James Fields Acquittal What If

James Fields Acquittal What If — James Fields Jr., the driver of the car that killed Heather Heyer during Saturday’s riots in Charlottesville, Va, may be the most hated man in America. Media outlets are calling him sans qualification a “neo Nazi” and “white supremacist”. The President, himself, has been backed into calling him a terrorist and murderer not necessarily to the joy of the prosecutors who are going to find it that much harder to find an untainted jury.

It would be the ultimate display of hipster irony if the progressives broke into the jail and hanged him from a lamppost.

Fields is charged with second degree murder, three counts of malicious wounding and failure to stop in an accident that resulted in death.

FindLaw.com says second degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable “heat of passion”; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender’s obvious lack of concern for human life. 

From the videos all of us have seen, it certainly fits but here’s a thought that will make certain heads spin: what if he’s acquitted?  What if his motivation wasn’t to cause harm but to flee danger as some tweets at the time seem to indicate? If he can show this, he will be acquitted of the murder charge and probably everything else.

So hipsters, progressives and media pundits, get your torches and clubs and rope and break into that jail now if you want done what you’ve already made your minds up about must be done.

Or else just ask what Clarence Darrow would do and let a trial happen. If Fields is found guilty he’ll be punished as deserved.

James Fields Acquittal What If

James Fields Acquittal What If

Racism Definition, Anti-American AntiFa And Honest Abe

Racism Definition,  Anti-American AntiFa And Honest Abe — The hate-group Antifa is portrayed by crony corporatists,  establishment media and Deep State Republicans as opponents of racism and defenders of the oppressed despite its funding by mega-oppressor George Soros and despite it being on The New Jersey Department of Homeland Security’s watchlist.

Please recognize that this group is a bad thing. They are modern-day brownshirts filled with hate and motivated by a desire to rule. They are worse than modern-day Klansmen and Nazis in that the modern-day Klan and Nazi Party are run by incompetents that would make Elmer Fudd look smart.

Antifa is run by pros and has a well-planned agenda.  “. . .fascisti si dividono in due categorie: i fascisti e gli antifascisti”* as the great Ennio Flaiano said.

Few people called “racists” are. Racism is the practice of defining ethnicities, categorizing human beings in them and then declaring certain categories don’t deserve civil rights. It’s a vile thing and the vast majority of Americans consider it such.

If someone should call you a racist for holding a political opinion or liking a certain candidate, make them define the word. Odds are they won’t even try. Antifa and its fellow-travelers want the definition to be arbitrary. They want it to be used only when it advances their agenda without people thinking about it.

For the snowflakes who may not been given an accurate depiction of American history in the public schools here is how a great man suggested we unify this country after a bloody war:


At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully.

The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.


*Fascists are divided into two categories: Fascists and the anti-fascists.

Racism Definition , Anti-American AntiFa And Honest Abe

Racism Definition , Anti-American AntiFa And Honest Abe

Pa Drivers License Ineligible For Air Travel Come 2018

Pa Drivers License Ineligible For Air Travel Come 2018 — A Pennsylvania drivers license will not be accepted for boarding an airplane a year from now.

The state license is not compliant with the federal REAL ID Act of 2005.

And Pennsylvania law — Act 38 of 2012 — specifically prevents the state from being in compliance.

Something is obviously going to have to give, and it will be interesting to see which way. Many civil libertarians, including Evangelist Christians, oppose REAL ID on 10th Amendment grounds and from a fear it will lead to a national identity card.  Those primarily concerned about illegal immigration, however, support it. Pa Drivers License Ineligible For Air Travel Come 2018 -- A Pennsylvania drivers license will not be accepted for boarding an airplane a year from now.

President-Elect Trump was strongly supported by both sides.

Stay tuned.

Pa Drivers License Ineligible For Air Travel Come 2018

ACLU Now Involved In Rose Tree Park Matter

ACLU Now Involved In Rose Tree Park Matter — A letter from the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania has been sent to Delaware County officials concerning the matter, July 16, in which Libertarians circulating petitions for their 7th District Congressional candidate Patrick Sellers were chased from the county-owned Rose Tree Park after their petitions were confiscated then apparently lost.

The letter from Deputy Legal Director Mary Catherine Roper is addressed to county solicitor Michael L. Maddren; Delaware County Park Police Chief Samuel S. Ziviello; and Parks Director Marc J. Manfre.

The letter notes that bans on distributing political literature or carrying political signs are unconstitutional even if the ban was neutral which in the case of Rose Tree Park it is not. ACLU Now Involved In Rose Tree Park Matter

Libertarian spokesman Dale Kerns of Ridley said the canvassers have been allowed back in the park but are not allowed to carry signs or wear t-shirts identifying their party.

He also says the confiscated signatures have still not been returned. Sellers needs 2,500 signatures from residents of the 7th District to get on the ballot. If he falls a few hundred short, a very real civil rights violation will have occurred which will not bode well for the careers of certain county officials and police people.

Here is a link to the letter: Rose Tree Park Delaware County demand letter

ACLU Now Involved In Rose Tree Park Matter


Tahmir Craig Case Black Eye For Whelan

Tahmir Craig Case Black Eye For Whelan — Delaware County District Attorney Jack Whelan announced in a press conference yesterday, March 20,  that he was dropping the case against Tahmir Craig whom he had charged with first degree murder for the May 28 killing of Devon Williams in Chester.

It turns out that Craig had a strong alibi and that he was six-inches too short to have been the shooter who was captured on video.

Craig had spent the last 10 months in the county lockup.

Whelan appears to be expecting some pats on the back for, well, deciding against trying to send this young man — Craig is 23 — to  the execution gurney.

“As prosecutors in the administration of justice, we have an absolute
duty to exhaust all resources in our efforts to pursue the truth,”
Whelan said.

The pats on the back are not going to come from here.

Craig was arrested after tips came  to police that the shooter was named “Tahmir”. Police checked a police data base and Craig’s name came up. They thought his picture sorta looked like the one on the video, and witnesses picked him out of a photo array.

Bingo! Case solved!

You would think, though, that due diligence by trained professionals would involve checking alibis and determining heights before filing charges, and that a private attorney would not need to be hired to insist on these rather basic things being done before one tries to send a young man to his death and requires him to spend nearly a year in prison.

You know the real killer is still out there, right, Jack?


Tahmir Craig Case Black Eye For Whelan

Tahmir Craig Case Black Eye For Whelan

Red Flag In 2012 Defense Bill

Red Flag In 2012 Defense Bill –The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 is raising concerns across the political spectrum for language that would give the Office of the Presidency the ability to detain people indefinitely without trial.

The Senate version of the act — S. 1867 — was passed 93-7 on Dec. 1 with both Pennsylvania senators, Republican Pat Toomey and Democrat Bob Casey Jr. voting aye.

It is now being reconciled with H. R. 1540. which did not include the rather disconcerting language now found in sections 1031 and 1032 when it was passed   322-96  on May 26.

The senators who dissented on S. 1867 were very conservative Republicans Rand Paul of Kentucky, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Mike Lee of Utah; very liberal Democrats Tom Harkin of Iowa, and Oregonians Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkeley; and outright Socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Paul is the man leading the charge against the new language and explains his reasoning on this YouTube video.

The actual language passed Dec. 1 of the sections which are part of Subtitle D — Detainee Matters  is:


(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the
authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered
persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law
of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially
supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include
the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of
Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of
Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s
country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to
limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or
any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of
Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the
authority described in this section, including the organizations,
entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons’ for
purposes of subsection (b)(2).


(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4),
the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in
paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in
military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section
1031 who is determined–

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the
direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B ) to have participated in the course of planning
or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States
or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this
subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the
meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise
described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless
consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the
Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph
(1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that
such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a
person in military custody under this section does not extend to
citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a
person in military custody under this section does not extend to a
lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by
the Constitution of the United States.

(c) Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to
Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized
to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which
such determinations are to be made.

(B ) Procedures providing that the requirement for
military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the
interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with
regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under
subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the
conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the
determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such
ongoing session.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for
military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when
intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the
United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the
custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of
national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for
the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if
such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not
otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the
date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and
shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who
are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United
States on or after that effective date.

The bills can be tracked at Thomas.Gov

Race, Libertarians And Democrats

Race, Libertarians And Democrats — Rand Paul, who is the GOP senatorial nominee for Kentucky and the son of America’s most famous libertarian, said on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show that  business should be allowed to discriminate with regard to how they serve customers which is something prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Section II ).

While he also defended the landmark law in general terms and condemned racial discrimination he was raked over the coals by the wolves who run the establishment media for the sake of the sheep.

Here is something to ponder: throughout America’s history every ethnic group faced discrimination from those on top at the time. This is true of the Irish, the Italians, the Swedes, the Eastern Europeans (upon who was bestowed the slur “honky”,  and, in fact, if you go back far enough was the inspiration for the word “slave”), Japanese, Chinese, Cubans and even the Germans.

All of course persevered and eventually prospered in the face of the bigots in business.

So what made the black experience different? The answer is government. Laws were passed to require that restaurants and hotels and buses have separate accommodations for blacks and whites. Officers of the law ignored with impunity crimes committed against blacks, and even at times joined in their commission. Agents of the state conspired to keep blacks from exercising their votes much less their rights to speak and lobby, often by sanctioning terror.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was progress in that it ended these things, but what if it stopped short of prohibiting business owners to be bigots? Maybe blacks would end up with the same stature in small business that they enjoy in professional sports and entertainment which were never really subject to civil rights legal action. Does it occur to anyone that businesses that refuse customers don’t survive?

Something else to ponder: the group that imposed the government oppression of blacks was not the libertarians.

It was the authoritarian, anti-business, big government Democrats. And don’t think those Democrats were just  disgruntled Confederates from the 19th Century.

Progressive hero Woodrow Wilson — the Democrat who gave us the income tax, the IRS and Federal Reserve Board — turned Washington D.C. from a racially integrated city in 1913 to a racially segregated, Jim Crow town.

Fitz Hollings,  the Democrat senator from South Carolina and ally of Bill Clinton, was the one who who started flying the Confederae battle flag over South Carolina’s Capitol to protest the civil rights movement in 1962.

Robert Bryd’s support was integral to the government take over of health care in March. The Democrat senator from West Virginia and one-time Senate Majority leader was once a recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan.

It was Democratic mayors, governors and police chiefs that turned firehoses and police dogs on civil rights marchers in the 1950s and 1960s.

If the Rand Pauls of the world ran things Jim Crow would never have existed, and if they ran things in 1964 Jim Crow  would have ended with a lot less turmoil and heartache, and blacks and whites today would be about as divided as Italians and WASPs are today.

Race, Libertarians And Democrats
Race, Libertarians And Democrats



Race, Libertarians And Democrats