[Majorityrights News] Trump will ‘arm Ukraine to the teeth’ if Putin won’t negotiate ceasefire Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 12 November 2024 16:20.
[Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43.
[Majorityrights Central] A couple of exchanges on the nature and meaning of Christianity’s origin Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 22:19.
[Majorityrights News] Is the Ukrainian counter-offensive for Bakhmut the counter-offensive for Ukraine? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 18 May 2023 18:55.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 19 January 2019 06:07.
Jerusalem Post, “U.S. SIGNS ELIE WIESEL GENOCIDE PREVENTION ACT INTO LAW”, 16 Jan 2019:
The law is intended to prevent genocide and other atrocities that threaten national and international security.
Elie Wiesel speaks at a World War II tribute. (photo credit: REUTERS)
US President Donald Trump signed a law on Monday declaring that the prevention of genocide and other atrocities is “a core national security interest” of the United States, adding that it is also “a core moral responsibility.”
The Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act, named for the world-renown Holocaust survivor and famed author, was signed into law by Trump after it passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate in December.
The law is intended to prevent genocide and other atrocities “which threaten national and international security, by enhancing United States government capacities to prevent, mitigate, and respond to such crises.”
The new law obligates the US to mitigate threats to its national “security by addressing the root causes of insecurity and violent conflict to prevent the mass slaughter of civilians; conditions that prompt internal displacement and the flow of refugees across borders; and other violence that wreaks havoc on regional stability and livelihoods.”
The US will enhance its capacity to “identify, prevent, address, and respond to the drivers of atrocities and violent conflict” as part of its “humanitarian, development and strategic interests.” It also entails the establishment a Complex Crisis Fund that will deal with strengthening local civil society, such as human rights groups, and nonprofit organizations that are already on the ground, working to thwart and deal with atrocities as they occur.
According to the new law, “Appropriate officials of the US government” must consult at least twice a year with representatives of nongovernmental organizations and civil society actors in an effort to “enhance the capacity of the US” to identify the conditions that could lead to such atrocities, “including strengthening the role of international organizations and international financial institutions in conflict prevention, mitigation and response.”
It also “encourages” the National Intelligence director to give a detailed review of countries and regions at risk of genocide in annual testimony to Congress, “including most likely pathways to violence, specific risk factors, potential perpetrators, and at-risk target groups.”
The secretary of state is also expected to write an evaluation report every three years.
Speaking in December, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ben Cardin said that “America’s strength around the world is rooted in our values.”
“It is in our national interest to ensure that the United States utilizes the full arsenal of diplomatic, economic and legal tools to take meaningful action before atrocities occur,” said Cardin. “Earlier this month, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum identified Burmese military actions against the Rohingya as genocide. From Burma to Iraq, South Sudan to Syria, atrocity crimes tragically persist all around the globe.” He added that the Prevention Act will help ensure that the United States does a better job of responding earlier and more effectively to these heinous crimes. “I urge our House colleagues to pass this landmark legislation before the 115th Congress adjourns.”
Sen. Todd Young, an original co-sponsor of the law and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, explained that the US has a moral and strategic imperative to help prevent and respond to acts of genocide and other mass atrocities, and this legislation would ensure that the US government is better prepared to fulfill this serious responsibility.
Prior to the signing, Sara Bloomfield, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum director, said that “senators Young and Cardin’s leadership on the bill honors Elie Wiesel’s vision for the museum as a living memorial that would help save victims of future genocides and in doing so honor the victims of the Holocaust.
“This legislation is an important effort toward developing a bipartisan congressional blueprint for making ‘never again’ real by taking practical steps to mitigate the systematic persecution of vulnerable groups,” she said.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 08 January 2019 06:06.
DanielS goes into the enemy camp, continually hesitant, but inserts the time bombs that will bring down their campaign against White sovereignty and systemic homeostasis.
I’ve never seen Luke Ford so stressed (as I did the first time that I hung out with him briefly at the end of a hangout) and I’ve never seen him look so glum (the second time, when he gave me the floor with just him as an interlocutor). Actually, I take no delight in that. I’m sure that he felt pressure given his own position in defense of Jewry and from the Jewish friendly community around him to try to limit my message exposing the “objectivist” anti-“left” marketing campaign. Even so, I was able to say around 80% of what I’d planned - and some ideas will act like time bombs having gotten in there.
This was my first “HANGOUT” and not having opportunity to practice and get feedback as to how I might sound beforehand, I did not realize how persistently hesitant I was and how it was coming across. It was hard even for me to listen to myself the first time around in this uniquely bad delivery of mine. I hesitate constantly, but nevertheless, the content is there and I realized that the second time around listening to it - that it wasn’t all that bad for that reason. I take solace in the fact of knowing that I don’t have to speak that way and don’t usually, in normal conversation. I was in enemy territory, resources at risk, and that is cause for hesitation. But knowing that my position and resources are robust, it was alright to go ahead - I know that my program works now, it can’t be destroyed by the enemy. The best they can hope to do is distract from it, obstruct and try to bury it.
I am honestly not happy to see Luke looking so glum. It’s telling that he adds a link to Cofnas’ critique, like holy water against a goyim assault (I wasn’t impressed by Cofnas’ critique, BTW).
I come on at (2:20:47) and am confronted by Bob, the “bad cop”, the one with one dark eye-glass, lower right.
I had tested the water with him a few days before, on the evening of December 30th, in a Hangout called the “Victory of Social Justice Warriors.”
Seeing the Jewish sponsored meme that’s been promoted since 2008 - you don’t want any of that social justice warring, do you? - I saw it as occasion to join the conversation, which I do, late in the hangout (2:20:47) having just woken up (I’m in a completely different time zone).
(((Kyle))), comes on and tries to intimidate me with a strawman soliloquy
They had a little test or trap (depending upon how you look at it) waiting for me - three antagonistic, young interlocutors. One Jewish kid named (((Kyle))) was supposed to intimidate me with his brilliance. (((Kyle))) is a rather simple fellow, really, even if he can elaborate extensively on his simple cause - advocating his Jewish people (down with their program against “the left”). He interrupted my flow and straw manned me with soliloquys (he acted like I was “confused” - a typical Jewish canard), to clear up my “confusion” about Cochran, making some big deal about how I supposedly didn’t understand Cochran when he knew nothing about what I know, with my having made a few offhand, half joking remarks not intending any elaboration.
Luke Ford flanked by his good cop/bad cop
Then came a little “good cop /bad cop” pair against me. This Bob guy, goy, a Christian of the “irony bro” ilk (Irony Bro means obnoxious trolling with no pretense of trying to understand what the person you are trolling is trying to say, just bury them). Bob is the one with one dark eye glass - a flaming asshole who was attempting to bludgeon me with antagonism from the get go - “here, take this I.Q. test while you are waiting.” Sure Bob, I’ll do that. “Everything you say comes from 4-Chan” - going to show how he knew nothing about me, whipping out a comment perhaps applicable to Andrew Anglin. I have been to 4-chan briefly two or three times and derive literally none of my ideas from it; but that is the kind of immediate accusation this guy was rendering. He went on to say, “I can understand nothing you say” ...I rejoined that maybe his I.Q. isn’t high enough, idiot. (bad cop)
Salty Sage the “good cop” who tries to tell me that he’s on my side - yeah, right.
At the same time they had this other guy, “Salty Sage”, who claimed to be on my side. I don’t know where his two comments are now; but in the hangout and comments, Salty Sage would “kindly”, condescendingly, ‘re-interpret’ me for the others to understand on “friendly terms”. Then he added in the comments, that my “misdirection” (tries to turn the game around on me, as if I am the one giving misdirection, not Jewry; no, Salty Sage, I am the one diagnosing mis-direction), he tries to suggest that I am the one that is giving misdirection and that he sees it “sympathetically” as stemming from necessary contortions of circumstance..
When I called attention to the fact that Gottfried instigated this marketing campaign against “the left”, another “friend”, Ruston, said that I had a thing against Gottfried, thinks he’s great, and that everyone should read him. Then Salty Sage says he’s on my side (good cop). He groans when I say that Christianity is bullshit, then says he’s on my side (good cop Salty Sage is “on my side”, yeah right).
Anyway, that’s the context of my first hangout with Luke:(2:20:47); I make a few points that I don’t make in my subsequent talk, which is mostly me talking and Luke adding a few rejoinders. I didn’t get to say half of what I’d like to say, but the chat encouraged Luke to use the plausible excuse of my bad delivery to prevent me from subverting their position any further. Listen here: DanielS from Majorityrights talks with Luke on the topic of whether Jews are good for Western Civilization (and Europeans generally); you can listen here or Download the MP3: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593/are-jews-good-for-western-civilization - Pinned by Luke Ford.
Brundlefly
Norvin Hobbs
One of Luke‘s frequent guests, “Brundlefly” (Jewish wife, Jeff Goldblum Avitar) tries his best to put the damper on my position in the comments (which I re-post under the fold) and was probably one of those who got Luke to shut down the discussion more quickly than he normally would (Luke typically allows discussions to go on for a couple hours and I had expected to say all I had planned to say, but wasn’t given the time). Brundedlefly starts-off amicably enough, while giving away the fact that he knows nothing about me, given his surprise that I am familiar with Norvin Hobbs.
Brundlefly, 1 day ago (edited): Lmao at this guy knowing about Norvin Hobbs
After some commentators who agree with me that Jewry is NOT good for Western Civilization, things get more antagonistic and I defend myself. Only two people seem to be directly on my side, “Kat Ruby” and “Jewel Citizen”, who seems almost like Soren Renner, but I’m not sure who it is….
ARE JEWS GOOD FOR WESTERN CIVILIZATION?
Iskandar
23 hours ago
No
Mephistopheles Ghost
22 hours ago
No
The Antagonist
23 hours ago
“Are Jews Good For Western Civilization?”. NO!
Sam Browne
22 hours ago
The answer is no….No they’re not.
United States of Post America
21 hours ago
Whites and Blacks have lived together in the South for 400 years.
United States of Post America
21 hours ago
Majority Rights is hard to listen too.
PersistentPatriot
16 hours ago
Are Termites good for log cabins?
Vegtam Returns
12 hours ago
If.by “good” you mean, enabling the mass invasion of Europe by hostile religious fanatics with low IQs then yes - Jews are very good!
gurugeorge
19 hours ago (edited)
Yes and no. The question is really: are they a net good? NAJALT, plus many great contributions to civilization have been made by Jews, so the question is whether the harm that’s been done by Jewish bad apples (as canvassed in, say, Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique ) outweighs the benefits brought by their fellows (e.g. the great academics, entrepreneurs, storytellers, technologists, etc.), or vice-versa.
The situation is rather comparable to the situation re. Muslims: survey after survey has found that while of course NAMALT, a worryingly large minority do wish ill on the host culture, or are at least willing to turn a blind eye. It’s like that with the Jews: some good people who are very, very good, some troublemakers who are very, very bad, and a worryingly large minority who do wish ill on the host culture; so the question is whether the trade-off is worth it. At the moment, it’s not looking good.
All this is why wise people in the past always thought of the Jewish Question as a really, really thorny problem. If you eject Jews from your culture, you risk losing many benefits and becoming something of a backwater; if you don’t eject them, you risk being subverted and having your culture and civilization destroyed from within.
General Patton
23 hours ago
The question can easily be decided by looking at one single issue; immigration.
Jews are, for the most part, open borders lunatics, hell bent on wrecking western nations with massive third world immigration.
Kat Ruby
19 hours ago
After listening from beginning to end, I get the impression that Luke doesn’t like you, Daniel. He uses PC gotcha, ‘you don’t like Jews’ which sets you up in a political correct world as a bad man. But Luke is civilized enough and his perspective as one of Jew’s step-brethren can be enlightening.
Brundlefly
14 hours ago
Kat Ruby probably because Daniel is so devoid of charisma that he felt like his time was being wasted.
Daniel Sienkiewicz
9 hours ago (edited)
@Brundlefly We’ll see if I am “void of charisma” and especially if the content I’m producing is a “waste of time”
99hoolio
20 hours ago
This guy is the anti-KMG. I don’t think I’ve heard a less fluent speaker.
Daniel Sienkiewicz
19 hours ago (edited)
It;s hard even for me to listen to my constant hesitations. It’s a shame because the content is there; but being aware of the frustrating delivery, I’ll be sure to be more fluid in the future.
rollo clevich
16 hours ago
@Daniel Sienkiewicz I now why you delivered a prepared script when you were on Sunic’s VOR show many years ago.
Brundlefly
14 hours ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz you need to raise your energy level bud. Also the bumping microphone is distracting.
Daniel Sienkiewicz
10 hours ago
Raise my energy level? The bumps and hesitance in my presentation were due mostly to a lack of experience in hangouts. I had (and have) energy enough for much more that I need to say. You sound like Donald Trump in your low energy criticism. Don’t worry, he had enough energy level to complete the raison d’etre of his presidency - to undo the Iran Deal for his people.
Brundlefly
10 hours ago (edited)
Daniel Sienkiewicz you speak in a low monotone. You have the charisma of a paper bag. Go back and read the chat to see how the audience reacted to your presentational style.
I went back and listened a second time, and I found your perspective unique and interesting. However, your presentation is so poor that I doubt you’ll get many opportunities to share it.
Daniel Sienkiewicz
9 hours ago
@Brundlefly I listened a second time as well, and didn’t think it was bad the second time around; and I have much more to say. I think your perspective is overly harsh because it is influenced by the fact of your Jewish wife. It is wishfully negative therefore - “the charisma of a paper bag.” I won’t bother looking at the chat because it is full of HASBRA-like trolls, Christians, etc. They will take as antagonistic a view of me as possible. I may not get many opportunities here to share my view some more if the likes of you and your Jewish friends can help it, but its your loss. I will go elsewhere and they will be better off for it.
Brundlefly
9 hours ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz Lmao keep making excuses for being terrible radio. You pontificate for 25 minutes, Luke speaks for 5 seconds and you’re already cutting him off.
Daniel Sienkiewicz
9 hours ago (edited)
@Brundlefly I didn’t cut him off, he can speak all he wants*. I’m not making excuses. The content is there and there is more to come. I’m sorry for your predicament with your wife, but it’s not my problem. You can try disinformation on the basis of criticizing me and my style, but the content is there, it is informative “radio”, and there is more to come, probably with better style as well.
*You’re talking about the moment when I didn’t want to be tarred with the singular idea that Jews “are parasites” In fact, I got derailed from saying that they are generally antagonistic as a pattern - a different matter from parasitism and also reason to separate from them.
AJC B
9 hours ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz Pop a couple of Modafinils two hours before the show. Wash them down with a double espresso or two but don’t forget the L-theanine!
Brundlefly
7 hours ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz I have no criticism of your ideas. I already said I thought they were unique and interesting. I’m offering you the constructive criticism that your presentation is bad and you should work on it if you care about influencing others with your ideas.
Regarding your poor interpersonal skills, you kept interrupting every single time Luke broke in. Apparently, speaking uninterrupted for tens of minutes at a time in a sloth-like cadence isn’t enough for you.
Daniel Sienkiewicz
7 hours ago (edited)
@Brundlefly Thank you. I’m glad that you like my ideas and there are more to be heard. I have heard many intelligent things from you as well. I already readily acknowledged in my very first comment that it was even hard for me to listen (to me) for all the hesitancy in my speech (maybe because I’d “been out on the town” the night before) but whatever would be my excuse, I have already said that I will concentrate on doing better. Regarding my interpersonal skills, ultimately, Luke spoke, said everything that he intended to say and would speak every time he wanted. And that’s is perfectly fine with me.
ovfuckyou
6 hours ago
@Brundlefly “I think your perspective is overly harsh because it is influenced by the fact of your Jewish wife.” LOL
Daniel Sienkiewicz
6 hours ago
@ovfuckyou Yes, I think that motivated some of his harsh criticisms - charisma of a paper bag, snails pace, shit like that.
Brundlefly
1 hour ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz where’s the lie? You can’t refute my observations so you resort to ad hominem.
Daniel Sienkiewicz
36 minutes ago (edited)
@Brundlefly My very first comment was an acknowledgement that the presentation should have been better. I was unaware of how I was coming across with my continually hesitant speech in this, my first hangout. I said I’d be sure to do better in the future. You agreed that the content was there. ..but produced a flurry of comments under this and other comments - making ad hominum attacks ON ME: You were surprised that I knew who Norvin Hobbs was. Which means that you barely know who I am. But then you went on to draw full conclusions about me from this, my fist hangout - that I “have no charisma” - which you added to Kat Ruby’s comment below,; that I have “the charisma of the paper bag”, that you doubted that I’d get more opportunities to present my ideas because of my poor delivery” - I believe these “observations” are heavily influenced by the fact that my views are a threat to Jewish participation in White advocacy - and perhaps those married into Jewry, as you are. Recognizing the threat, the chat was probably encouraging Luke to truncate my message - I had about twenty percent remaining of what I planned to say - important stuff - would have headed off some of the misdirection that Halsey et al. were trying to put across in the subsequent podcast . But I have lots more more to say and don’t need to say it here; if you are going to insist on blocking me based on conclusions that you try to draw about “my lack of charisma” when, in fact, you know little about me. I was being attacked from the onset in my brief entry to the hangout the other day - so, the people here are not exactly rooting form me - and it is to be expected as I am in Jewish territory replete with trolls and trolling that will seize upon anything that they can to limit my message.
Brundlefly
28 minutes ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz I’m not blocking anyone. If you think this audience is hostile to your message, then you don’t understand the audience.
Daniel Sienkiewicz
1 second ago
@Brundlefly I disagree. I do understand the audience and the context.
Jewel Citizen
15 hours ago
There are two words in your title that do not belong in the same sentence let alone next to each other and I’m not referring to ”Western Civilisation”…
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 07 December 2018 08:37.
“Use of furloughs for prisoners in the U.S. is widespread, successful and relatively problem free,” the editor of a magazine for corrections professionals told the New York Times in 1988 (the New York Times was part of the Newhouse Group).
The (((Newhouse Group)) had a strangle hold on media by means of major U.S. city newspaper and magazine syndication in days prior to internet (and any goyem who wanted to be journalist, let alone an editor, had better be of the shabbos variety). YKW also had a strong grip on publishing, along with a strangle-hold on the three major TV networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC; and then there were the eight major Hollywood YKW studios that they headed to facilitate their effective control of public information; viz., in the times since electronic media began to supplant their millennia-long popular “media” control and the taken for granted perception thereof by means of the bible narratives. The Newhouse syndicate and YKW TV networks had a blackout on reporting the race of rapists and murderers (because it would reveal a vast disproportion of these crimes committed were black on White). The H. Bush candidacy saw a last gasp of asserting openness and honesty about black on White crime, as Bush appealed to the White voting base with the Willie Horton ad that drew condemnation from the YKW’s liberal agenda.
The add observes: “One murderer allowed a weekend pass was Willie Horton, who murdered a boy in a robbery, stabbing him 19 times. Despite a life sentence, Horton received 10 weekend passes from prison. Horton fled, kidnapped a young couple, stabbing the man and repeatedly raped his girlfriend.”
On October 26, 1974, in Lawrence, Massachusetts, Horton and two accomplices robbed Joseph Fournier, a 17 year-old gas station attendant, and then fatally stabbed Fournier 19 times after he had cooperated by handing over all of the money in the cash register. His body was stuffed in a trash can so his feet were jammed up against his chin. Fournier died from blood loss.
It should be observed that the passing of George H. Bush also represents the passing of the last Jewish resistant Anglo-Aristocratic regime in the U.S. Presidency. Witness commentary made by his Secretary of State, James Baker, “F— the Jews” since they don’t vote for Republicans anyway..
The YKW made up their minds that H. Bush would be a one term President, and that is how Clinton became President “out of nowhere” (same way Trump became President “out of nowhere” ...cough, “I’ll undo the Iran Deal for you”, cough).
At the time, everyone could see that Clinton had no character. And yet, “out of nowhere”, the sniveling creep emerged, literally on cue, to the media angles to present him as a tough, standup guy - “presidential.” It was maddeningly easy to see how phony this all was, and how the media was integral to rigging Clinton to be the President to supplant Bush and his “F- the Jews” Secretary of State.
Clinton looks for cue regarding camera angle…shabbos Bill then turns focus to slay the evil Anglo-elitist.
Can you imagine the media abiding Clinton’s corny posturing?
Clinton’s histrionics project the evil, sniveling creep of his own character…
And YKW/Shabbos media makes a transparently false negative pretense to be objectively critical of him.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 10 November 2018 19:20.
Nordic episode: penchant to confront Augustinian, natural challenges, exposes naive susceptibility to invasive, viz. Manichean species?
An illustrative episode in which:
A Nordic woman expresses her nature to confront the Augustinian (Augustinian devils = natural devils, e.g., the cold), and anthropomorphized as such, indicates her natural inclination’s potential naivete and susceptibility to invasive, human species, particularly those of a more Manichean, trickster nature (Manichean = human, trickster devils, that can change the rules).
Augustinianism would be an evolutionary adaptation by those people confronted primarily with natural challenges (such as in the cold north), while Manicheanism would be an increased evolutionary adaptation by those confronted primarily by inter-tribal challenges (as in the Middle East)
The Economist urges Europe to accept its merger with Africa gracefully
The Economist, owned by the Rothschilds, has always been at the forefront of globalism. Back in the early days of mass migration, it mocked those, such as Cyril Osborne, who warned that the population reserves of the Third World were infinite, and Europeans would seen be faced with minority status if the influx was allowed to continue.
Here we are only a few decades later and the Economist, in the same imperturbably smug tone that is its hallmark, now tells Europeans that their being merged with Africa is now inevitable and they should accept it gracefully.
Europe’s deluded politicians still say that we need to encourage development in Africa to stop them coming here. But as the Economist makes clear, prosperity acts as a driver of immigration, not the obverse.
Today’s waves of African migration are merely a prelude. Of the 2.2bn citizens added to the global population by 2050, 1.3bn will be Africans—about the size of China’s population today. And more of them will have the means to travel. Those Africans risking the trip north across the Mediterranean today are not the poorest, but those with a mobile phone to organise the trip and money to pay smugglers. Few of the Nigerians who attempt the crossing are from their country’s poor north, for example; almost all are from its wealthier south. As African countries gradually prosper, migration will surely increase, not decrease. Emmanuel Macron raised these points in a recent interview. The French president was recommending a new book, “The Rush to Europe”, published in French by Stephen Smith of Duke University, which models past international migrations like that of Mexicans into America to show that the number of Afro-Europeans (Europeans with African roots) could rise from 9m at present to between 150m and 200m by 2050, perhaps a quarter of Europe’s total population.
Rape is probably inevitable, women. Rather than resist it, you should do your best to try and enjoy it. Maybe your rapist will turn out to be a nice guy. You can have little brown sprogs with him and live happily ever after.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 01 November 2018 09:47.
Ending Birth-Right Citizenship is inherently important, but at this point, is it a sedative injection for America’s already baked-in Mulatto supremacist trajectory?
Is it just tossing a bone to right wing sell outs - a bone picked clean of loyal White interests? - for the Zionist quid pro quo?
“Trump Wants to Curb Birthright Citizenship, Escalating Immigration Debate”
Legal scholars dismiss the idea, saying a president lacks standing to do it on his own
WASHINGTON—President Trump said he wants to sign an executive order that ends the automatic right to citizenship for anyone born in the U.S., ratcheting up his election-season remarks on immigration with a proposal many legal scholars said is unconstitutional.
In an interview published Tuesday morning, just ahead of next week’s midterms, Mr. Trump said he planned an executive order to end what is known as birthright citizenship, bypassing Congress and waving off the belief of many legal scholars that such a move would require a change to the Constitution.
“It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t,” he told Axios. “It’s in the process. It’ll happen, with an executive order.”
Born in the U.S.Since 2007, the number of births to unauthorized immigrants has declined. Source: Pew Research Center
Constitutional scholars dismissed the idea, saying a president has no legal standing to end birthright citizenship with an executive order. “It’s basically saying the president is above the Constitution,” said Laura K. Donohue, a senior scholar at the Georgetown Center for the Constitution.
The White House didn’t further explain Mr. Trump’s assertion that he alone could make the move, and it didn’t provide further details about the scope of the proposed executive order or the timing.
“We will let you know when we have an announcement,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said.
Birthright citizenship is a pillar of U.S. immigration law and is protected by the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which, among other goals, was designed to grant full citizenship to former slaves. But some conservatives who favor more restrictive immigration laws have opposed the policy, saying it improperly rewards the children of people in the country who lack proper documentation.
Mr. Trump’s proposal is the latest in a string of pronouncements as he seeks to invigorate GOP voters ahead of the midterms. He recently suggested a middle-income tax cut that appeared to surprise both his staff and lawmakers. Last week, he said he would seek to cut prices that Medicare pays for some prescription drugs, but that wouldn’t go into effect until late 2019 or 2020.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 01 November 2018 06:55.
American Thinker, “Trump Is the Best President Ever for American Jews”, 1 Nov 2018:
By Karin McQuillan
President Trump’s statement on anti-Semitism the day after the Tree of Life massacre truly was “electrifying.”
The Jews have endured terrible persecution, and you know that we’ve all read it: We’ve studied it. They’ve gone through a lot and those seeking their destruction…we will seek their destruction…Never again.
It touched my heart deeply. Jews have never, but never, been given this kind of whole-hearted support by an American leader before. Trump told the rally-goers in Illinois, slowly, and with great emphasis:
This evil anti-Semitic attack is an assault on all of us. It’s an assault on humanity. It will require all of us, working together, to extract the hateful poison of anti-Semitism from our world. This was an anti-Semitic attack at its worst. The scourge of anti-Semitism cannot be ignored, cannot be tolerated, and it cannot be allowed to continue. We cannot allow it to continue. It must be confronted and condemned everywhere it rears its very ugly head. We must stand with our Jewish brothers and sisters to defeat anti-Semitism, and vanquish the forces of hate – that’s what it is.
Jews have never, but never, been given this kind of whole-hearted backing by an American leader before. Jews are used to facing murderous hate alone. We are not used to words that reflect the moral truth. We’re used to mealy mouthed pieties condemning hate on all sides.
A dear friend who is active fighting anti-Semitism wrote me, “It is the strongest statement in support of Jews ever made by an American president.”
[...]
And now antisemitic murders of Jews have happened in America, on his watch. Trump is putting the evil doers on notice: anti-Semitism will not be tolerated. Anti-Semitism? It’s got to end.
The forces of anti-Semitism are concentrated in four groups of our fellow Americans: white supremacists like the man who murdered the congregants of Tree of Life; the Nation of Islam and our black community, Hispanic immigrants and to a lesser extent, native-born Hispanics, and progressives. Three of these four groups are large, significant voting blocs. All three are crucial to Democrat electoral victory.