PS: Greetings, Mr. Hail!

https://i.ibb.co/RpJ0FP6/Dont-Jaywalk.jpg
(Just Kidding)

I found some PS posts where we (I) discussed the origin of the natural born citizen clause...
(Have you noticed that google has upped their PS search game?)
https://www.peakstupidity.com/index.php?post=1568
https://www.peakstupidity.com/index.php?post=1603
https://www.peakstupidity.com/index.php?post=2624

And these may also be of interest...
https://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/opinion/ann-coulter-the-true-history-of-millstone-babies/article_f8210db0-dec8-11e8-896f-973aca608c05.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_(United_States)

Did you know that Chester A. Arthur was the first president who was not a natural born citizen?
https://citizendium.org/wiki/Chester_A._Arthur

But yeah, I agree. Kamala Harris is a fraud!
https://i.ibb.co/zSMHmfL/Fraud1.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/DrwW6NM/Fraud2.jpg

(They're crude, but they're quick.) Cheers! ☮️

PS

correction, --- " Conservative Case For Trump" (2016) is probably under 30,000 words of main-text.

For fast readers, that could be consumed in 90 minutes. Even slow going (careful reading), with pauses and breaks, it'd be hardly over 2 hours+ or so.

PS

The "Conservative Case for Trump" book is actually a short political-tract, at something around or under 35,000 words of main-text (exclusive of endnotes and appendixes; several appendixes consist of transcripts of mid-2016 Trump speeches).

PS

Great points, Mr. Smith.

There has never been a president both of whose parents were not only "foreign born," but foreign citizens temporarily in the United States at time of birth.

The only sliver of a way that Kamala can claim to be of American origin at all, is her own birth on the soil. She lives or dies on "jus solis" ('law of the soil'; a Latinized form of Sailer's "Magic Dirt").

For practical purposes, she clearly bases a claim to be an American on being "Black," which is also a fraud for multiple reasons, and with her it's perhaps a cynical fraud meant to climb to the top of whatever heap she could.

But I maintain that Kamala thinks all of this natural and correct, recognitions of her own greatness, as I wrote a few weeks ago in "Kamala Harris and “female solipsistic-narcissism” in the political in 21st-century USA."

PS: Good morning, Messrs. Hail and Newman...

You're most welcome. Always happy to help.

And thanks for the excerpts, Mr. Hail. I started thumbing* through 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐶𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑚𝑝 last night. I noticed in the first chapter, 𝐼𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐼𝑛𝑣𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛, under the subheading, 𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑚𝑝'𝑠 𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛 that Mrs. Schlafly mentions:

𝐄𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐫 𝐛𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐞𝐬.

Which, as you guys likely know, I support entirely. (Children of foreigners who were subject to a foreign power at the time of their birth were never supposed to be granted citizenship simply for being birthed on our magic soil. For example, the children born on U.S. soil to guest workers in the Bracero Program were not deemed citizens, and their families emigrated back to their home countries when the program ended.)

I do find it curious that Trump has not mentioned Kamala's anchor baby status. She is clearly not a natural born citizen. Has Trump even mentioned ending so called Birth Right Citizenship this selection cycle? (Did he mention it at all while he was president?) I guess he's too busy talking about 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠 and pandering to the trans-rights activists to draw attention to the fact that Kamala is a quintessential anchor baby. Is this yet another example of how the message of the Trump campaign has changed in the last few years?

https://i.ibb.co/sHhrB8V/trump-2016-vs-trump-2024-clashing-campaign-imagery-august-2024-meme.png

(Thanks for the meme, Mr. Hail!)

I suppose Mrs. Schlafly died before she really had a chance to figure out what a disappointing bullshitter Trump really is (and turned out to be). But the book does look like it might be interesting. I guess we'll find out.(?)

Happy Tuesday! ☮️

PS

Another long quote from Phyllis Schlafly's final book (via Adam Smith's book-link), Chapter 1:

_____________

The prime motivation behind the Left’s support for open borders is...to reshape the demographics of the American electorate for benefit of the Democratic Party. The model is California, which, largely through immigration, has been transformed from the “Reagan Country” I well remember to the majority minority far left state it is today...

(...)

Legal immigration is itself a giant factor in America’s demographic change. America accepts more than 1.1 million legal immigrants every year. The Census Bureau estimates that “net migration” will bring 14 million new immigrants to the United States during the next ten years.

Shouldn’t we have some say over our demographic future, of what America is and will become? Shouldn’t we have an immigration policy that serves America’s national interests? In Europe we have seen the danger of large unassimilated Islamic communities making historic changes in countries and their future; yet we seem blind to similar changes happening here.

Of all Obama’s sanctuary policies, probably the worst is his vast expansion of refugee and asylum policies. Largely unnoticed by national media, tens of thousands of so-called refugees, mostly from Muslim countries, are being resettled all over the United States. The United States now receives more refugees than all other countries combined and plops them down in what are called “seed communities”...

(End quote from Phyllis Schlafly, "Conservative Case for Trump")

_____________
.

COMMENT: The line that influential elites want Third World immigration to boost Democratic Party voter-rolls is exactly the line Tucker Carlson picked up and ran with for a number of years, radical yet still safe-seeming as it politely side-steps the racial question. (What if the 'Migrants' shifted to voting closer to 50-50 for Republicans? Would there be no problem?)

I think Tucker still argues for this theory even now in 2024, after his ban from television for racism last year has theoretically freed him up to go other directions. He has sometimes gotten quite close to speaking up for Whites-as-Whites. But he's never felt comfortable with both feet inside that ring, at least in public view.

PS

Thanks, Mr. Smith:

The "Conservative Case for Trump" (Sept. 2016) book's dedication, I see, is this:

_____________

"Dedicated to our families and their future"

_____________

Wow! So it's not "dedicated to glorious immigrant Dreamers and the big bright Brown future." But dedicated to OUR families and OUR FAMILIES' future. That's a good start.

And Chapter 1 cites VDare favorably as a source.

I'm sold.

PS: Yes, I did read VDare in '06, Mr. Hail. I think even had I not, I remember that this and other attempts at a big amnesty made the news enough that I would have read and been dead set against it. Even without knowing all the details VDare provided, any thinking person should have known the magnitude of how many foreigners we were talking about by '06. They were everywhere already.

I'm looking forward to your new post... or ANY new post on your site.

Thanks for the books, Adam.

PS: Good afternoon, Mr. Hail!

𝐼 𝑔𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑡𝑜 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑜𝑢𝑡...

The Conservative Case for Trump By Phyllis Schlafly et al. (1.5mb .pdf)
https://tinyurl.com/2smthr43

¡Adios, America! by Ann Coulter (7.6mb .pdf)
https://tinyurl.com/yxxcd57n

Pajeet, my sons...
https://i.ibb.co/LrxDC89/Vance.png

Cheers! ☮️

PS

-- more on Phyllis Schlafly, the legacy of 2006, and 'immigration' as the big issue of the early-21st century --

Thanks, Mr. Moderator, for the replies.

Do you remember your own reaction to the 2006 "Amnesty" push?

By your account, you were already reading VDare by about that time; if so, you'd have seen a lot about it at the time from radical opponents, and I think there is a role for VDare itself in that little saga, as it would be ten-plus years before they were fully cast out of quasi-polite society.

But just how important the need to block amnesty and shift towards deportations and a firm 'immigration'-and-nationalist policy slipped by many people back then; the same naivete also behind the big surge in votes for Obama from people who "ought to have known better."

(Interesting also to see Ann Coulter's 2015 mention of Mike Pence drafting and sponsoring a "moderate amnesty bill" in 2006; Coulter was writing in late 2014 and early 2015, long before Trump was the nominee and chose Pence, and even well before Trump announced his campaign with the "Not Sending their Best" speech, mid-June 2015).

One of the arguments for WHY the defeat of illegal-immigrant amnesty in 2006 was so important (and "unsung," forgotten today) is not just the absolute number. We could conceptualize the stock of Third Worlders as marbles in a jar, putting in such-and-such a number and the jar fills up. It's also about momentum and time-displacement; momentum; cultural energy; galvanization by a system, turned Third World clay into various degrees of anti-white, pro-Wokeness, pro-Regime demographic. The process is usually not exactly instantaneous. And the second-generation is generally always worse than the first, another factor. So it's a "stock" versus "flow" problem to an extent.

An "Ilhan Omar" arriving in the mid-1990s (as she did, at about age 12, I think) and an "Ilhan Omar" arriving in the mid-2020s are absolutely very different things qualitatively. With "big board" scorekeeping it'd be an identical phenomenon, but clearly an "Ilhan Omar" arriving today would not be inserted into the Regime and become a "U.S. Congressperson" so quickly.

A successful 2006 amnesty and the demographic 'hit' that would have caused would also have tipped things such that Trump could not have been elected in 2016. But even that may be too petty a thing to name as the big reason that 2006 was important. It's always been a lot bigger than Trump (something the man himself doesn't understand; he thinks it is about his own greatness, and this has gotten worse and not better).

"What did Phyllis Schlafly know"? Was it solely the immigration-restriction issue that pushed her to go for the highly un-ideal Trump in March 2016? She could have declined to endorse him early and went with Ted Cruz or someone (Ted Cruz only dropped out in early May 2016; Schlafly endorsed Trump publicly in mid-March).

I guess one would have to read the book to find out. But I think the answer is "Yes." She wanted an immigration moratorium, but was unwilling or unable to say it. She wanted net-zero immigration, and a return to "Dreaming" being something done by native White children.

If this view is right, we have to remember Phyllis Schlafly as something other than the Betty Crocker-esque, mid-20th-century 'grandmother'-type figure who rallied people against the excesses of 1970s Feminism, which she gets cast as.

---

I will have to adapt my comments to a post at HailToYou.wordpress.com at a later date.

PS: 3) I hadn't known about Phyllis Shlafly's having attended a Trump rally or her writing of that book. Thanks for that info. She was a Conservative warrior till the end.

I know you've heard the before with me, but since you mentioned the unfortunate fact that Trump is the anti-Regime, anti-PRP standard-bearer, the only one we've got, I'll tell you this again. I told Ron Paul in person in Spring of '12 - at a rally - "If you want to win [my State] you need to talk about illegal immigration." Dr. Paul was nice and honest with his response. It wasn't actually a time for questions, but too bad, people heard me.

Imagine if he'd realized now just how big an issue it is (he's too honest to pander, if he thought it was that), but how important an issue it is. Who knows if he might have overcome the shunning of the Lyin' Press, and then to have a guy that's intelligent, can focus, can make plans and all that ...!

PS:

2) Ann Coulter: That 1998 date seems right to me, from my following of American politics quite well since '92 or so (there was a break in there before that when I though everything was just fine). I don't know if her anti-Clintonism involved a whole lot of opportunism in addition to her outrage (correctly, I'll add) about the hypocrisy of Clinton being down with the Feminists.

She was a book writer. I don't know if you read that she's written something like 15 well-selling books. (I don't know for sure what "best selling" actually means.) Much was along the standard GOPe points against the left, but written with more wit and probably more guts.

Regarding "Adios America, I can't say for sure, but I would bet it was the criminality, especially rape, but the illegals that set Miss Coulter down this path. Like me (but for me, maybe 5-10 years early), I didn't realize how important an issue immigration was for a time. I remember being pissed off when GHW Bush gave part of a speech in Spanish, in yes, 1989 even! However, it was mostly just "I don't like 'press 1 for English' and having half of California be Mexican, etc." The really big issue of cultural destruction and population replacement didn't sink in for me until about 15 years back.

I think it's very likely Ann Coulter read VDare a lot, as I did. VDare should be proud, as from their writing came "Adios America", and from that possibly Donald Trump's speech about "they're rapists...". (That assumes he does read a little bit.)

PS: There's lots to your comment, Mr. Hail, but I'll try to remember the points I want to address.

1) Amnesty. One important thing to come out of the various (I think there were at least 3 big ones) attempts to oppose a massive illegal alien amnesty was this: Real Conservatives could see from these attempts by their supposed standard-bearers, Bush II, McCain, etc. that the GOPe were not their friends at all. It may have been shocking news to many, but how could one not see this traitorous action (or attempts thereof) for what it was.

Secondly, pushing the timeline earlier, 20 years or 15 years would have indeed made things worse by - I won't say now - 2020. However, this Bai Dien/ Mayorkas treachery had the same effect on a compressed time-line, the last 3 1/2 years. (They only let off a little bit to let the media get distracted now - they are.) As you say "oh, but LEE GUH LEE", yes, now it's even more of "same diff.". Mayorkas and company have been legalizing people, for all that means, BEFORE they've even crossed the border through the use of an app.

I really wish VDare were still publishing, as they covered all this thoroughly and in great detail.

PS

-- Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly --

In her highly influential immigration-restrictionist and pro-deportation book "Adios America" (2015), Ann Coulter mentions Phyllis Schlafly once. Schlafly was ninety years old at time of Adios America's publication. Ann reference referred to something from 2006, when Schlafly was in her early eighties.

The "Adios America" book, it may be recalled, was published in the first week of June 2015, carried by a major publisher. It had considerable influence on the then-soon-to-launch Trump 2015-16 campaign); constituting almost a blueprint for Trump's implicit centerpiece issue of immigration-restriction and deportations (or so people who got behind him thought).

Ann Coulter herself, as a commentator, came to public attention first in mid-1998, I think, with the publication of a book demanding Bill Clinton be impeached and removed as president for his "high crimes and misdemeanors" (her book's title). Last year, therefore, she passed the 25-year mark as a public commentator.

For at least the first decade of this public-facing career as a commentator, she shied away from the centerpiece issue she later became known for: immigration-restriction. Also, implicit support for an ethnonationalist beleaguered White-Christian Core-America. (Coulter one of the very few who even makes pro-White-Protestant statements specifically, and also identifies Jews as a competing ethnic-group with their own interests and agenda.)

Some time in the early 2010s, Ann Coulter emerged into this new role, but by that time had a huge legacy of twelve or fifteen years' track-record as a pro-Republican Party cheerleader, anti-"liberal" screed-writer. She was neoconservative-adjacent in the 2000s. The "Adios America" book may be viewed as a belated apology-letter for failing to come out swinging on this much sooner. The almost-successful 2006 "amnesty" pushed by John McCain and George 'Dubya' Bush is clearly a turning point in her thinking, but it took a number of years before she reconciled her instincts with her public messaging, before she became comfortable with being a "nativist, immigration-restrictionist hardliner," a shift that had not begun in 2005 but was complete by 2015 -- inwardly and outwardly and in her tone, everything.

Here is what Ann Coulter says about Phyllis Schlafly in the "Adios America" book. She was recalling the drama of the near-success of the multi-million-person amnesty push of 2006 and the circumstances that led to its narrow failure:

______________

(Quote from Ann Coulter, "Adios America")

There’s no question but that Bush’s push for amnesty in 2006 infuriated his base. In June 2006, influential conservative leaders including Brent Bozell, Phyllis Schlafly, and Howard Phillips issued a statement lambasting the amnesty plan being pushed by Bush, as well as a “compromise” measure proposed by Republican Congressman Mike Pence. The leaders pledged to oppose any member of Congress who voted for either bill.

(End quote from Ann Coulter)

______________

The USA has been a kind of demographic emergency for many years, now countable really in decades, but always with a time-delay built in (and, crucially, with older-and-powerful people usually feeling it much less).

I don't know if anyone ever attempted a calculation of how much of a further demographic 'hit' a successful amnesty for illegals in 2006 would have had. It would have both induced more illegals to come, and allowed ex-illegal new-'citizens' to chain-migrate in (LEE-guh-lee, as they say) millions more relatives with great ease. The 2006 defeat was probably enough to shore up the White-Christian share of population a number of points throughout the 2010s and 2020s.

If it's true that full-Whites of European-Christian origin are soon to hit the ominous 55% mark in terms of total resident population -- sometime soon in the mid- or late-2020s, depending how things go -- the significance of "2006" may be that the 55%-mark would've happened been hit in something like the mid-2010s. This is no small deal; the 2006 "amnesty" defeat was a major victory in its time, one forgotten now. It's interesting to see Phyllis Schlafly's name come up in relation to its defeat.

But it's also notable for what the 2006 victory was NOT: a campaign aimed directly at roll-back of the anti-white immigration-and-nationality system by then firmly in place.

The demographic-national crisis in the USA clear enough by the 2000s needed not just defensive "rear-guard" action to make right. There needed to be a full-on counter-offensive, a push for White-ethnonationalist legitimation. The goal being a recognition that the historic-founding ethnocultural group has legitimate interests and that these will be defended. The current Hostile Elite would not easily allow such a thing -- which explains Trump Derangement Syndrome, of course.

The great tragedy is that so imperfect and ultimately 'unserious' a figure as Trump became the spokesman for this implicit movement. Everyone's known it's been needed for a long while now. Who will achieve it? Not Trump, who has already discredited himself and is now just an elderly caudillo with a personality-cult. And not his selected successor, who has "brown children" (in that man's own words) being raised in the Hindu religion. So, who? When?

These were questions that Phyllis Schlafly, a figure of the mid-20th-century, never much even had to think about. One wonders if she started to seriously think about them in her late life, in her seventies and eighties and nineties (i.e., the 1990s to 2010s).

Phyllis Schlafly died in September 2016. She had endorsed Trump in mid-March 2016, as a featured speaker at one of his rallies. She then spent much of her remaining time finishing off a book, released the very week in September 2016 that she died (at age 92): "The Conservative Case for Trump" in which she endorsed him in full form.

It seems to me that the elderly Phyllis Schlafly in 2015-16 was under no illusions that Trump was a 'conservative' at all -- hence the title of the book; the title implies conservatives need convincing to vote for the man. It really was all about his campaign pledges to Build the Wall and for mass-deportations.
Demographic emergency measures of the kind any threatened state would employ. But this, too, was belated in coming, a longer-term version of Ann Coulter being afraid of the issue before about the 2010s.

PS: Thanks, and fixed, Mr. Blanc. I'd written it correctly in that old post, so this was more like a homphone error and not paying attention. (haha, first wrote "homophone era" it's easy to do.)

Have a nice Sunday.

PS I read the book in 1964. Alton, Ill., is best known for the “martyrdom” of Abolitionist Elijah Lovejoy. Sorry to nitpick, but it’s Billie Jean King, whose brother was a major league pitcher, for the Giants, if memory serves.

PS: I realized I'd written a little bit more about the ERA (along with some typos I just found) in that post on Billie Jean King. Your comment here, Mr. Hail, would be good for a stand-alone post. Not tryin' ta get outta work here or anything ...

Alarmist, I bet the Commie teachers has something to say about Anita Bryant too... around the same era (ERA?)

Thank you for yet another addition, Mr. Smith. That's where I'll go read it, as soon as I do.

PS: Good afternoon, everyone!

A Choice Not An Echo by Phyllis Schlafly (5.1mb .pdf)
https://tinyurl.com/28wj4b6p

Cheers! ☮️

PS

I remember my young commie teachers demonizing her, so even at a young, impressionable age I knew she was on the side of the righteous.

🕉️

PS

-- Phyllis Schlafly, the rise of institutional feminism, and the 'ERA' Movement of the 1970s vs. the Wokeness-regime of the early 21st century --

Phyllis Schlafly represents an older ideal of White-Western Womanhood. That ideal had begun a steady and full retreat at the very time Mrs Schlafly was making her successful conservative initiatives. There is an "irony" in there, for sure.

The success of a specific thing in a moment, or even an entire movement over a year or several years, can often mask a bigger failure or reversal. In military history, the term "Pyrrhic Victory" is similar in spirit.

And the "Equal Rights Amendment" controversy of the 1970s seems quaint today. You'll still hear a few people, here and there, mention it. They're using it solely as a bludgeon to bash the designated villain-group (you know who you are). But demanding a constitutional amendment to protect women's rights as some actual necessity is almost laughable-- as they are legally in a superior position all over the map (and one could even say a "Men's ERA" could be needed, if anything).

This is era of aggressive and institutional Wokeness. Today's White-female youth are often now third-generation raised in a "default feminist" environment (post-1970? or so, tinker with the approximate-year threshold depending on factors like region, political-orientation of family, religious affiliation).

And in the big shift that went on, all the goals of the "ERA" were achieved by stealth, and more. Some of the nightmare-scare scenarios used by the anti-ERA'ers like Phyllis Schlafly came true, and they came true without the ERA even passing.

Mrs. Schlafly's old-fashioned sounding name (Phyllis) is quite apropos for what she was. She was an Everywoman of her generation, or several generations thereabouts. For those born fifty, sixty, seventy-five years after her, there was much less chance they'd grow up to be like someone like that.

As far as I know, she was still active as a political commentator and activist even in her old age, in the 2010s. And so she saw what the early-21st-century USA morphed into. With people who get that old, it's always possible (or likely) that they're living in a mental world that is a few decades behind the Current Year.

So maybe Mrs Schlafly didn't fully appreciate just what the 1970s-to-2000s period had wrought on the White-Western Womanhood. The same White-Western Womanhod whose honor she sought to preserve (within the productive, culture-continuing family) in the 1970s-80s. The ERA lost, but the position of the Woman became cheapened anyway, as "smaller-bodied, weaker, cattier, more-moody versions of men." The Trans Movement of the mid-2010s to mid-2020s is just a strange apotheosis for the thing, but here we are (a few anti-ERA extremist doomsayers in the 1970s said an ERA would result in banning sex-separated bathrooms; they were on the right track, but didn't foresee a Transgender Movement).

It's been decades already since women surpassed men as a percent of total college students. I believe that process played out from between ca. 1970 and was largely complete by 2000. Males have slid even further since then, but these are just marginal losses and not the huge slides of the earlier period. Family-formation, of course, suffers.

Women are now direct competitors to men in most of the economy. This is a strange new world, with little if any precedent in a Western society before our own time. Not only direct competitors--favored outright in much of the economy; even in endeavors that are still male-dominated and "need to work," women somehow end up with lots of power in the proverbial of literal "office" or in the organization, here and there, everywhere. And that's all, as I say, been without the ERA.