Jamie Kelso, Jul. 16, 2010

July 16, 2010

Continuing with his ongoing reading into just-published online versions of the classic patriot magazine Instauration, Jamie Kelso opens the pages of the July 1996 issue, which he promises the Voice of Reason listeners to have online shortly after today’s program at Thanks in no small part to the Voice of Reason series of readings from just-published online versions of Instauration, the Alexa U.S. traffic rank of has climbed to an impressive #66,000. Wilmot Robertson’s mailed paper magazine spanning 1976 to 2000 is now starting to get an ever-expanding audience now that it is entering cyberspace.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 57 min.

Contact Jamie:

Jamie Kelso, Jul. 15, 2010

July 15, 2010

For source material today, Jamie Kelso uses the copy of “What I Saw That Day” by U.S.S. Liberty crewman Phil Tourney that he just received from the authors. Crewmember Tourney’s book joins that of crewmember James Ennes, who broke the crew’s silence on the Liberty in 1987 with his Assault on the Liberty. In 2009 the son of crewmemberJohn Scott, James Scott, published Attack on the Liberty, which Ennes has praised as being “definitive”. Phillip Tourney’s book tops Scott’s for telling the whole censored story. Tourney’s book is at #435,000 in Amazon sales. Scott’s is higher at #116,000, since it has a major publisher (Simon and Schuster). Ennes’ Attack on the Liberty is at #967,000. Books like Tourney’s should be bestsellers. But thank goodness, at least, that it has been written. Also talked about on today’s show is the June 1996 issue of Instauration magazine, which appears for the first time today on the web at

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 57 min.

Contact Jamie:

The Stark Truth: Interview with Andrew Yeoman

July 14, 2010

Andrew Yeoman

Robert & Andrew Yeoman discuss:

  • The philosophy of National Anarchism
  • Reactions and interactions with different political groups
  • Community service and activism
  • The Epic Beard Man
  • The immigration situation
  • The recent Oakland Riots
  • Francis Parker Yockey memorial
  • Media coverage
  • Liberal collaboration with corporatism; the failure of libertarianism to provide freedom

About Andrew Yeoman

Andrew Yeoman lives in San Francisco and is an avid bicyclist, martial artist, and gardener. In 2007, he started the Bay Area National Anarchists (BANA), which is the first National Anarchist network to appear in North America. Andrew is involved in community service programs to assist the homeless, environmental cleanups, and community building efforts in the Bay Area. Besides this, he has produced and directed over 30 short films on YouTube documenting the political activism of BANA and has spoken about National Anarchism to groups in Southern California, Australia, and Europe.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 57 min.

Contact Robert:

Jamie Kelso, Jul. 14, 2010

July 14, 2010

Pat Buchanan’s 1996 Republican primary campaign for president in which he began by beating Bob Dole in New Hampshire, Alaska, Missouri and Louisiana, is the subject of the July 14, 2010 Jamie Kelso Show. For source material, Kelso uses the April 1996 issue of Instauration magazine, put online for the first time today at Instauration Online.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 57 min.

Contact Jamie:

A Few Simple Questions -Joe Sobran

July 14, 2010

If I could ask our young President a few questions, they would run something like this: “At what point would you say, ‘There. We finally have as much government as we need. To give it any more power would be tyrannous and would diminish our God-given rights’? I sense that you have never asked yourself this question. But if not, on what principle do you base your belief that government should, for instance, forbid all discrimination against transgendered Americans? And by the way, should the government also ban discrimination against pedophiliac and necrophilic Americans?”

Joe Sobran

Of course a politician isn’t usually the best guy to go to in search of principle. But Obama likes to pose as a politician of principle—a pol above politics—so he invites it.

I might also ask him, “Has your ideal government ever existed in the real world? Or has any philosopher—Plato, Aristot­le, Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke, Marx—ever described it? Is your ideal even possible, or is it merely a daydream?”

As our first black president, Obama has also become a hero to millions of black Americans. Don’t they know that in order to get his party’s nomination he had to support legal abortion?

Have they reflected on this? In the abstract, abortion is said to be a woman’s free choice. But in the real world abortion often means white doctors killing the babies of young black women, poor and discarded, who have very little choice. So the net result of Obama’s presidency may be a reduction of the black American population. And as a friend of mine pointed out to me the other day, the recent huge influx of immigrants, legal and illegal, is one result of the need for labor after the tens of millions of abortions of the last few decades. We have destroyed our natural work force and replaced it with foreigners.

Remember the “population explosion” of which the experts used to warn us? Well, it’s coming to pass—everywhere but in the white countries, which are rapidly ceasing to be white.

Like many progressive-minded people, Obama is afflicted by an ignorant contempt for the past and an equally vacuous faith in the future. He will learn how pitiless reality is to our most seductive daydreams. Right now he could use a good dose of the realism of Louisiana politics. When an aide to Gov. Earl Long told him, “I’m with you when you’re right, Governor, but not when you’re wrong,” Long roared back, “You stupid sonofabitch, I don’t need you when I’m right!” (Which reminds me of another great line, this one from Sir Boyle Roche: “Half the lies our enemies tell about us aren’t true!”)

But I will say one thing in Obama’s favor: At least he isn’t George W. Bush. I’ll have to keep reminding myself of that wanly cheering fact for the next two and a half years.

The best way to get rid of corruption in high places, it has been said, is to get rid of high places. That is the American political genius in a nutshell. But the liberal instinct always demands that power be concentrated and centralized.

The most obvious lesson of socialism still hasn’t sunk in. Man may be a rational animal, but he’s a mighty slow learner.

At any rate, the Obama craze seems to have ended already. Pity. Michelle Obama, whatever her faults, remains the only First Lady to have tackled the problem of childhood obesity. And she has never been reported or even rumored to have hurled lamps or ashtrays at her husband. Yet even this President’s most Bolshevik partisans no longer seem eager to carve his face into Mount Rushmore.

The American presidency has swollen to such gigantic proportions that no man can meet its demands; hence the need for innumerable appointments and bureaucracies. And who knows when all human calculations may suddenly be upset by, say, a volcano in Iceland. Could anyone on earth have foreseen that? (I’ll be the first to admit that it caught me flatfooted. My horoscope that day didn’t even hint at it.)

So we should beware of blaming O­ba­ma for all the world’s woes. He may aggravate them, but he doesn’t cause them. Still, as they say, if you claim credit for the sunshine, you can expect to be blamed for the rain.

In the sort of hackneyed phrase that wows his admirers, Obama recently opined that “we can disagree without being disagreeable.” What oft was thought, but ne’er so well expressed.

Source: Chronicles Magazine.

Unity Is Strength: Spain Wins the World Cup

July 14, 2010

By Joe Kowalski

The World Cup is easily the most popular sporting event on the planet and for the second time in a row a team comprised entirely of indigenous Europeans has come out on top. On Sunday, Spain proved itself the best team in the world by beating the Netherlands 1-0. The World Cup is held every four years. In 2006, Italy took home its fourth cup.

Not only were the championship teams from Spain and Italy all-white, they were, respectively, all-Spanish and all-Italian. Those not familiar with soccer might wonder why this is noteworthy. In fact, it is a huge blow to the anti-white forces that are changing the face of Europe.

France’s World Cup team.

Spain’s World Cup team.

Last month, I wrote an article for Alternative Right (available here) focusing on the racial makeup of the 32 teams from around the globe who qualified for this year’s tournament. (There are regional quotas, otherwise the World Cup would be mainly a competition between European and South American teams.) Despite all the happy talk about multiculturalism and diversity, most of the planet is represented by teams that represent the demographics of their individual nations. African, Asian, and Eastern European squads were all racially uniform. The teams from Latin America tended to match their populations as a whole so that Uruguay and Argentina were mostly white, Mexico was mostly mestizo and Brazil mostly black and racially mixed with a few whites.

Western European teams, however, have been darkening for the last few decades. This is most obvious in the case of France. The French won their only World Cup in 1998 with a squad starting seven whites and four blacks. Now the team regularly starts seven or eight blacks. The under-21 team consists of 15 blacks and 5 whites. England, unfortunately, has been sliding down the same path as France. They started five or six blacks for most matches in the World Cup and their under-21 side is less than half white.

The French national soccer team no longer represents the French people and England seems to be on the same track. Even second-tier teams such as Switzerland started two blacks. Of course, only white nations are faced with this situation, as they are the only countries that let in masses of people of different races. Asians and Africans will probably never come close to winning a World Cup, but they will always be able to cheer for teams that look like them.

Just because a national team goes black, however, doesn’t mean it can’t go back. In the 1990s, the Dutch national squad was easily the “blackest” of the European teams and seemed to be getting worse by the year. But this year the Dutch usually started nine whites and two mulattoes. In their semifinal game they actually started no blacks at all. Few would have predicted this a few years ago but the Netherlands team actually looked more or less Dutch—and they were rewarded with a second-place finish.

So how did the French squad fare? The team bombed out with a 0-2-1 record and couldn’t even make the second round of the tournament. The squad was beset with squabbling that seemed to have racial undertones. After a black starter, Nicolas Anelka, was suspended by the white coach, Raymond Domenech, the players decided to protest by refusing to practice. The team took a vote that reportedly broke down along racial lines—with most of the whites voting to continue practice.

Yoann Gourcuff is a true Frenchman and one of the most promising young French players but he inexplicably didn’t start this year. The French soccer website reported that the black players derisively referred to him as “la Nouvelle Star,” and that Gourcuff almost came to blows with black player Patrice Evra after harassment at the hands of Evra. Though born in Senegal, Evra is—quite fittingly—the captain of the French team.

In contrast to the French, Spain started a team of 11 Spaniards and took home the World Cup—just as Italy did with 11 Italians in 2006. Perhaps the obvious lessons will not be lost on those who select the national teams of other European nations.

Joe Kowalski writes on race and sports for

Source: American Renaissance.

Iranian nuclear scientist recounts ‘CIA abduction’

July 14, 2010

Shahram Amiri, the Iranian nuclear scientist, has described the moment he claims to have been abducted at gunpoint by the CIA while on a pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia.

Shahram Amiri

Mr Amiri, 32, said he was seized and spirited from the country after being offered a lift while walking towards a mosque.

He gave his account before flying home to Iran on Wednesday after taking refuge at the Iranian Interests Section of the Pakistani embassy in Washington earlier this week.

The US state department has insisted he was in the US of his own free will but Mr Amiri said he was kidnapped by secret agents in Medina, Islam’s second holiest city, in May last year.

“A white van stopped in front of me… They told me in Farsi that they were part of another group of pilgrims and said ‘We are going towards a mosque and we will be happy to take you as well’,” he said.

“When I opened the door to get in and sit down, the person at the back put a gun to my side and said ‘Please be quiet, don’t make any noise’.

“As I opened the door, one of the passengers pulled out a gun and told me to be quiet. They gave me an injection and when I came around I was in a big plane. I was blindfolded. It was probably a military plane.”

He said he was taken to “American territory” and put under intense psychological pressure to accept $10 million to make a video saying he had defected from Iran.

He was then allowed to settle in Tucson, Arizona, and live relatively freely on condition he did not talk about his abduction.

US security sources insist he was put into protective custody but later began to fear for the safety of his family back in Iran so had decided to return.

Mr Amiri boarded a plane for Qatar in the Gulf and from there was due to make the short flight to Tehran, landing in the early hours of Thursday morning.

Once in Iran, he will have to give a full version of how he came to be in the United States.

The Iranian authorities gave their first indication yesterday that he had some explaining to do, despite months of publicly accused the CIA and Saudi intelligence services of organising his abduction.

Manouchehr Mottaki, foreign minister, said the government would wait until it knew “what has happened over these past two years, and afterwards we will see if he will be considered a hero”.

The authorities will want to know how much information he gave the United States authorities. While his precise role in Iran’s nuclear programme is unclear, he is known to have been a researcher at Tehran’s Malek Ashtar University, and is thought to have worked for the Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation.

Intelligence websites say he passed on details of the secret uranium enrichment facility being built by the Iranians near Qom, whose existence was revealed by Britain, the US and France last September.

Mr Amiri’s account leaves some questions unanswered, such as how he managed to escape from the CIA. He said he was helped by “friends”, but does not say who they were or how they made contact with him.

American officials deny Mr Amiri’s claims, say he arrived freely and was free to go, and suggest the Iranian authorities put pressure on his wife and seven-year-old son to secure his return.

Source: Telegraph.

The Sunic Journal: AltRight Radio—The European New Right

July 13, 2010

Alt Right Logo

In this replay from Alternative Right, Tom Sunic joins Richard Spencer to discuss:

  • European New Right
  • Alain Benoist, Nietzsche, Carl Schmitt, and other influences
  • The pre-Christian traditions of the West

12 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 55 min.

Contact Tom:

Jamie Kelso, Jul. 13, 2010

July 13, 2010

Today’s Jamie Kelso show, for July 13, 2010 is based on the March 1996 issue of Instauration magazine, which was uploaded to the web for the very first time today at

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 57 min.

Contact Jamie:

Dr. Sunic to speak at event in Germany on Aug. 7, 2010

July 13, 2010

Dr. Tomislav Sunic, a representative of the American Third Position Party (A3P), will be a featured speaker at a music festival in Germany, on Saturday, August 7, 2010.

Tom Sunic

The event is sponsored by the German nationalist party the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD). Some well-known European bands will perform, including the British “Brutal Attack,” the German “Sturmwehr”, and others.

The title of Dr. Sunic’s speech to be given in German is, Wem nutzt der Krieg in Irak und Afghanistan? (Who benefits from the War in Iraq and Afghanistan?).

For more information, check out the event Web pages (in German):

The Heretics’ Hour: Interview with Eberhard Fuhr

July 12, 2010

Eberhard Fuhr' s passportEberhard Fuhr’s Alien Internal Passport, issued in 1940
Click here for full image

Topics include:

  • Family and school activities before 1943
  • Status and treatment as an “enemy alien”
  • The Crystal City, Texas internment camp
  • Last stop: Ellis Island
  • No Congressional apology or compensation for German internees
  • The upcoming German Internee Reunion, Aug. 28, in Quakertown, Pennsylvania (for further info, email Carolyn)

About Eberhard Fuhr

Eberhard Fuhr immigrated to the US from Germany as a child. He was arrested at his high school in 1943 at age 17 as a perceived security risk. He was detained, along with his family, in an internment camp in Crystal City, Texas during WWII. Since his retirement, he travels the country speaking about the US internment of Germans.

Information and photos about Eberhard can be found at the German American Internee Coalition; about US internment of Germans in general, at the Freedom of Information Times.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Carolyn:

Jamie Kelso, Jul. 12, 2010

July 12, 2010

The February 1996 issue of Instauration magazine, just put online today as all of Instauration is now going online, provides the basis for Jamie Kelso’s July 12, 2010 Voice of Reason broadcast. Remarkably, one of the Instauration writers calls the Internet our salvation, even though Tim Berners-Lee had only posted the very first web page on August 6, 1991, only four-and-a-half years prior to this Instauration article in February 1996. Instauration itself, a mailed paper magazine, never had a website, even though its writers saw that the Web would be the crucial battleground to come. And now, appropriately enough, the writings of those writers are finally on the Web.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 57 min.

Contact Jamie:

This Week in Disorganized America, Jul. 9, 2010

July 9, 2010

Fighting racial injustice by looting a Foot Locker retail store – Click to enlarge

Mishko & Dietrich discuss:

  • The lawyer who defended the ‘American Taliban’ now heads DOJ suit against Arizona (Yes, he’s black)
  • The hundreds of federal agents who fell victim to a Ponzi scheme
  • The Oakland riots & the looting after manslaughter verdict in BART shooting trial
  • The Tel Aviv rabbis who say that renting apartments to foreign workers violates Jewish law
  • The $500K donated to defend the Arizona law
  • An interview with JT Ready who’s with the US Border Guard (To contact JT for information in helping or donating he can be contacted at

26 MB / 32 kbps mono / 1 hour 56 min.

Treason Lobby Does Damage Control On Birthright Citizenship

July 9, 2010

By Washington Watcher

The Treason Lobby is getting very nervous about the issue of birthright citizenship—the current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that gives U.S. citizenship to everyone born in the U.S., including the children of illegal aliens.

Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, who introduced the anti-illegal alien SB 1070, indicated he would like to introduce a bill to deny birthright citizenship on the state level. Legislation is already pending in Texas and Oklahoma plans on following suit as well. A number of U.S. Senate Candidates, including Rand Paul, are making birthright citizenship an issue during the campaign. A June 3 Rasmussen poll found that 58% of US voters opposed giving birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens while only 33% supported it.

In the past, the usual suspects just dismissed birthright citizenship as a fringe issue. But now they are getting worried there appears to be a concerted attempt to push back.

Recently, both the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune ran simultaneous Op Eds defending birthright citizenship—by Harvard Professor Edward Schumacher-Matos, an immigrant (formerly illegal) from Colombia; and libertarian Steve Chapman, respectively. Both appear to be getting their misinformation from the same talking points, as their columns were nearly identical. [Denying citizenship for illegal immigrants' children is a bad idea, by Edward Schumacher-Matos, Washington Post, June 27, 2010. Citizenship Should Remain a Birthright, by Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune, June 27, 2010.]

As Americans wake up to the problem of birthright citizenship, we can expect to see these same falsehoods repeated over and over—just like the mindless mantras that infest the immigration enforcement debate, such as you can’t deport 12 million people and “illegal immigrants are doing the jobs Americans won’t do.

Myth 1: The term “Anchor Baby” is improper, because you cannot sponsor your parents until you are 21.

Chapman [Email him] writes:

“True, an undocumented adult can be sponsored for a resident visa by a citizen child—but not till the kid reaches age 21. To imagine that Mexicans are risking their lives crossing the border in 2010 to gain legal status in 2031 assumes they put an excessive weight on the distant future.”

WW refutation: Given U.S. failure to enforce immigration law, it is not unreasonable for an illegal alien to assume that they can live here illegally for 21 years and then receive sponsorship from their US Citizen children.

Indeed, I could accuse Chapman of racism for assuming that Mexicans have short time horizons—Seattle Public Schools list having long time horizons as a form of “cultural racism”.

However, it is not family sponsorship that makes the children of illegal aliens “anchor babies”—it’s the fact that it then becomes incredibly difficult to remove their parents.

You need only look at the Treason lobby’s own rhetoric about how enforcing our immigration laws is tearing families apart to see how birthright citizenship is used as a way to prevent enforcement against the illegal alien parents. President Obama was at it again in his recent immigration speech—he specifically said we cannot deport illegal aliens because

“it would tear at the very fabric of this nation—because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric. Many have children who are American citizens.”

Of course family reunification can occur on both sides of the border. But the anchor baby provision is an enormous incentive for illegal aliens to stay here.

In fact, of course, propaganda aside, American immigration law specifically allows for exceptions in the case of “extreme hardship” caused by deportations.

Indeed, immigration lawyer Bruce Hake [Email him] has created the “The Hake Hardship Scale: A Quantitative System For Assessment Of Hardship In Immigration Cases Based On A Statistical Analysis Of AAO [USCIS Administrative Appeals Office] Decisions” for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Hake assigned points to various “hardships” that an illegal alien could appeal on.

In general, a score of 10 would be successful. Hake gave five points for the first US citizen child, and another for each child thereafter. [The Hake Hardship Scale: A Quantitative System For Assessment Of Hardship In Immigration Cases Based On A Statistical Analysis Of AAO Decisions, by Bruce A. Hake and David L. Banks, Immigration & Nationality Law Handbook, 2004]

With enough creativity and a few dollars, an immigration lawyer can try to make even one anchor baby reason enough. To get an idea of how this works, the Forensic Psychology Group’s website gives examples of different types of “expert testimony” they can provide at immigration hearings.

“In extreme and exceptional hardship cases, if one parent has to leave the United States, it can produce a separation anxiety disorder on the part of the child left behind. Some children, especially those who are very young and lack the emotional maturity to understand why a parent might have to leave the United States, might also develop a depressive disorder.” [Immigration Law, Forensic Psychology Group.]

And if that child is also a US citizen, it becomes a pretty substantial anchor to prevent deportation.

Moreover, the same supporters of birthright citizenship are trying to make it even more difficult to deport illegal alien parents of anchor babies. Solomon Ortiz’s (D-TX) Comprehensive Immigration Reform ASAP Act of 2009, which has over 100 co-sponsors, moves from “extreme hardship” exceptions to prohibiting the detention of illegal aliens who have children(any children, not just American citizen children)except in “exceptional circumstances.” [H.R. 4321. Title I, Sec. 162]

Myth 2: Birthright citizenship does not encourage illegal immigration

Chapman argues:

“One study cited in Peter Brimelow‘s 1996 anti-immigration screed, Alien Nation, found that 15 percent of new Hispanic mothers whose babies were born in Southern California hospitals said they came over the border to give birth, with 25 percent of that group saying they did so to gain citizenship for the child. But this evidence actually contradicts the claim. It means that 96 percent of these women were not lured by the desire to have an ‘anchor baby.’”

WW refutation: Once again, I could accuse Chapman of being “racist” for falsely assuming that every single Hispanic woman in Southern California is an illegal alien. Of illegal aliens, the number is necessarily much greater than 4%.

Schumacher-Matos writes:

“Pregnant Mexican women from border towns do commonly cross just to have a baby in the United States. But their extended families have often straddled the border for a century or more. The women tend to be middle class, pre-pay the hospitals in cash and go home, though their children can someday return.”

I do not see how Mexican citizens choosing to have their child born in the US, just so it will have to option to immigrate here in the future, is any less of reason to oppose birthright citizenship.

Schumacher-Matos [Email him] acknowledges that a “A handful of tourists do the same, but the total of all these is minuscule.” As usual, there are no good statistics on just how many people come to the country to give birth, but we do know it’s far from “miniscule”. There is an entire birth tourism industry complete with hotels specifically for pregnant women to have US citizen children.

Schumacher-Matos continues:

“Significant are the 4 million children in 2008 with one or more unauthorized immigrant parents spread throughout the country, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Repeated studies, however, show that their parents came for jobs or to join family. The children were normal byproducts of life, and not an immigration strategy.”

But no one is arguing that birthright citizenship is the only reason why illegal aliens come here, or even why they stay. Nevertheless, when we have somewhere between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens living in our country, a few percentage points has a lot of consequences.

Myth 3: Birthright citizenship has repeatedly been upheld by the courts, and was the intention of the drafters of the 14th Amendment.

Chapman claims that ending birthright citizenship “overthrows two centuries of legislative intent and court rulings” Both he and Schumacher-Matos mention the Plyler vs. Doe case, forcing school districts to accept illegal alien children, as an example.

WW refutation: In fact, the Fourteenth Amendment is Reconstruction legislation and therefore less than 150 years old.

Plyler was a terrible decision. But it did not rule on the issue of birthright citizenship—merely on public education for illegal aliens. It did, as Chapman and Schumacher-Matos note, state that the illegal aliens fit under the Jurisdiction Clause of the 14th Amendment. But it is up to future Supreme Court justices to decide exactly how far they wish to take it.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court was much more liberal when it ruled in 5-4 in Plyler than it is today. Even Sandra Day O’Connor voted against the illegal aliens in that case.

Chapman also alludes to the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. But this dealt with a legal permanent Chinese immigrant, not an illegal alien.

Schumacher-Matos goes back further to the actual debates over the Citizenship Clause:

“Go back… and read the transcripts of the 1866 debate in the Senate and you find that both those for and against the amendment readily acknowledged its application to illegal immigrants. A Pennsylvania senator [Edgar Cowan], for example, objected to granting citizenship to the children of aliens who regularly commit ‘trespass’ within the United States. The concern then was with babies of gypsy or Chinese parents.

“But Congress and the ratifying states opted instead to uphold a founding principle of the republic that was fundamental to the peaceful building of a multiethnic immigrant nation, however imperfectly. In a world plagued by bloody ethnic conflicts, that concern remains valid.”

Here, Schumacher-Matos falsely implies that the Amendment passed over these objections. But in fact Cowan’s objections were satisfied by Lyman Trumbull, of Illinois who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time. He explained that the Citizenship Clause

“will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

(WW emphasis).

Trumbull continued:

“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ … What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Keep in mind that Schumacher-Matos argues in the same column that it is perfectly unobjectionable for Mexicans who plan on staying in Mexico themselves to go across the border so that their children can have US Citizenship.

Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan who wrote the Citizenship Clause was even clearer stating the Amendment

“will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” [Amicus Brief No. 03-6696, Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, Center for American Unity]

Myth 4: Anchor Babies do not receive any additional welfare

Chapman writes: “Some of the main benefits available to undocumented foreigners, such as emergency room care and public education for children, don’t require them to have a U.S. citizen child. Illegal immigrant parents are ineligible for welfare, Medicaid, food stamps and the like. They can be deported.”

WW refutation: Chapman here debunks his own argument (as well as the libertarian cliché “Don’t end immigration, end the welfare state!”).

Of course, he is correct that the biggest fiscal drain caused by illegal aliens is education and hospital Emergency Rooms, which the courts have unfortunately made off limits. But this is an argument against further illegal immigration—because it overcrowds our schools and shuts down our hospitals—not an argument against birthright citizenship.

Nevertheless, although illegal aliens drain our economy through jails, hospitals and education, anchor babies can still further break our budgets in ways that illegal aliens cannot.

As Chapman notes, illegal aliens are barred from most federal means tested benefits under the 1996 Welfare Reforms.

However, their US citizen children are still eligible for these programs. And our welfare system is especially tilted to benefit those who are young and poor. Anchor babies ipso facto fit the former. According to the Pew Hispanic Center over 1/3 are living at or below the poverty level.

Additionally, the massive Obamacare overhaul specifically benefits anchor babies and their families. While illegal aliens are ostensibly ineligible for the “Affordability Credits”, insurance is based on families. According to Pew Hispanic, there are 8.8 million people in “mixed families” with US citizen children and illegal alien parents. According to the Congressional Research Service,

“it appears that the Health Choices Commissioner would be responsible for determining how the credits would be administered in the case of mixed-status families.” [Is the Congressional Research Service Making 'False Claims' Too? by Mark Kirkorian, Center for Immigration Studies, August 26, 2009]

Myth 5: Ending birthright citizenship would be difficult to implement.

According to Schumacher-Matos, “Abrogating birthright citizenship additionally would create practical chaos. All Americans would have to prove their citizenship. Birth certificates would no longer do. Yet we lack a national registry of who is a citizen.”

WW refutation: This is perhaps the silliest objection of all. No one is calling for retroactively stripping anyone’s citizenship, so birth certificates issued prior to the law would suffice as proof of citizenship. And it does not take much of an imagination to come up with a simple non-chaotic way for birth certificates to be issued after birthright citizenship is abolished. There could be a separate birth certificate issued to children of US citizens and Legal Permanent Residents; or there could just be a box that says “US Citizen” that could be checked on the Birth Certificate.

There is a danger that, if Obama is serious about pursuing comprehensive immigration reformas Peter Brimelow has suggested, the birthright citizenship debate might end up getting put on the backburner by the Patriotic Immigration Reform movement. It has succeeded in defeating two amnesties and it will want to defeat this one.

But the hard truth is that the Patriotic Immigration Reform movement has made little progress getting any proactive changes in policy.

Arizona’s SB 1070 put the Treason Lobby in the corner. They are trying to fight back by throwing an amnesty back at us.

Instead of being content with stopping the amnesty again, we need to keep pushing forward with

  • More state laws;
  • A moratorium on immigration, and
  • Abolition of birthright citizenship.

If we want to stop amnesty, and the destruction of the historic American nation, the best defense is a strong offense.

“Washington Watcher” [email him] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway.


US Judge declares Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional

July 9, 2010

A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman.

Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government’s long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws.

“This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status,” Tauro wrote. “The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state.”

Tauro drew on history in his ruling, writing that the states have set their own marriage since before the American Revolution and that marriage laws were considered “such an essential element of state power” that the subject was even broached at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Tauro noted that laws barring interracial marriage were once at least as contentious as the current battle over “gay marriage”.

“But even as the debate concerning interracial marriage waxed and waned throughout history, the federal government consistently yielded to marital status determinations established by the states,” Tauro wrote. “That says something. And this court is convinced that the federal government’s long history of acquiescence in this arena indicates that, indeed, the federal government traditionally regarded marital status determinations as the exclusive province of state government.”

Pro-homosexual activists cheered the ruling, saying it affirmed that same-sex couples are entitled to the same federal spousal benefits and protections as other married couples.
The Boston-based group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders had, in March 2009, brought one of two suits challenging the law, on behalf of seven married same-sex couples and three widowers from Massachusetts who contended that it violated their federal constitutional right to equal protection.

“Today the court simply affirmed that our country won’t tolerate second-class marriages,” said Mary Bonauto, a lawyer from the group who argued successfully in the 2003 Supreme Judicial Court case that first legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. “This ruling will make a real difference for countless families in Massachusetts.”

Attorney General Martha Coakley, who brought the second suit challenging the law, also applauded the ruling. Her office had argued that the federal law, known as DOMA, violates the Constitution by interfering with the state’s authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents.

Coakley’s office also contended that DOMA exceeds Congress’s authority because it requires Massachusetts to violate the constitutional rights of its residents by treating married same-sex couples differently from other married couples in order to receive federal funds for various programs.

“Today’s landmark decision is an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in Massachusetts and assuring that all of our citizens enjoy the same rights and protections under our Constitution,” Coakley said in a statement. “It is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate, as it does because of DOMA’s restrictive definition of marriage. It is also unconstitutional for the federal government to decide who is married and to create a system of first- and second-class marriages.”

Opponents of same-sex marriage condemned the ruling. Kris Mineau, president of Massachusetts Family Institute called it “another blatant example of a judge playing legislator.”

“Same-sex marriage activists have tried time and time again to win public approval of their agenda, and they have failed each time,” Mineau said in a statement. “This is why their strategy is to force same-sex ‘marriage’ through judicial fiat, as they did here in Massachusetts and other states.”

He said he was “confident that an appeals court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, will uphold the government’s right to define marriage, strengthening and protecting children and families.”

The law was defended in court by the US Justice Department, even though President Obama supports DOMA’s repeal and has called the law discriminatory. In a hearing with Tauro in May, the Justice Department argued that Congress and President Clinton, who signed the law, had a legitimate interest in preserving marriage as a heterosexual institution.

Today, a Justice Department spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, declined to comment on Tauro’s ruling, saying in a statement, “We’re reviewing the decision.”

Source: Boston Globe.

White Women, Dark Children -David Yeagley

July 9, 2010

The White-Guilt Adoption Industry

Why are American white women so anxious to adopt a “dusky little heathen” child from the Third World?

White Women, Dark Children Angelina Jolie among the Wretched of the Earth (photo:

It’s the latest fad of the White Woman Saviour, and it carries high status. A white American women must adopt a Third World child (preferably a non-white) to really keep up with the savior image. It’s a grand American tradition, dating back to the early 19th century Christian missions. Only today, you don’t have to be Christian at all. You just have to be white, female, (and preferably single). Look at Laura Ingraham, famous “conservative” radio talk show host. One child (Maria, a Guatamalan girl) wasn’t enough. She had to adopt a Russian boy, Dmitri.

So what are the real issues involved is this social phenomenon?

White women are obviously still operating on the grand old Christian missionary template. But what about the “single mom” bit? Is that an extra, thrown in to aggrandize the nobility of motherhood? Is that about self or about the child? What happened to the father figure? Is that not important any more? Ingraham is quite forthright about her Christianity (Catholic). Is the father figure not in that picture?

And why the craze for foreign babies? America has plenty of “home grown” infants and children available. Shouldn’t an American patriot mother’s first concern be for American babies? Why the rush to bring alien children here? Are Third World (or even European) countries anxiously adopting American children? Of course not. Let’s be honest: America is the dream country. America is where everyone wants to come. America is the place they want their children to come.

Angelina Jolie really dramatized the role of the American white woman savior grabbing up the darkest, blackest babies, from deepest, darkest, most miserable Africa (as well as Cambodian, Vietnamese, and possibly Syrian). She and Madonna. That’s the extreme, of course. That is the zenith of the white woman savior image. Shall we not ask, however, why she didn’t adopt an American Negro child, if race was the issue? Or why not simply adopt an American white child? Is there something wrong with that? Or, is it not dramatic enough to suit the heroic vision of self-importanc? Do these white women have any knowledge, or even concern, about the foreign child’s present and future feelings, or the adopted child’s psychological development?

It is difficult to avoid the immediate conclusion that these American white woman saviors are acting out their own sense of superiority and advantage. (Some might say, guilt, but, that’s not too likely.) They are romatically reaching out to the farthest corners of the globe to save a desperately lost and innocent child. What could be more noble, more heroic, more American? (Key focus here is on “noble”, and “heroic,” that is to say, on the woman’s feelings.)

Alas, it doesn’t always work out so well. One white woman savior family in Shelbyville, Tennessee figured they got a bad deal, and sent their little alien angel back to Siberia. Russia threatens to suspend all American adoptions? Please! A great blessing it would be. What do we need 61,600 Russian kids over here for? What about the American kids that need adoption? May all foreign countries quickly follow Russia’s suit. No more non-American babies adopted by Americans!

This whole international adoption routine is all a social status scheme. It insults all countries, who love to hate America anyway– while obviously trying to take every possible advantage of America. Americans disgrace America when they fall into this flesh fad of adopting foreigners. Sure, there are some wonderful stories. Fairy tale stories. It truly is a splendorous dream, and it has worked out beautifully in some cases, or certainly as well as anyone could ever expect when a child is taken from its home and put in another, foreign home, and of a dramatically different race.

But that’s not really the point. This is about nationalism, or, we should say, patriotism versus individualism. The individual fantasy can, unfortunately, often override the good of the community, or the country. It is as if a white woman savior sees America as the best nest of the world, and she wants to bring up the worst of the worst here. This makes her feel, in fact, patriotic. What more noble thing could an American white woman do? Yet, objectively, in terms of the America, this “customary” call for the world’s most unfortunate needs to be reevaluated–especially when there are American-born children in dire straights. Is it less patriotic for an American woman to reach out to Americans?

I think we can dispense with the foreign vision at this point. Our Kenyan President has certainly reduced the American image to one disdained, having offended just about every important country in the world, and having done little or nothing for those in greatest need. Barry “Obama” Soetoro, as the great Black Father has done everything he can to denigrate America (and glorify himself), so that foreign countries see America only as a free ticket to a home, a Cadillac, and a college education–while these things must be denied white Americans.

Madonna and child

America has had enough of foreigners. Take it from an Indian. It is time to close the doors. Nationhood demands it. No one would ever expect a Kenyan to become tribal chairman of the Arapaho, or a Nigerian to become chief of the Cheyenne. No one would expect a Saudi Arabian to become Prime Minister of Israel. Yes, an alien, lying black African became president of the United States–but that’s only because of the white liberal Communist traitors manipulating their way into power. It isn’t because it was the right, moral thing to do. It was an Oedipal thing to do. It was, collectively, a Freudian thing to do, perverted, self-destructive, and uneducated.

I say American white woman should adopt American white children. This business of bringing in the “dusky little heathen” is racism. It is an incredibly careless, selfish move, actually. It is bad for the child, and for the country. Yes, it is a noble instinct in the American white woman. It truly is. But, it is gone awry at this point, and needs advice and guidance.

Perhaps the white race needs some humility at this point. The white woman should honor her own white race. Does she feel above race? Does she really feel so suprior to other races as to save them? I say her white “racial” capital has used up. She needs to love her own race. If she doesn’t, she is a curse to the country. Beware.

Source: Alternative Right.

Jamie Kelso, Jul. 8, 2010

July 8, 2010

The July 8, 2010 Jamie Kelso is entirely based on just one page of the July 1982 issue of Instauration magazine. At this link at you’ll find the chart at page ten, here that we spend an entire hour on.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 57 min.

Contact Jamie:

US Justice Department sues Arizona over immigration law

July 7, 2010

The Obama administration sued Arizona over the state’s new immigration law on Tuesday, an assertion of federal power that sets up a rare clash with a state on one of the nation’s most divisive political issues.

The Justice Department lawsuit charges that the Arizona law cracking down on illegal immigrants conflicts with federal law, would disrupt immigration enforcement and would lead to police harassment of those who cannot prove their lawful status. Filed in federal court in Arizona, it says the state’s measure is unconstitutional and asks a judge to stop it from taking effect.

“The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country,” the lawsuit says.

The Arizona law, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer (R) in April, gives police the power to question anyone who they have a “reasonable suspicion” is an illegal immigrant.

In challenging a state law, federal lawyers stepped squarely into the politically charged debate over how to handle the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Reaction to the suit poured in from all sides, much of it blistering, making it clear that this was no ordinary legal filing but rather the start of a battle that will help define the midterm elections this fall.

“Not only does this lawsuit reveal the Obama administration’s contempt for immigration laws and the people of Arizona, it reveals contempt for the majority of the American people who support Arizona’s efforts,” 20 House Republicans said in a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who administration officials said decided last week to challenge the law. President Obama, who had voiced strong opposition to the legislation, was briefed in the past few days, officials said.

The administration disavowed any political calculus, with one senior Justice Department official saying: “We’re charged not with doing what’s popular or partisan or political, but doing what we think is right.”

But other Democrats suggested that the legal fight could play to their advantage by placing them on the side of Hispanics, the nation’s fastest-growing minority. Though most polls show the Arizona law is broadly popular, leading Hispanic groups and politicians have condemned it.

“There is probably some short-term pain politically,” said one senior Democratic strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to publicly contradict the administration. “But considering the demographic changes the country is undergoing, long term there is a lot of upside in advocating for Latinos and comprehensive immigration reform.”

Criticism on civil rights

Civil rights groups call Arizona’s statute the nation’s toughest law against illegal immigrants and say it targets Hispanics, though the legislation says police “may not consider race, color or national origin” in seeking to determine immigration status.

At least five other lawsuits have been filed in federal court — by civil rights groups and others — challenging the law, which is scheduled to take effect July 29. Hearings are set for July 15 and July 22 in those cases, and Justice Department officials said they expect a hearing around the same time on their motion asking a judge to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the law.

Justice officials cited two other examples of the federal government suing a state, including a 2007 lawsuit by the Bush administration challenging an Illinois law that tried to prevent employers from using an online system to determine immigration status. But legal experts said such a step is exceedingly rare.

“It’s quite extraordinary,” said Richard D. Friedman, a law professor at the University of Michigan. Typically, he said, the government files briefs or seeks to intervene in lawsuits filed by others against state statutes.

In their 25-page complaint, Justice lawyers cite the legal doctrine of “preemption,” which is based on the Constitution’s supremacy clause and says federal law trumps state statutes. Because the federal government has “preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters,” the lawsuit argues, the Arizona law must be struck down.

A practical argument

Beyond the legal prose, the government tries to make a practical argument: that the Arizona law would unduly burden federal agencies charged with immigration enforcement. With Arizona referring so many illegal immigrants for deportation, the lawsuit says, federal officials would lose focus on top-priority targets such as immigrants involved in terrorism or other crimes.

The suit also claims that the law would burden local law enforcement officials, three of whom provided declarations in support of the challenge. “To require local police to act as immigration agents . . . is not realistic,” wrote Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villaseñor.

Although the lawsuit cites potential “detention and harassment” of U.S. citizens and immigrants who do not carry identification documents, it declines to make a legal argument that the law would lead to racial profiling. But a senior Justice Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that if the law takes effect, “we will monitor it very, very closely, and if we become aware of any racial profiling or civil rights violations, that’s something that we would take action on.”

Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor and an expert on preemption, said that the government makes “a strong argument” but that the case “could go either way.” Although the preemption doctrine has been established in Supreme Court decisions, he said, “there is precedent on both sides of the question.”

Brewer called the lawsuit “nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds,” a sentiment also expressed by other Republicans. “The American people must wonder whether the Obama administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law,” John McCain and Jon Kyl, Arizona’s senators, said in a statement.

Liberal groups were equally fervent. “We commend the Obama administration for taking this critical step to negate Arizona’s unconstitutional usurpation of federal authority and its invitation to racial profiling,” said Lucas Guttentag, head of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project.

Source: Washington Post.

The Stark Truth: Robert Lindsay returns

July 7, 2010

Robert Lindsay

Robert Lindsay is an Independent Left journalist, blogger, and “liberal race realist” from California. Topics include:

  • Third Positionism; the A3P Party
  • Fascism and US pro-White politics; US Southern history
  • The bankers who financed Communism; rich socialists
  • Defining fascism; the pathologization of racism
  • A comparison of how Communist and Nazi atrocities are treated and used for political gain
  • Fascism in Israel; whether Zionism is Nationalist or Internationalist
  • Islamic Imperialism

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 57 min.

Contact Robert:

Jamie Kelso, Jul. 7, 2010

July 7, 2010

Voice of Reason listeners once again are the first to learn of the latest issue of the classic patriot Instauration magazine to go online. Today it’s the January 2000 issue, which you can read along in as host Jamie Kelso goes through the fascinating cover story on Jewish history in the old South, which will come as a surprise to anyone whose prior source of information on the subject has been limited to lamestream media.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 57 min.

Contact Jamie: