.


Calvin Birmingham

More like a celebration for justice. As MLK said an injustice for one is an injustice for us all.

Thomas Egan

Yeah.. We're totally out partying in the streets, man.

Nicholas Stix
[To] Andrew Steele

What hatred has he shown, as opposed to you? When you racial socialists call your opponents haters, you’re engaging in the purest projection.

Nicholas Stix, Uncensored [Blocked by censors.]


Nicholas Stix

[To] Calvin Birmingham

So, you’re saying that MLK supported racist, black mass murderers? If not, what on earth were you saying, with that idiotic platitude? Are you on auto-pilot? I don‘t know about MLK, but one thing I do know is that YOU support racist, black mass murderers.

Nicholas Stix, Uncensored [Blocked by censors.]


John Hoke

A real credit to their gene pool.
o
Michael James Allison

It is not their fault they have a extra chromosome...


Savior Jebus Farmer

[To] Michael James Allison hey Mongo looked in the mirror lately?



Susan Layser

These two should never get out of prison. The crime they committed is haunting, in the worst possible way. I believe life in prison is the worst punishment particularly if one is looking at a lot of years to go before being old


Krystel Smalls

Stories like this are why I love living in Texas. The state of Texas would have them turned to dust by now.

There's no reason the taxpayers should be forced to keep these monsters alive.


Michael James Allison

Put them in general pop. problem solved...


David Mini

Too bad the people whos home they invaded werent armed maybe there would be a different ending to the story


Jeff Mellott

Why can't the penalty phase be redone--- just like a retrial/


Patrick Black

This is what happens when you let coons run wild
o

Vernon Willis

Go burn a cross cretin.


Shwah Kram

^ This is typical shameful conservative America for you. Christians with a unquenchable thirst for violence and strife against all that are not white Christian and rich.


Vernon Willis

Did you read what these two did?


Susan Layser

Racism is now considered to be child-abuse of the worst kind. That baby, if yours, can be confiscated if the State learns about you. I really hope that baby isn't yours.


Linda McNinch Escue

[To] Shwah Kram Race has nothing to do with it unless you are Racist http://takimag.com/article/the_myth_of_prejudice_gavin_mcinnes


Nicholas Stix

[To] Shwah Kram

Are you saying that a rich, white, Christian poster (actually you know nothing about his religion or income) committed mass murder and gang-rape against non-whites?

Who might that fiend be?

But this story is about racist, mass-murdering, gang-raping blacks who exclusively targeted whites. Do you really think that you can just reverse the story and the morality, as if no one knew who had committed this racist atrocity, or who the victims were?

Nicholas Stix, Uncensored [Blocked by censors.]


Nicholas Stix

[To] Susan Layser

You’re a bald-faced liar.

Nicholas Stix, Uncensored [Blocked by censors.]

The Judge Who Couldn't Stop Lying

By Nicholas Stix
August 11, 2006
WEBcommentary, Blogcritics, A Different Drummer, etc.

Maybe we ought to make jurists wear see-through robes. There’s something about the combination of wearing a black robe, sitting high above the rest of us, and being addressed as an institution (“the court”), that tends to go to judge’s heads.

One must always keep in mind, when talking about judges, that they are a class dominated by the grimiest political hacks, most of whom owe their positions to party machines and backroom deals, even as they hold forth about “the (political) independence of the judiciary.” They couch the most corrupt and politically partisan decisions in the language of moralistic sanctimony, as if they were speaking from Mount Olympus, rather than from the sewer.

In Friday’s issue of The Australian, a national newspaper down under, the subhead for an op-ed is, “Courts have to depend on lawyers being honest in order for the courts to function properly writes Ysaiah Ross.”

So much for that idea.

When my sister graduated from liar’s school 12 years ago, I congratulated her on stepping up from being an amateur to a professional liar.
As a graduation gift, I presented her with the foundation of all contracts: A baseball bat. (It was a miniature bat, for symbolism’s sake.)
Which brings me to Australian Judge Marcus Einfeld.

Einfeld, a former Federal Court judge who is also “an Officer of the Order of Australia and was voted a Living National Treasure,” has in recent years made a profession of lecturing public officials on honesty and ethics.

Judge Einfeld is what Harry Truman used to a call a “high hat.” A “high hat” is someone who’s got money and influence, and who publicly lectures everyone else on morality, but in private is the best customer at the local bordello. (Those are my words, not those of the old Missouri dirt farmer and failed haberdasher, but I believe they capture Harry’s sentiment.)

In January, Judge Einfeld’s Lexus was photographed speeding, and incurred a ticket for 77 dollars Australian ($100 U.S.). But Judge Einfeld had no intention of paying the ticket. What’s the point of being a judge, even a retired one, much less a Living National Treasure, if you can’t beat a traffic ticket?

Judge Einfeld insisted to Sydney’s Downing Centre Local Court that he was not the driver at the time; he’d lent his car to a “friend.” But even if the story were true, it would be irrelevant. If you lend your car out to a girlfriend, and she gets a speeding ticket, you pay the ticket, and then take it up with her. The one thing you may not do is say, ‘Your Honor, the ticket isn’t my fault. You see, I lent my car out, and my girlfriend, she went speeding, and she got the ticket, because she’s a lousy driver, and so, I shouldn’t have to pay the ticket.’

Judges and lawyers hear dumb, convoluted stories like that all the time. Hell, they trade ‘em for laughs at dinner parties!

In 1992, I published a wonderful short story, “Morning in Bond Court,” in my since long-defunct magazine, A Different Drummer. The story, which perfectly balances cynicism, wry humor, and poignancy, by retired Cook County cop Paul Pekin, is based on Paul’s experiences on “the job.”

The narrator is a Cook County cop who spends a day taking various small fry back and forth from the jail to the courthouse for bond hearings. One small-timer in court is a “young black man, greasy upright hair. He stands before the bench, hands behind his back. Maybe he thinks he still has the cuffs on….

“The young man with the ugly hair is charged with stealing eighteen packages of spark plugs from an auto supply shop. Even worse, he failed to appear at his last court date, failed to appear at the date before it, failed to …

“‘I can explain all that. They told me courtroom B and I went there and they said it was someplace else …’

“‘You’re saying you went to the wrong courtroom?’

“‘Six times?’

“Only the young man with the ugly hair fails to be amused. He is led away, frowning. Five thousand dollars bond. That’s a lot of spark plugs.

“Next, we get a redheaded guy with no teeth. Charged with battery.

“‘It’s all her fault, your honor. She makes me go with her to her sister’s, it’s about the money they got for the car, and this guy her sister sold it to gets arrested and his old lady wants her purse back, and that’s when it turns out she’s the one with the …’

“‘You seem to hang out with complicated people,’ the judge says.

“Yes sir, I certainly do.”

“‘Well, you hang around with complicated people, you get complicated results.’

“Bond is twelve hundred dollars and the redhead is taken away.”

Judge Marcus Einfeld has complicated friends, and he tells complicated stories.

His first story was that he had lent out his car to a visiting American professor named Teresa Brennan.

Professor Brennan was hunted down, and found to have died in February 2003, almost three years before she had gone speeding in the judge’s car. Now, that’s one complicated girlfriend.

When the little matter of Prof. Brennan’s being dead was brought up to Judge Einfeld, he had a ready answer: No, no, no, not that dead American Prof. Teresa Brennan, it was a different dead American Prof. Teresa Brennan!

The good judge insisted that his dead American Prof. Teresa Brennan was alive long enough to go speeding in his car, but died shortly thereafter. (From grief over the ticket? Out of shame for having besmirched the ethical jurist and Living National Treasure’s driving record? Due to guilt over having dragged the first dead American Prof. Teresa Brennan’s name through the mud?)

In the meantime, in his scorched earth campaign to beat a 77 dollar traffic ticket, Judge Einfeld is now up to four different stories, with no end in sight. After the Judge pays his legal fees, that may ultimately be the most expensive 77 dollar ticket in vehicular history.

Judge Einfeld went into the wrong field; he should have been a ditch digger, because he sure can dig himself a hole.

How many times does a judge, in the course of a year’s cases, see someone who, in trying to evade the long arm of the law, turns a minor infraction into a major felony? You’d think they’d learn from experience, and not want to come across like the spark plug thief with the bad hair or the hot-tempered, toothless redhead.

It doesn’t look as though Judge Einfeld is going to be prosecuted for perjury; such prosecutions are for “the little people” who have to obey the laws, not for jurists and ethics lecturers. However, legal observers in Australia are concerned that the Judge’s travails might tarnish the reputation of the judiciary. I say, the judiciary’s bad name is in no danger from Judge Einfeld.

I think this is one of those rare cases in which the wheels of justice can’t grind slowly enough.

In the meantime, the judge might want to get some help for his necrophilia problem.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...
The author clearly did no research on Australian law because if he did, he would have been aware that designating another person as a driver is perfectly legal. In fact, the ticket itself has a section that allows a person to do exactly that. It is a well known tactic that allows points to be spread, particularly between husband and wife, lessening the risk of either losing their license due to points. People may not like it or think it is right but it is still completely legal. Nicholas talks as if the judge asked for special compensation or used personal influence in making his argument about another person being the driver when in fact, this is completely untrue.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 at 9:31:00 AM EDT
Nicholas said...
What does Aussie law have to do with this? Oh, yes, now I remember. According to Aussie law, Judge Einfeld was due to lose his license, so he made up a story about a dead woman who, while having been born in Australia, had lived and died in another country.

How is perjury "completely legal"? You'd better study some Australian law, "anonymous." No wonder you wouldn't sign your name! If such lame posts were the best I could do, I'd go anonymous, too.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006 at 9:40:00 AM EDT
Anonymous said...
You wrote:

"One must keep in mind, when talking about judges, that they are a class dominated by the grimiest political hacks, most of whom owe their positions to party machines and backroom deals, even as they hold forth about 'the (political) independence of the judiciary.' They couch the most corrupt and politically partisan decisions in the language of moralistic sanctimony, as if they were speaking from Mount Olympus, rather than from the sewer."

We saw another example in Kansas on July 25, 2014.

David In TN
Saturday, July 26, 2014 at 1:42:00 AM EDT

Friday, July 25, 2014

Breaking News: Racist Cut-Throat Black Carr Brothers, Who Perpetrated Wichita Massacre, Murdering Four Whites and Raping Two, to Get New Penalty Phase, in New Ruse to Thwart Justice

By Nicholas Stix

I don’t have a link yet, because a friend just called from out West with the news, and I’m on deadline. Some lefty judge must have come up with a pretext.

Dan Markel Murder Update: Cops Seek "Vehicle of Interest"; Ex-Wife's Dopey Lawyer Makes Her Sound Suspicious

 

The Markels and their first son, nicknamed “Cubby,” on the day of his bris (circumcision), August 6, 2009
 
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Aside from one spam hit, the Daily News only permitted one comment:
 

GFX260 GFX260
8 hours ago
The issue is not who did it as that's obvious, the issue is finding the evidence to connect that person to the crime
 

Cops hunt mystery killer of renowned FSU law professor Dan Markel as car of interest identified
Dan Markel, 41, a Harvard-educated father of two young boys, likely knew his killer when he was shot in the head Friday morning at his Tallahassee, Fla. home, cops said. What appears to be a Toyota Prius was seen in the Betton Hills neighborhood and is of interest to police.
By Sasha Goldstein
Thursday, July 24, 2014, 8:09 P.M.
New York Daily News

The Toronto native was well-regarded for his academic work.

A Harvard-educated, widely published criminal law professor likely knew his killer after cops found no forced entry at the 41-year-old’s Tallahassee home — where Dan Markel was found bleeding from a fatal close-range gunshot wound to the head Friday morning.

Cops on Wednesday released a grainy surveillance video still of a car of interest — what appears to be a light-colored Toyota Prius — that was seen in the area of Markel’s Betton Hills home around the time of his 11 a.m. murder.

“In this day and age, many of our citizens use cameras for home and personal protection. Our hope is one of those cameras could provide us with a piece of vital information to bring this terrible tragedy to a close for all of those involved,” Tallahassee Police Chief Michael DeLeo said in statement.

 

City of Tallahassee Police Department This car, which appears to be a Toyota Prius, was caught on camera in the area of the murder on Friday and is of interest to police. (A car as suspect? No, the person driving it at the time is the suspect.)
 

The Florida State University professor, a Toronto native who graduated from Harvard Law School in 2001, was the intended target in the senseless [sic] crime, which showed no evidence of burglary or robbery, cops said.

The father of two boys, ages 3 and 5, was divorced a year ago from Wendi Adelson, a 35-year-old fellow FSU professor and mother of the children.

The two had a court squabble over the boys’ custody, and police interviewed the woman, who has been cooperating with investigators.


Meet Philip Gara LaMarche, of the Left’s Dark Alliance (DA)

 


 
By Nicholas Stix

At VDARE.

Racism in Poland?

 

 

By Nicholas Stix

Apparently, militant homosexuals are hiding behind the “racism” mask. The warning is in English, I guess, because Clear Channel is broadcasting in English.

And whom would Poles be telling, "Go home"? Gypsies? I suppsioe they should say, "Oh, please, Gypsies, stay and spread disease and crime, and suck the hard-working, Polish taxpayers dry!"

At Gates of Vienna.

A tip ‘o the hate to Countenance.

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Remember Abe Fortas? More on the “Independent,” Leftwing Judiciary

 

Judicial dictator, Chief Justice Earl Warren
 

Previously: “Tennessee: Racist, Lefty Hack Smears Opposition to Liberal Judges.”
 



By David in TN

In June 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren saw that Nixon might win the presidency that fall and resigned so that LBJ could appoint a liberal to succeed him. LBJ then picked his crony Associate Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice.

 

Johnson speechwriter and would-be judicial dictator-flunky Abe Fortas and Pres. Lyndon Baines Johnson
 

However, Republican and Southern Democrat senators filibustered and Fortas had to withdraw in October 1968. This forced Warren to stay until Nixon was able to appoint Warren Burger as Chief Justice.

Fortas was forced to resign the Court in 1969 because of accepting payoffs. He also had been working with LBJ while a Justice, writing Johnson's 1966 State of the Union address for example.

 

 
Pres. Richard Milhous Nixon


FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Died from Shot to the Head

 

Dan Markel, Wendi Adelson, and their first son, nicknamed “Cubby,” on the day of his bris (circumcision), August 6, 2009
 

By David in TN

Markel Died from Shot to the Head

Florida State law professor Dan Markel died from a gunshot wound to the head, Tallahassee Police announced Tuesday.
 

[Previously, on this crime, at WEJB/NSU:

“Tallahassee: White FSU Law Professor, Dan Markel, Shot and Killed; WTXL Provides No Information on Murder, and No Reader Comments, but Lots of Rules for Comments”;

“Dan Markel 1972-2014: White FSU Law Prof was Murdered in Home Invasion; Media: Tallahassee PD Refused to Give Any Info; Everything Came from Blog, Via Vic’s Friend (Update)”;

“Breaking News: Was Dan Markel Trayvoned? Neighbors Frustrated over TPD Stonewalling; Murdered, White FSU Law Prof’s Tallahassee Neighborhood Had for 3-4 Weeks been Hit by Massive Doses of Diversity Crime, Just Like George Zimmerman’s, in Run-Up to Martin’s Failed Murder Attempt”;

“Dan Markel Murder Update: Tallahassee PD: Killing was Not a Robbery, but a Premeditated Murder by Someone Who Knew Him; TPD Tip Line: 850-891-4462”; and

“Friends and Colleagues of Murdered FSU Law Prof Dan Markel Fear that Justice May be Meted Out to His Killer.”]

 

Tennessee: Racist, Lefty Hack Smears Opposition to Liberal Judges

 

Charles Grant, president, Nashville Bar Association
 

By Nicholas Stix

My partner-in-crime, David in TN, who sent me this disguised political advertisement, wrote yesterday,
We have early voting in Tennessee. Yesterday I voted against each of these judges.

The North Dallas Gazette, where this appeared, is a racist black newspaper serving Dallas’ black middle and upper-middle class.

Note that while Charles Grant keeps complaining about the Judges’ Republican opponents not giving the judges’ side of the story, Grant doesn’t, wither. All he does is smear the opponents, while not spending any time showing examples of their probity, say, by giving examples where they ruled against Democrat hobby horses.

The people of Tennessee have the right to vote on whether to retain these three judges in question, but Grant refuses to admit that. Instead, he acts as if the people were obligated to rubber stamp the recommendation of a commission of lawyers. Then why have an election at all?

He keeps howling about “special interests,” but the “special interests” he’s talking about are white folks. He acts as though black supremacism were both constitutional, and the will of the people.

I looked up the justices in question at Judgepedia, which identifies all of them as liberal, Cornelia Clark as quite so, and one, Sharon Lee, as extremely so.

Gary R. Wade

In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan ideology of state supreme court justices in their paper, State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns. A score above 0 indicated a more conservative leaning ideology while scores below 0 are more liberal. Wade received a Campaign finance score (CFscore) of -0.14, indicating a liberal ideological leaning. This is more liberal than the average CF score of -0.02 that justices received in Tennessee. The study is based on data from campaign contributions by judges themselves, the partisan leaning of contributors to the judges or, in the absence of elections, the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study is not a definitive label of a justice, but an academic gauge of various factors.[11]
 

Cornelia Clark
 

Political ideology

In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan ideology of state supreme court justices in their paper, State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns. A score above 0 indicated a more conservative leaning ideology while scores below 0 are more liberal. Clark received a Campaign finance score (CFscore) of -0.4, indicating a liberal ideological leaning. This is more liberal than the average CF score of -0.02 that justices received in Tennessee. The study is based on data from campaign contributions by judges themselves, the partisan leaning of contributors to the judges or, in the absence of elections, the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study is not a definitive label of a justice, but an academic gauge of various factors.
 

Sharon Lee

Political ideology

See also: Political ideology of State Supreme Court Justices

In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan ideology of state supreme court justices in their paper, State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns. A score above 0 indicated a more conservative leaning ideology while scores below 0 are more liberal. Lee received a Campaign finance score (CFscore) of -0.81, indicating a liberal ideological leaning. This is more liberal than the average CF score of -0.02 that justices received in Tennessee. The study is based on data from campaign contributions by judges themselves, the partisan leaning of contributors to the judges or, in the absence of elections, the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study is not a definitive label of a justice, but an academic gauge of various factors.[8]


Consider also the following, closing passage from the Judgepedia article on Justice Gary R. Wade, which contradicts Charles Grant’s assertions as to the ethical purity of the justices he supports.

Other senate Republicans have also expressed concern that the judicial conduct board is not thoroughly investigating complaints against judges. Tennessee's house majority leader, Gerald McCormick, also supported the senate hearing. McCormick has been critical of the recent efforts by the three justices to coordinate their campaigns to remain on the bench. "They need to be replaced," he told the TN Report.[12] McCormick accused the justices of acting like "partisan Democrats" and criticized what he called their "aggressive" efforts to raise funds "so they can keep their jobs."[12]


 

Power grab in Tenn. judge elections could have national implications
By NDG Staff [sic]
July 22, 2014
North Dallas Gazette
No Comments


By Hazel Trice Edney

(TriceEdneyWire.com) – An attempt to unseat three judges in an upcoming Nashville, Tenn. election is nothing less than a “raw power grab” by right wing special interests using big money to buy control of the courts, says the head of a non-partisan organization of lawyers this week.

“It is a raw power grab is what it is. Their campaign against these justices are [sic] based on a series of lies, half-truths, misstatements and material omissions,” says Charles Grant, president of the bi-partisan [Ha!] Nashville Bar Association (NBA), which has endorsed the retention of the judges. “It has huge implications nationally because if they can do it here, they can do it anywhere.”

The situation involves three Tennessee Supreme Court Justices Cornelia A. Clark, Sharon Gail Lee and Gary R. Wade, all up for retention on the court by the vote on Aug. 7. They were originally appointed by Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen.

Opposing the judges are namely Republican Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey and other Republicans backed by wealthy political operatives, some from outside the state, including the billionaire Koch brothers [Boo! Hiss!] of Wichita, Kans., according to widespread media reports. Among Ramsey’s tools is a 30-page Power Point that attempts to scare voters by claiming – in part – that the three judges are soft on the death penalty and “anti-business”.

Grant says the claims in the Power Point are blatantly false and undermines the integrity of the process.

“It is chock full of misstatements, it’s misleading, it has substantial omissions, sometimes it attributes to these judges opinions that were written by the Court of Appeals for example. And when confronted with all of this misleading information that he is putting out to the public about the quality of these justices’ work, he will come right out and say, ‘It’s not my job to tell their side of the story,’” says Grant, the NBA’s first Black [sic] president. “What is it that they hope to accomplish? They hope to control the court. [As opposed to his side controlling it.] That’s what they hope to accomplish. They don’t want independence. They want control.”

[Charles Grant is as phony as a three-dollar bill. He doesn’t for one minute believe in judicial independence. He wants to maintain control, but he’s sneaky about it, while the liberal judges’ opponents are being open.]

In Tennessee media reports, Ramsey has defended his conduct by saying, “I’m telling my side of the story and they’ll get to tell their side of the story. Every campaign tells half of the story…They tell their side of the story and the people decide.”

Adding to the difficulty of clarifying their records is the fact that judges can’t speak out to defend themselves in the same manner as someone running for a political office. Because of codes of conduct, they must appear impartial at all times and avoid public confrontations that could warrant a conflict of interest later. They can’t speak publicly on specific cases. Neither can they ask for financial contributions.

[Liberal judges have the entire MSM to troll for them.]

Voters would need to research deeply [ridic!] to unearth the real facts pertaining to the three judges, Grant says. For example, though Ramsey contends they are soft on the death penalty, they have actually affirmed 90 percent of the death penalty cases before them, Grant says. As for the “anti-business” charge, “It is not the justices’ jobs to be leaning one way or the other. That is not what we want them to do. We want them to decide the cases based on the facts and the law without favor, without prejudice to one side or the other.”

The historic principles that have allowed for major progress in America are also at stake, Grant says.

“If Supreme Court judges had been subject to special interests, we would never have had Brown verses [sic] Board of Education. We would never have had the landmark decision that dismantled segregation and state-enforced discrimination through laws like Jim Crow and racially restrictive covenants and red-lining by banks and all of those things that enforce racism and racial oppression. So we need to have some kind of check on this power to make sure the basic constitutional rights and the bill of rights are protected.”

[But the decisions and laws he’s defending all violated the U.S. Constitution, and especially, The Bill of Rights (e.g., freedom of association!), not to mention most state constitutions.]

In a nutshell, the 40-year-old “merit selection” process by which judges are chosen in Tennessee is quite common in states across the U. S. [That doesn’t make it good, or suggest that the public should blindly follow it.] Candidates are intensely vetted [yeah, right—politically vetted, to make sure no constitutionalists get through] through a bi-partisan nine-member judicial evaluation commission, which then recommends three judges to the governor for any vacancy on the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court.

[Apparently, Grant needs to look up the definition of the word, “recommend.” He has confused it with “mandate.”]

When the eight-year term is up, the judges are re-evaluated by a commission which then makes a public recommendation on whether the judge should be retained. If the commission decides against the retainer, the judge is subject to a popular election. If the commission decides for the retainer; then the judges go on the ballot for the public to review their record and to review the recommendations and to determine whether or not they should be replaced.

[The second popular option is also an election.]

After this rigorous process, Clark, Lee and Wade were all recommended for retainer by the commission of non-partisan lawyers and citizens. Yet, the judges are now under a partisan attack.

[No, they are getting a partisan defense by a racist, political hack who supports rule by lawyers.]

With the rigorous campaign to unseat and replace them, Grant fears the judges’ retention bids could realistically fail because of the potency of the smear campaign and the money that is backing it.

[What’s wrong with rigor? The only smear campaign is the one attacking the Koch Bros., Ron Ramsey, and other Republican opponents of these liberal judges.]

“It is about buying influence. They are going after these justices because these justices do not cow tow to special interests. They do their jobs. They call the balls and strikes as they see them,” Grant says. “When a special interest or group wants to target a judge, it’s kind of easy to identify, to take one of their one hundred opinions or whatever, to misstate the facts or misstate the law or completely mislead.”

Grant and the NBA are not alone in their advocacy for fairness in the process. On July 15, a bi-partisan group of district attorneys came forward to support the three judges saying they have outstanding records and deserve to be retained. Also, Republican Mickey Barker a former chief justice of the Tennessee Supreme Court, has been quoted as calling the anti-retention campaign “frightening” because it would turn the Tennessee Supreme Court into a “partisan branch of government.”

 

Dictator Franklin Delano Roosevelt
 

[News flash: The entire judiciary has long been a “partisan branch of government,” and it is the left wing of the Democratic Party, going back at least to FDR’s 1937 “revolution” on the U.S. Supreme Court. Roosevelt threatened to pack the court, by adding up to six leftwing justices, in order to stifle all judicial independence that might resist his New Deal power grabs, that made it that way. In response, the USSC meekly submitted to FDR. Ultimately FDR replaced five justices, including one conservative, who resigned in disgust, which led to the Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, which Grant praises to the skies, arguably the most corruptly partisan ruling in Supreme Court history.]
 

Judicial dictator, Chief Justice Earl Warren
 

Trial lawyer Lew Conner, also a Republican, recently held a fund-raiser of his own to assist the judges in their retention bid. “This is about a system being wrongfully attacked, and Ramsey is the attacker,” Conner was quoted in the Tennessee Watchdog.

Grant says the bi-partisan outrage is simply due to the knowledge that a politicized judiciary could lead to a rogue court which could make decisions based on political whims and allegiances instead of the facts of the cases before them.

[Doesn’t it just warm your heart, to hear racist black political hacks sing hosannas to judicial independence? Charles Grant must have been leading the fight against “Barack Obama’s subversion of judicial independence… except that he hasn’t.]

He concludes, “Lawyers don’t want judges beholding [sic] to special interests. None of us do. Lawyers don’t want to walk into court thinking that the scales of justice are already tilted toward one party before we’ve had an opportunity to present our case,” Grant concludes. [What a liar.] “The only way to win is to educate the population. If you want an independent judiciary; you have to understand when it’s under attack by partisan special interests.”



Foster's Daily Democrat, February 5, 1937