The Supreme Court: Are Liberals Anti-WASP?

An interesting post from www.vdare.com about the Supreme Court. This follows this post about news analysis, this post about the MURDER of ROBERT KRENTZ, who the protestors and boycotters won't give a solution for, but will call Americans racist for trying to prevent another MURDER, and this post which shows that there are 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso across from the recent Juarez shooting. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Are Liberals Anti-WASP?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
"A chorus of black commentators and civic leaders has begun expressing frustration over (Elena) Kagan's hiring record as Harvard dean. From 2003 to 2009, 29 faculty members were hired: 28 were white and one was Asian American."
CNN pundit Roland Martin slammed "Kagan's record on diversity as one that a 'white Republican U.S. president' would be criticized for."
This is an excerpt from the Washington Post about the rising anger in a black community, which voted 24-1 for Obama, that one of their own was once again passed over for the Supreme Court.
Not since Thurgood Marshall, 43 years ago, has a Democratic president chosen an African-American. The lone sitting black justice is Clarence Thomas, nominated by George H. W. Bush. And Thomas was made to run a gauntlet by Senate liberals.
Indeed, of the last seven justices nominated by Democrats JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, one was black, Marshall; one was Puerto Rican, Sonia Sotomayor. The other five were Jews: Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.
If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats.
Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?
But while leaders in the black community may be upset, the folks who look more like the real targets of liberal bias are white Protestants and Catholics, who still constitute well over half of the U.S. population.
Not in living memory has a Democratic president nominated an Irish, Italian or Polish Catholic, though these ethnic communities once gave the party its greatest victories in the cities and states of the North.
What happened to the party of the Daleys, Rizzos and Rostenkowskis?
And not in nearly half a century has a Democratic president nominated a white Protestant or white Catholic man or woman.
The last was Byron "Whizzer" White, the all-American running back from the University of Colorado, nominated by his friend Jack Kennedy. White cast one of the only two votes against Roe v Wade.
What of the record of Republican presidents?
Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford made seven nominations. All were white Protestant males: Warren Burger, Clement Haynsworth, Harrold Carswell, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, William Rehnquist and John Paul Stevens.
The diversity Nixon sought was first to put a Southerner on the court. He succeeded in his third try, with Powell. And he sought to put the first woman on the court, but pulled back from nominating Judge Mildred Lillie of California when the American Bar Associated rated her unqualified.
With Ronald Reagan and Bush I came Republican diversity.
Reagan's first choice was Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman ever nominated. His second was Antonin Scalia, the first Italian-American. When his third nominee, Robert Bork, a Protestant, was rejected, Reagan chose Bork's Jewish colleague on the U.S. Appellate Court for the District of Columbia, Douglas H. Ginsburg. When Douglas Ginsburg was pulled because of a marijuana incident in college, Reagan chose the Irish Catholic Anthony Kennedy.
George H. W. Bush picked David Souter, a Protestant from New Hampshire, and Clarence Thomas, the second African-American to sit. George W. Bush chose John Roberts, a Catholic; Harriet Miers, the first Evangelical Christian of our era; and Sam Alito, the second Italian Catholic.
If Kagan is confirmed, the Court will consist of three Jews and six Catholics (who represent not quite a fourth of the country), but not a single Protestant, though Protestants remain half the nation and our founding faith.
If Kagan is confirmed, three of the four justices nominated by Democratic presidents will be from New York City: Kagan from the Upper West Side, Sotomayor from the Bronx, Ruth Bader Ginsburg from Brooklyn. Breyer is from San Francisco.
What kind of diversity is this—either in geography or life experience?
While Sotomayor went to Yale Law School, the other three liberals went to Harvard, though Ruth Bader Ginsburg graduated from Columbia. Seems a fairly narrow range for a party that once claimed to be America's party.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg tied for first in her class at Columbia, but neither Obama nominee is academically distinguished. Sotomayor called herself an "affirmative action baby" who, at Princeton, was urged to read children's books in the summer to improve her reading and writing skills. Kagan never served as a judge, never litigated a case before being named solicitor general, never wrote a book or anything else anyone has turned up that manifests real legal scholarship.
From her Princeton thesis on the sad demise of 20th-century socialism, to her tears at the defeat of the radical liberal Senate candidate Elizabeth Holtzman in 1980, to her hostility to the U.S. military on the Harvard campus while dean of the law school, Kagan has revealed herself to be one more Ivy League leftist anxious to use a lifetime seat on the court, winning the plaudits of her peers by imposing her ideology on a nation that has never voted for it.
Conservatives will not soon get another opportunity like this to take down Ivy League pretensions to represent and rule America.

Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, can be ordered from Amazon.com.

St. Patty's Day - Ireland becoming Muslim

A very interesting article from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/

To My Irish-American Friends & Readers, Happy St. Patrick's Day; Old Irish Joke No Longer Funny--Your Homeland is Becoming Muslim

By Debbie Schlussel
**** SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATE: An Irish Reader Tells us of the Muslim Expansion Among only 5 Million Irish ****
Happy St. Patrick's Day to my Irish-American friends and readers. You drink green beer today. Some of us (not me) eat green bagels.
I have always had so many friends who are proud of their Irish heritage. After Hispanics, Blacks, and Germans, those with Irish heritage are the fourth largest ethnic group in America, numbering in the tens of millions. They've overcome what was once an "Irish Need Not Apply" ethos at the beginning of the last century to become Presidents of the U.S., CEOs, and the summits of every field.
And there has always been a special calendar relationship between this holiday and a Jewish holiday, Purim. They usually occur close in time. And while you drink today, on Thursday Night and Friday, the Jewish holiday of Purim, Jews are commanded to drink so much that they cannot tell the difference between the hero, Mordechai, and villain, Haman, of Purim.
Luck of the Irish, er . . . Muslims by the Great David Lunde
There have been several Jewish Irish politicians, including a former Mayor of Dublin. And while I don't celebrate the disappearance of the Jewish people, statistics show that Jewish intermarriage in America is most commonly to Irish Catholics. (One of my closest lifelond friends, Beth, is the daughter of an Irish Catholic who converted to Orthodox Judaism.) Famous Irish American composer George M. Cohan, a philo-Semitc, sympathized with Jewish Americans when he was once refused a hotel room because his surname caused him to be mistaken for a Jew.
But while today celebrates that St. Patrick drove out all of the snakes from Ireland, he has a new enemy to slay, a new giant snake that is growing in Ireland.

I used to tell this joke to my Irish friends, but sadly it's no longer a joke, but becoming true (here's the much shortened version):
A tourist is on a tour of Ireland. He's told not to stray from the group in the midst of the war between the Catholics and the Protestants. But while he's taking photos, the tourist soon finds himself lost from his group in a back alley.
Soon, a man from a distance away is running towards him. It's clear the man running is some sort of soldier or terrorist. He's armed with a machine gun and a lot of bullets. The armed man asks, in his Irish accent, "Who are you? State your name and your religion, or I'll kill you."
The tourist doesn't know what to do. If he says he's Catholic and the armed figure charging toward him is Protestant, he'll die. If he says he's Protestant and the armed man is Catholic, he's also a goner. So, as the armed man continues demanding the tourist's identity and gets closer and closer to shooting range, the tourist figures out how to save his life.
Tourist: My name is David O'Houlihan Horowitz. I'm a Jew.
Armed Man: Glory Be! I'm the luckiest Palestinian Muslim in all of Ireland!
Like I said, that used to be funny. But, now, Islam is in the stages where it will slowly dominate Ireland.

Right now, the numbers are still minute, but in a few generations, St. Patrick might be known as St. Fouad. Islam is the fastest growing religion in Ireland.
Irish Muslim Abiola Egbeyemi w/Niqab "Enhanced" By David Lunde
Muslims are immigrating to Ireland in greater numbers and the ones already in the Emerald Isle are putting on niqabs (full face veils) and burqas (the full Ninja) where they once did not. An example is this Irish woman, Abiola Egbeyemi of Carlow, Ireland, who went from clubbing and drinking to wearing a niqab and becoming an extremist Sunni Muslim. Prominent Irish magazine/website Metro Eirann has a special section for Islam. "Current Affairs," "Business," "Sports," "Arts & Culture," "Islam."
Although Shi'ites claim only 2,000 Shi'ite Muslims in Ireland, there are far more--tens of thousands--Sunnis there. And both groups are dominated, in Ireland--as in the rest of the world, by extremists. A visit to Irish Sunni site IslamIreland shows giant mosques sprouting up all over, extremist Islamic schools for kids and seminars.
While the Harvard gym bows to Muslims here, there are enough Muslims in Ireland to merit their own "ladies only" gyms. Oh, and the mosques? Well, just like here in America, giant monstrosities, like the Islamic Cultural Center of Ireland (ICCI), are funded by the Gulf states. In the case of the ICCI, it's funded by the UAE's Sheikh Hamdan Bin Rashid Al Maktoum's Maktoum Foundation.
This is all possible because, like America, the Irish have been far too tolerant, far too welcoming of Islam. That's why Ibrahim Tahir, a devout Muslim bookseller from Singapore, wrote this on his blog, about his time living in Ireland:
I was once asked to come on county radio to talk about Islam during Ramadhan — this was in 1996. One of the questions asked by the host was, "Have you ever been a victim of bigotry here in Ireland because you're a Muslim?"
I famously replied, "No, in fact people are nicer here than they are back home!"
Yes, too nice.
So, to my Irish American friends and readers who today are celebrating their homeland and heritage, remember that while today you drink beer that is the green of Ireland, tomorrow, or in a not to distant future generation, you will not allowed to drink beer in your homeland. But it will still share the color of the Irish. Green, after all, is the color of Islam (a reason why it dominates the Saudi and HAMAS flags, and that of other not so nice Muslim groups).

Once the Muslims (the Spanish Moors) came to your island homeland and left behind them the "Black Irish."
Today, they are on the Irish Isle not to leave anything behind.
But to dominate and take over.

Blarney = Looking the Other Way as Islam Invades Ireland.
**** UPDATE: This is from a loyal Irish reader and frequent correspondent:
You forgot to mention we are just about 5 million and if these people keep breeding we will be overwhelmed in a very short time.
We suffer from Elites and I mean Elites. It took us 800 hundred years to be free from England and now we are about to spend etentity serving animals.
May God and St. Patrick help us from these Devils.
Keep up the good work. May God protect you.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/03/to_my_irish-ame.html

European Union Vote - Beast Delayed!

I wanted to send the article below which shows the latest delay in transforming the European Union into the superpower it is destined to be. On the UCG website, the latest news commentary here http://www.ucg.org/commentary/world-leader-free-world.htm talks about the time when the European Beast will be the world's superpower. We can be happy for now that this prophetic event has not yet happened so we can use this extra opportunity to repent and get ourselves spiritually prepared. I do hope you find the article below to be insightful.

For a clear explanation of biblical prophecies foretelling the global consequences of Europe's rise to international dominance simply download, request or read online our free booklet: The Book of Revelation Unveiled.



The Problem With Europe
June 17, 2008

By George Friedman
Related Special Topic Page
EuropeThe creation of a European state was severely wounded if not killed last week. The Irish voted against a proposed European Union treaty that included creation of a full-time president, increased power to pursue a European foreign policy and increased power for Europe’s parliament. Since the European constitutional process depends on unanimous consent by all 27 members, the Irish vote effectively sinks this version of the new constitution, much as Dutch and French voters sank the previous version in 2005.The Irish vote was not a landslide. Only 54 percent of the voters cast their ballots against the constitution. But that misses the point. Whether it had been 54 percent for or against the constitution, the point was that the Irish were deeply divided. In every country, there is at least a substantial minority that opposes the constitution. Given that all 27 EU countries must approve the constitution, the odds against some country not sinking it are pretty long. The Europeans are not going to get a strengthened constitution this way.But the deeper point is that you can’t create a constitution without a deep consensus about needing it. Even when there is — as the United States showed during its Civil War — critical details not settled by consensus can lead to conflict. In the case of the United States, the issues of the relative power of states and the federal government, along with the question of slavery, ripped the country apart. They could only be settled by war and a series of amendments to the U.S. Constitution forced through by the winning side after the war.
The Constitutional ChallengeCreating a constitution is not like passing a law — and this treaty was, in all practical terms, a constitution. Constitutions do not represent public policy, but a shared vision of the regime and the purpose of the nation. The U.S. Constitution was born in battle. It emerged from a long war of independence and from the lessons learned in that war about the need for a strong executive to wage war, a strong congress to allocate funds and raise revenue, and a judiciary to interpret the constitution. War, along with the teachings of John Locke, framed the discussions in Philadelphia, because the founders’ experience in a war where there was only a congress and no president convinced them of the need for a strong executive. And even that was not enough to prevent civil war over the issue of state sovereignty versus federal sovereignty. Making a constitution is hard.The European constitution was also born in battle, but in a different way. For centuries, the Europeans had engaged in increasingly savage wars. The question they wanted to address was how to banish war from Europe. In truth, that decision was not in their hands, but in the hands of Americans and Soviets. But the core issue remained: how to restrain European savagery. The core idea was relatively simple. European wars arose from European divisions; and, for centuries, those divisions ran along national lines. If a United States of Europe could be created on the order of the United States of America, then the endless battling of France, Germany and England would be eliminated. In the exhaustion of the postwar world — really lasting through the lives of the generation that endured World War II — the concept was deeply seductive. Europe after World War II was exhausted in every sense. It allowed its empires to slip away with a combination of indifference and relief. What Europeans wanted postwar was to make a living and be left alone by ideology and nationalism; they had experienced quite enough of those two. Even France under the influence of Charles de Gaulle, the champion of the idea of the nation-state and its interests, could not arouse a spirit of nationalism anywhere close to what had been. There is a saying that some people are exhausted and confuse their state with virtue. If that is true, then it is surely true of Europe in the last couple of generations. The European Union reflected these origins. It began as a pact — the European Community — of nations looking to reduce tariff barriers. It evolved into a nearly Europe-wide grouping of countries bound together in a trade bloc, with many of those countries sharing a common currency. Its goal was not the creation of a more perfect union, or, as the Americans put it, a “novus ordo seclorum.” It was not to be the city on the hill. Its commitment was to a more prosperous life, without genocide. Though not exactly inspiring, given the brutality of European history, it was not a trivial goal.The problem was that when push came to shove, the European Community evolved into the European Union, which consisted of four things:
1. A free trade zone with somewhat synchronized economic polices, not infrequently overridden by the sovereign power of member states.
2. A complex bureaucracy designed to oversee the harmonization of European economies. This was seen as impenetrable and engaged in intensive and intrusive work from the trivial to the extremely significant, charged with defining everything from when a salami may be called a salami and whether Microsoft was a monopoly.
3. A single currency and central bank to which 15 of the 27 EU members subscribed.
4. Had Ireland voted differently, a set of proto-institutions would have been created — complete with a presidency and foreign policy chief — which would have given the European Union the trappings of statehood. The president, who would rotate out of office after a short time, would have been the head of one of the EU member states.
Rejecting a European RegimeThe Irish referendum was all about transforming the fourth category into a regime. The Irish rejected it not because they objected to the first three sets of solutions — they have become the second-wealthiest country in Europe per capita under their aegis. They objected to it because they did not want to create a European regime. As French and Dutch voters have said before, the Irish said they want a free trade zone. They will put up with the Brussels bureaucracy even though its intrusiveness and lack of accountability troubles them. They can live with a single currency so long as it does not simply become a prisoner of German and French economic policy. But they do not want to create a European state. The French and German governments do want to create such a state. As with the creation of the United States, the reasons have to do with war, past and future. Franco-German animosity helped created the two world wars of the 20th century. Those two powers now want a framework for preventing war within Europe. They also — particularly the French — want a vehicle for influencing the course of world events. In their view, the European Union, as a whole, has a gross domestic product comparable to that of the United States. It should be the equal of the United States in shaping the world. This isn’t simply a moral position, but a practical one. The United States throws its weight around because it can, frequently harming Europe’s interests. The French and Germans want to control the United States.To do this, they need to move beyond having an economic union. They need to have a European foreign and defense policy. But before they can have that, they need a European government that can carry out this policy. And before they can have a European government they must have a European regime, before which they must have a European constitution that enumerates the powers of the European president, parliament and courts. They also need to specify how these officials will be chosen. The French and Germans would welcome all this if they could get it. They know, given population, economic power and so on, that they would dominate the foreign policy created by a European state. Not so the Irish and Danes; they understand they would have little influence on the course of European foreign policy. They already feel the pain of having little influence on European economic policy, particularly the policies of the European Central Bank (ECB). Even the French public has expressed itself in the 2006 election about fears of Brussels and the ECB. But for countries like Ireland and Denmark, each of which fought very hard to create and retain their national sovereignty, merging into a Europe in which they would lose their veto power to a European parliamentary and presidential system is an appalling prospect.Economists always have trouble understanding nationalism. To an economist, all human beings are concerned with maximizing their own private wealth. Economists can never deal with the empirical fact that this simply isn’t true. Many Irish fought against being cogs in a multinational British Empire. The Danes fought against being absorbed by Germany. The prospect of abandoning the struggle for national sovereignty to Europe is not particularly pleasing, even if it means economic advantage. Europe is not going to become a nation-state in the way the United States is. It is increasingly clear that Europeans are not going to reach a consensus on a European constitution. They are not in agreement on what European institutions should look like, how elections should be held and, above all, about the relation between individual nations and a central government. The Europeans have achieved all they are going to achieve. They have achieved a free trade zone with a regulatory body managing it. They have created a currency that is optional to EU members, and from which we expect some members to withdraw from at times while others join in. There will be no collective European foreign or defense policy simply because the Europeans do not have a common interest in foreign and defense policy.
Paris Reads the Writing on the WallThe French have realized this most clearly. Once the strongest advocates of a federated Europe, the French under President Nicolas Sarkozy have started moving toward new strategies. Certainly, they remain committed to the European Union in its current structure, but they no longer expect it to have a single integrated foreign and defense policy. Instead, the French are pursuing initiatives by themselves. One aspect of this involves drawing closer to the United States on some foreign policy issues. Rather than trying to construct a single Europe that might resist the United States — former President Jacques Chirac’s vision — the French are moving to align themselves to some degree with American policies. Iran is an example.The most intriguing initiative from France is the idea of a Mediterranean union drawing together the countries of the Mediterranean basin, from Algeria to Israel to Turkey. Apart from whether these nations could coexist in such a union, the idea raises the question of whether France (or Italy or Greece) can simultaneously belong to the European Union and another economic union. While questions — such as whether North African access to the French market would provide access to the rest of the European Union — remain to be answered, the Germans have strongly rejected this French vision.The vision derives directly from French geopolitical reality. To this point, the French focus has been on France as a European country whose primary commitment is to Europe. But France also is a Mediterranean country, with historical ties and interests in the Mediterranean basin. France’s geographical position gives it options, and it has begun examining those options independent of its European partners.The single most important consequence of the Irish vote is that it makes clear that European political union is not likely to happen. It therefore forces EU members to consider their own foreign and defense policies — and, therefore, their own geopolitical positions. Whether an economic union can survive in a region of political diversity really depends on whether the diversity evolves into rivalry. While that has been European history, it is not clear that Europe has the inclination to resurrect national rivalries. At the same time, if France does pursue interests independent of the Germans, the question will be this: Will the mutual interest in economic unity override the tendency toward political conflict? The idea was that Europe would moot the question by creating a federation. That isn’t going to happen, so the question is on the table. And that question can be framed simply: When speaking of political and military matters, is it reasonable any longer to use the term Europe to denote a single entity? Europe, as it once was envisioned, appears to have disappeared in Ireland.Tell Stratfor What You Think