John Cleese – of Monty Python fame – has come out very strongly in favor of Restore Britain: the new British political party which is committed to expelling the migrants. Cleese has been a life-long Lefty. Probably still is, at least for the most part. But he recognizes (and perhaps too late) that if there is to be a Britain which allows a John Cleese to thrive, it can’t be a Britain overrun with migrants. That to try to absorb millions of foreigners who despise the local culture is impossible – they must be forced out or they will take over. There is no middle ground here.
To be sure, there could have been. If the British government had carefully vetted the migrants, limited their numbers and insisted they be educated, wealthy and not tied to Islamist ideology, Britain could have taken in quite a lot of Muslims without any great difficulty. What Britain did – what all of Europe has done – is take in the least acceptable Muslims. Ignorant, backwards, bigoted people entirely enthralled to Islamist ideology. By doing this, the British Ruling Class – the European Ruling Class – has made it a zero-sum game: all or nothing. One side or the other must be destroyed.
Right now, I rate it heavily in the Islamist’s favor. Every European institution is entirely captured by them and the European population in sunk into sloth and cowardice. But it wouldn’t take much. As has been famously said, only 3% – if it is really determined – is necessary. In Europe, I drop that to 1% because the military and police forces of Europe are pathetic and nobody is really going to fight hard to keep the current system. The bigger fight would be between the patriots and the invaders – but turning out the British government, itself, would only take about 10,000 determined British patriots marching on London. And maybe someone like Cleese coming out in favor of Britain will start the ball rolling? I hope it does. I’d hate to see European civilization end.
Fauci took the fifth quite a lot – not quite as much as Vito Genovese, but right up there. Oddly, he’s been granted a pardon…which means he really can’t take the fifth; he’s not in danger of jail no matter what he says about the time period covered (which goes back to 2014). This refusal to answer is contempt of Congress, an actual crime. We’ll see if the Congress has the guts to refer him…but even there, the hearing was held in DC, which means we’d have to try him in DC and no DC jury is going to convict Fauci. Should have had a special session of the committee in Florida. That said, Fauci utterly destroyed himself. Probably most people hadn’t known he had been pardoned…and why not answer questions about what you did? He’s the great scientist, right? What’s to hide? The Mrs is still not very political and she, watching the hearing, came to loath Fauci. Wanted to smack him kind of loathing. This matters – it is important in and of itself; it is people at last losing respect for the Ruling Class. That is really what destroys them.
Francesca Hong is the likely Democrat nominee for governor of Wisconsin and she’s completely insane. Seriously holding to the “police cause crime” Democrat Socialist line. She’s not remotely alone nor nearly the most insane Democrat rising in 2026. Trump and the GOP will mercilessly point this out all through to November.
Iran took a shot at a US base and word now is that Trump has ordered the gloves taken off. We’ll see how that plays out.
It is pretty certain that if there’s a small, urban market that takes EBT, it is just a front for welfare fraud.
Blogs For Victory 
One of the problems with England, and pretty much all of Europe pushing back, sadly, is that the populace is not armed, even with good sized pocket knives. I’m curious if any Muslin immigrant has ever been arrested for carrying a machette.
Thank God our founders saw fit to make sure the citizens could resist a shift toward a tyrannical form of government.
Conversely, there’s not a lot of noise coming from the gun control folks in this country lately.
And in Cueta we see why the European Ruling Class disarmed the people…a full-on invasion by tens of thousands of military-aged males and the Army and police stand by…and the people can’t do anything. Reports are that already the invaders are invading homes, defecating in the streets and helping themselves to whatever they want. In other words, turning an European town into an Muslim one.
Let’s back up a little even from this, to the initiation of the European Union. The argument was all about removing barriers of travel and trade between nations eligible to be in the EU. Now we can look back at this as the first step in opening every one of these nations to invasion, as what is accepted and legal in one of the EU nations can be claimed to apply to all. If a citizen of Spain can go to France without any formal approval, then when Spain accepts African immigrants/invaders as legitimate they, too, can travel to France without any government intervention. And from there to Germany, etc.
Right now, each nation has the ability to make an independent decision on immigration, but once this is challenged by EU membership and rules all pretense of sovereignty will be trampled.
Those Lefties are a wily bunch, and continually outmaneuver us. The play the Long Game while the rest of the world doesn’t even know there IS a game.
I wonder if pleading the 5th 111 times yesterday permanently damaged Anthony Fauci’s ego. I think most people thought he would double down and say “how dare you question me and my motives and expertise.” Maybe it was the realization that the auto pen pardon isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. That said, it’s sad that he will likely never be held accountable for the inestimable damage he did and the lives, families, and businesses that were destroyed because of him and others that shared his views. OTOH, maybe the process is the punishment. I can’t imagine too many former supporters, after watching yesterday’s hearing, still think he’s a great guy.
The damage Democrats and Big Pharma did to this country during Covid is incalculable, so of course they want us to forget it. Remember the “winter of death” … how Orwellian was that? How about the “pandemic of the unvaccinated”?? As someone who never got the vaccine and who thought mask and distancing mandates were fucking ridiculous, I will never forget how I was treated. NEVER. Fuck them all. They are all cowards. What in the hell would happen if this country faced a real threat …. You can’t rely on the vaccinated to step up. They will cower. They want to stay safe!!!!
Did you all see the land invasion into Spain from the cockroaches? ALL young men. I didn’t see one woman, child, or elderly person. What decent people do this?? There is a battle brewing to save western society and the Leftists and Muslims are antithetical to a free and decent society, so if we want to retain it, we had better be prepared to fight. Because that fight is coming. Europe is simply first.
Check out this headline:
Moroccans are currently raiding houses in Ceuta; the army is still unable to act due to orders from the Spanish government.
We can’t rely on our government to protect us either
It was pointed out that the invasion was coordinated via Facebook – my bet is that it was a joint operation between the governments of Morocco and Spain (Morocco has long claimed the town as part of Morocco even though the population has been Spanish for 500+ years). Not one Moroccan will be sent back and soon the families will be allowed in. Cueta in a year will be able to vote by overwhelming majority to join Morocco.
I say give it to them. Cueta is part of the African continent so not worth fighting over. They will ruin it soon enough anyway. Muslims are cockroaches
Meanwhile, Trump is still cooking
Hamas agrees to ‘complete disarmament’ in Gaza after Trump reveals historic deal for peace in Middle East
So Hamas has agreed to disarm!!! Doesn’t that kind of kill the genocide narrative? That’s a rhetorical question.
This reflects a common misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment, one perpetuated even by Trump’s Executive Order.
To comply with the 14th Amendment, citizenship based on birth in the United States is restricted to those born to parents who are NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION of the United States.
Legal permanent residents are still under the jurisdiction of their native countries. They remain so until they become U.S. citizens.
The constant repetition of the erroneous belief that birthright citizenship is linked to legal residence in the United States just contributes to the confusion and conflict.
Anyway, I want it even tougher: Amendment to…
You can only be a Natural Born Citizen (NBC)if you are born to an American citizen while living in the territory of the United States and you must reside continually inside US territory for at least 16 of your first 18 years.
Only NBC’s may hold offices of profit or trust within the United States – elected, appointed, honorary, dogcatcher to President. Only NBC’s may vote or serve on a jury and only NBC’s are counted in the census for Representation purposes.
Persons born in the USA to legal residents may become citizens upon their 18th birth provided they never left the USA from birth to 18th birthday, have no felony crimes and never received any sort of government aid either directly or via parents. Such are not NBC’s nor can they ever be considered as such.
Legal residents may become citizens after 20 years continuous living in the USA, no crimes of any sort, never received any public aid. Persons born to naturalized citizens are not NBC’s but their children will be (so, only the grandchildren of immigrants can possibly become NBC’s).
All legal aliens must depart no later than 20 years after arrival unless they become citizens.
All legal immigrants must be 18 to 30 years old when they arrive, physically fit, no criminal record, single, no children, fluent in English and with a net wealth of at least $10,000.
Refugees are to be retained in refugee camps to be established on Adak Island (Alaska), Midway Atoll, Navassa Island (Caribbean), a two square mile camp in the center of the Big Bend area of Texas at least 25 miles from the nearest town and Alcatraz. Refugees will be provided essential food, clothing, housing and medical care and will be sent back home or to another nation upon their request. Refugees must present themselves at a US consulate or a legal border crossing to be allowed into the refugee camps. No refugee may ever become a permanent resident or citizen of the United States (time to end this nonsense – if you’re really fleeing for your life, this is fine and you’ll be grateful for the safety and for the passage to a third party country).
No person receiving government aid outside Social Security or VA benefits may vote or hold any office of profit or trust (what about government pensions? Simple: there aren’t any – government employees go to 401k’s like the rest of us – that isn’t government aid).
Government employees on all levels may not vote, advocate for political positions/parties/persons nor may they donate to political causes. Active duty members of the Armed Forces may vote.
In order to vote, a person must be NBC, 21 years of age and pass an exam to prove literacy and basic knowledge of US history.
“You can only be a Natural Born Citizen (NBC)if you are born to an American citizen while living in the territory of the United States and you must reside continually inside US territory for at least 16 of your first 18 years.”
This would exclude children of American service members stationed in other nations, as well as children of diplomats and other Americans working overseas. It also ties the concept of citizenship to geography, which I think is a mistake. Keep citizenship linked to citizenship—period. If you are citizen you child is a citizen no matter where the birth takes place.
” Only NBC’s may vote or serve on a jury and only NBC’s are counted in the census for Representation purposes.”
Naturalized citizens should be considered citizens, period, with all the attendant privileges and responsibilities, with the exception of eligibility for the presidency. I know this opens up the can of worms of having anti-American naturalized citizens serving in Congress, for example, but I don’t think naturalized citizenship can be considered a lower or inferior level of citizenship.
“Persons born in the USA to legal residents may become citizens”
It is possible to be a legal resident while being under the jurisdiction of a foreign nation, not the United States. This “jurisdiction’ thing seems to be a real speed bump because it is so easy to conflate it with legal residency status. This means that any child born to anyone here legally can still APPLY for naturalization, if he or she meets all other criteria, but it eliminates the birthright element. It would not be automatic, but would have to be a process, just as it is for any other immigrant.
It has nothing to do with residency status. It has nothing to do with legality of residence. It solely addresses the jurisdiction under which the person is held. If you are, for example, a legal citizen of France you are under the jurisdiction of France, PERIOD. It doesn’t matter where you live, it doesn’t matter what kind of legal authority you may have to live there, it doesn’t matter if you have obeyed the laws of that other nation. IT DOESN’T MATTER. As long as you are a citizen of France you are under the jurisdiction of France, and will be until you renounce this jurisdiction by becoming a citizen of a different nation and thereby moving over into ITS jurisdiction.
“Legal residents may become citizens after 20 years continuous living in the USA, no crimes of any sort, never received any public aid. ”
Again, the confusion of legality of residence relating to citizenship. They are completely separate issues. You can live here indefinitely as a non-citizen if you have the correct authorization, but to become a citizen you have to initiate the naturalization process. Making citizenship automatic based on length of residence, lack of a criminal record, etc. would just complicate what we should be trying to simplify.
Strip it down to the basics: You become a citizen by being born to a citizen, or by being naturalized. We don’t need or want to have all sorts of other considerations.
“Persons born to naturalized citizens are not NBC’s ” This is not consistent with the historical meaning of NBC. It has always been merely born to at least one citizen parent. We may try to change that, but I think it would be a mistake, for several reasons, the largest of which being further complicating an already-confusing concept.
“All legal aliens must depart no later than 20 years after arrival unless they become citizens.” Would you then simply eliminate the category of permanent residency? Why?
It appears that you conflate “refugee” with “asylum seeker”. I contend that either category, after being carefully defined, should still be able to apply for naturalization, and that the naturalization process itself should sort out qualifications.
“Government employees on all levels may not vote, advocate for political positions/parties/persons nor may they donate to political causes. “
I don’t think it legal or Constitutional to deprive any citizen of the right to vote or deny his or her 1st Amendment right to free speech, etc. After all, the 1st Amendment was designed specifically to guarantee citizens the ability to have and express political opinions.
“In order to vote, a person must be NBC”
Again, I think it wrong to establish different levels of citizenship. You either are or you aren’t, and the details are in how you achieve this status.
It was off the cuff!
But I will expand a bit – I want citizenship to be restricted. A privilege. We simply should not have universal suffrage…and only very judiciously add to the citizen body. We can work out things like service members deployed – likely via a treaty which holds that we are leasing the bases we’re using and that makes them sovereign US territory for the duration of the lease (it is how Guantanamo remains US territory). The bottom line, for me, is that the concept of universal suffrage is the death of any Republic – as well any Democracy. Voting can only be the method of determining political power if the vote is only held by at least some sort of elite. As for government employees voting – same as for government dependents: they have a vested interest in voting for whatever Party proposes to increase the scope and power of government. I would also restrict how long any person can work for government to a max of 20 years…and while they are employed, no family members may also be employed. And, heck, we can reward them in some way if they truly carry out the ethos of “public servant” – 20 years of honorable service gets you, say, relieved of paying income taxes for life; something like that – we want people who enter government to do so on the knowledge that it is nothing but sacrifice…and that sacrifice will be rewarded. It is, in the end, the only way to restore respect for government.
I do the same thing, roughing out ideas and then having to go back to tweak or refine them.
But while I understand what you want to accomplish, I think you are going too far and, as the Brits say, overegging the pudding.
Citizenship: Yes, make it more valuable instead of handing it out like Halloween candy. But we don’t need elaborate mechanisms like leases to provide for citizenship for children born to American citizens away from home. All we need is the law that any child born to an American citizen is an American citizen–period. That covers military personnel, diplomats, people working in foreign countries, humanitarian workers like Doctors Without Borders, even garden-variety tourists. And it confirms the concept that citizenship is tied to citizenship, not geography.
If we want a lot of criteria or caveats, they should be attached to how one can become a citizen–that is, if you come here illegally you can’t apply for naturalization, or if you want to then you have to go home and wait five years to apply. If you apply for asylum and are accepted, you have some established waiting period before you can apply. And so on. Control the process.
Voting: Any effort to restrict voting is going to get shot down. Literacy tests will be treated the way poll taxes were. We just can’t stop ignorant people from voting. We can’t stop people from voting for their own self interests. Any effort to keep people from doing the “wrong” thing is going to fail, and result in tyranny. What we need to do is approach this from the other direction, from cause and not effect. That is, decrease ignorance by being better at education and address issues like voting to increase the size and power of government by more firmly establishing laws that enforce the 10th Amendment (and also by educating people about why this is important).
Put another way: If we accept ongoing ignorance without addressing it and just try to control how much the ignorant can affect the government, we will have a nation with a foundation of ignorance run by a few elites. I don’t see how that could be considered a good thing. If we accept the ongoing expansion of the size, scope and power of the federal government and just try to keep people from voting for it, we just end up with a totally dysfunctional government unrelated to the core structure designed by the Founders.
The bottom line, for me, is that the concept of universal suffrage is the death of any Republic – as well any Democracy. Voting can only be the method of determining political power if the vote is only held by at least some sort of elite.
That concept sounded like something a Founding Father might have said. I queried AI by asking “who said, when fifty-one percent of the people discover they can vote themselves free stuff, the country is over?”
This famous warning is a paraphrased version of a widely cited statement often attributed to Scottish historian Alexander Fraser Tytler or Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, though historians note it does not actually appear in the genuine writings of either figure. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Origins and Misattributions
<Quote>“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.”</Quote>, as noted in [Bartleby.com](https://www.bartleby.com/lit-hub/respectfully-quoted/alexander-fraser-tytler-17471813/).However, researchers have found no record of this in Tytler’s actual 18th-century works; it first surfaced in mid-20th-century publications. [1, 2]<Quote>“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”</Quote>, which is frequently credited to Benjamin Franklin,has been investigated by archivists (including those at the Library of Congress) who found no historical evidence he ever said or wrote it. [1, 2, 3, 4]So the idea has been around for a long time. It’s interesting that some one would have said it and then attributed it to someone else. Conversely, if only the productive portion of society can vote, that gives a great deal of incentive to become one of those people.
re: your citation of the alleged Franklin quotation is exactly why he, and the other Founders, set up a democratic republic instead of a pure democracy and why they were so determined to provide both belt and suspenders to their intent to severely limit the size, scope and power of the federal government by first codifying what the government COULD do and then backing it up with the 10th Amendment defining what it could NOT do. We’ve got the template, we’ve got the rules—what we need to do is enforce them.
And while the ideal of limiting voting to the productive people in our society is attractive, the reality of determining who is “productive” opens a whole can of worms, starting with defining “productive” and going on to who gets to pick and choose. Is a contemplative nun “productive”? Someone who used to work but who is injured and unable to work? Is volunteer work “productive”?
The earliest example is the earliest Democracy that we know of – Athens. There may have been other Democracies prior to the Greek version, but Athens is the one we know the best and towards the end of the “Golden Age” we see the Athenians starting to routinely vote themselves the money of the wealthy: essentially forcing the rich to pay for their bread and circuses.
those born to parents who are NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION of the United States.
Did you mean born to parents who ARE under the jurisdiction of the United States?
This is a helluva admission from a top Chinese scientist. Something of which I suspected the entire time.
Dr. Li-Meng Yan: It was not an accident or the sloppy work of the lab, the Covid virus was released intentionally.
https://xcancel.com/DrLiMengYAN1
My general attitude toward rules in general is KISS—Keep It Simple, Stupid.
We have a tendency to make a rule, and then when it fails to accomplish what we wanted we just slap another rule on top of it to “fix” the defect. This continues until we have a sloppy disorganized mess, usually full of contradictions.
For a long time I have thought that the best thing Congress could do would be to pick a law every six months or so and dissect it, analyze it, and then replace it with a slimmed-down new law that addresses the various defects amendments and so on have been added to it to try to “fix” it.
Here’s an example: Back when there was all the kerfluffle about Obama’s citizenship, one of the issues was that he once had a foreign passport (to allow him to travel to Pakistan when Americans were not allowed to go there) and what that might mean, regarding his claim of American citizenship. This was a legitimate question, wholly unrelated to where he was born, and I looked into it as much as any average citizen with access to a computer could. And I found a hot mess of conflicting laws. Examples:
Does the United States accept dual citizenship? Yes. No. Maybe. Sometimes. What year are you talking about?
If child is born to an American citizen (as Obama was) and the American parent marries a foreigner, and the child is given citizenship status of the other parent’s (or stepparent’s) nationality, and then wants to claim American citizenship during a period that does not accept dual citizenship, how is this handled? The answer I got was that the age of 18 the person would have to choose which citizenship he or she wanted to retain. OK–how would this be done? Well, there isn’t really a process for this. There is no form to fill out, no formal declaration required. There is just this …limbo….in which the final decision seems to come down to a pinky swear amounting to “I think I’ll choose this one”. There is no chain of paperwork, no official finding, no formal approval, no recording of the decision. It’s like that old freeway in San Francisco that just ended in midair.
It seems logical to me (no doubt why it has never occurred to Congress) that this should be addressed, instead of waiting till a problem arises and then stumbling around the morass of confusing and conflicting laws trying to figure out what to do and facing a challenge to any decision. One might think, if one were using logic, that if a person had a passport from another nation he had applied and been accepted as a citizen of that nation, and therefore was not at the same time a citizen of the United States if at that time the U.S. did not accept dual citizenship. One might go on to think that this indicated that the person in question was not a U.S citizen.
If the person in question were to say “well, when I got that passport I was a minor, and at the age of 18 I made the decision to choose between the two citizenships available to me because of the citizenship of my parents and I chose the U.S.” it would be logical to then say “where is your proof of this?” It would be even more logical—essential, in fact—-for the U.S. to have a procedure in place by which the decision could be formalized and recorded.
But evidently the U.S. has never had such a procedure.
To me, we should go back to the issue, legislate whether or not we accept dual citizenship, establish a procedure for choosing among multiple citizenships if we do not, and clear the decks.
We want citizenship to be valued, yet we don’t even have a clear-cut manner of determining who is and who is not a citizen, even in a situation as important as choosing a president, when it comes to sorting out how to BE a citizen in this kind of circumstance. (If I remember correctly, this confusion about Obama’s foreign citizenship occurred during one of our “no dual citizenship” periods but we were simply incapable of determining if holding a passport from another nation, presumably based on declaring/proving citizenship of that nation, meant it was not possible to simultaneously be an American citizen, much less how to make a formal and binding choice.) It seems to me that this is an important issue.
This all leads back to my KISS concept—-instead of cluttering things up with a lot of criteria and caveats, we should focus on the main issue, such as the topic we have been discussing, and keep it as simple and straightforward as possible. Such as simply saying “If you have an American parent you are a citizen. If you don’t, you have to apply to be naturalized.” And then, as an addendum not qualifying the main point but merely addressing a possible complication like the one I described, have a clear-cut process codified for a person with two citizenships assigned in childhood making a choice between them and making it formal and official.
And when we find a dumpster fire like the confusing and often contradictory rules I found about dual citizenship, it should be stripped down to its basic reason to exist and then write a clear and unambiguous law to address the problem.
KISS is, in general, the way to go. With, of course, the understanding that simple can sometimes appear complex…like our Federal system, if properly run. That is, voting was only ever supposed to give power to one half of the Legislative branch. We’ve very much eroded that – and we can see in our eunuch Senate what comes of making the Senate into a mere echo of the House via popular votes.
The franchise should be restricted – and you’re right, this would be difficult. OTOH, welfare bums don’t actually vote. Oh, votes are cast in their names…but they don’t vote. They’re bums, after all. The real key here is to ensure only actual voters vote…and in that I think we could restrict the franchise. But if it turns out we can’t, then we’re simply going to have to massively restrict the power of government. Perhaps with a series of new Amendments carefully prohibiting the government from doing things. We’ve found that “shall not be infringed” isn’t good enough, haven’t we? If we really want to keep government from collecting data on us the 4th Amendment as it won’t do the trick…we need to make it explicit that data cannot be collected, even by accident, absent a warrant and then also make the hurdles to getting a warrant much tougher than they are now. Bottom line, Uncle Sam’s info on me, for practical purposes, should be restricted to my citizenship status, my Social Security number and my military service record. Anything beyond that they don’t have the least need to know.
But here’s another idea – and I think I’ve mentioned it before: the office of Censor. The Romans had it as an office which would run for 18 months to 5 years and you generally had to be a former Consul to get it. The office had narrow powers but within those confines, the power was absolute. I’d do a Censor like this:
Qualifications: US Citizen at least 50 years of age who has never held elective or appointive office, has no felony convictions and has resided continually in the USA for the previous 20 years.
Election: national popular vote every seventh year for a one year term.
Powers: to pardon any person from any crime committed within the territory of the United States. To audit any government agency and remove any employee who in the judgement of the Censor has been corrupt or incompetent. To ban from any office of public trust any person who has been found guilty of a felony. To refer for prosecution any official the Censor believes has violated their oath of office, with the Censor deciding which federal Court will hear the case.
Immunity: While in office and for ten years after, a Censor may not be indicted for crime except that of first degree murder.
This gives us a chance, every seven years, to send someone in to wreck the system. The Censor can’t make laws. Can’t annul laws. Can’t tax. But the Censor can audit, indict and ban.