President Trump May Actually Name a NonJew to the Supreme Court, and a Protestant at That

The current makeup of the United States Supreme Court is all Jews and Catholics. There’s not a Protestant among them.

That may be about to change once President Trump names his pick for the High Court. Expect a bitter confirmation battle, complete with horrific smears by the leftist Democrats in Congress.

Brother Nathanael reports that there’s only a single Jew on Trump’s long list, while his alleged short list, which has recently emerged, has none.

The Brother writes:

Jews love Hillary’s abortion stance. Why not? Like their father the devil, Jews are murderers from the beginning. I mean, Jews pushed through Roe vs Wade.

Let’s take a look at those the rumor mill has on Trump’s short list.

Excerpt from Politico

President Donald Trump has narrowed his first Supreme Court nomination to three finalists, with 10th Circuit judge Neil Gorsuch and 3rd Circuit judge Thomas Hardiman emerging as front-runners while 11th Circuit Judge Bill Pryor remains in the running but is fading, according to people familiar with the search process.

Trump interviewed at least those three finalists in New York during the transition, according to a person familiar with the search. Trump himself said Tuesday he would make a selection for the court’s empty seat next week and summoned top Senate leaders to the White House to discuss his impending choice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died nearly a year ago.

“The president wants to move as quickly as he can,” said Leonard Leo, one of Trump’s advisers on the court pick and a top official at the Federalist Society.

Leo declined to discuss Trump’s short list, but he praised both Gorsuch and Hardiman effusively.

“Under our Constitution, the power rests with the people, and that was at the core of Justice Scalia’s legacy, and you heard from President Trump’s inauguration that is the core of Trump’s agenda, and that’s very much the core of what Neil Gorsuch’s record is as a jurist,” Leo said. “He’s an excellent writer. He’s got sharp analytical ability, strong intellect and he’s got a lot of strength and courage. Those are things that the president very much wants in a nominee.”

“Hardiman,” Leo added, “shares many of the same qualities.”

Leo went on to say that Hardiman is “an extraordinarily talented and smart jurist” who has “a very direct and understandable writing style.”

As Gorsuch’s fortunes have risen, Pryor’s have dimmed. A 2006 George W. Bush appointee, Pryor is currently the subject of raging debate on an off-the-record group email list that includes many in the conservative legal and political communities, including many Republican Senate staffers, thanks to his decision to join the majority in Glenn v. Brumby, a 2011 opinion that protected transgender people from workplace discrimination.

“I think everybody on this list probably has something I’m not going to agree with. I think that decision with Pryor probably would be the one that would fall into that category,” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative legal organization.

John Malcolm, who oversees a legal center inside the Heritage Foundation, acknowledged that “Bill Pryor has been getting attacked from the right. Which is strange to me.”

Politically, Pryor’s nomination would spark outrage on the left — liberal activists are likely to mobilize around his statement that Roe v. Wade is “the worst abomination of constitutional law” — without fully unifying conservatives.

Firmly in Pryor’s corner, however, is a longtime friend and fellow Alabama native likely to join the Trump administration soon: attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions, who is pushing hard for his nomination, according to two sources familiar with the conversations.

Profiles of the potential nominees at NPR state that Pryor is a Catholic, snf Hardiman probably a Catholic since he attended Notre Dame.

Phyllis Schafly’s Eagles reports that Goresuch is an Episcopalian.

In doing my research for this post I discovered that all of these judges, while demonized as conservative ideologues by the left, actually have made decisions either favorable to abortionists, faggots, trannies, or other liberal special interest groups.

Life is complicated. It would be great if a judge came along and said leave abortion, sodomite marriage, and other legal issues to the states. Having nine black robed lawyers decide what our culture will be is an abomination.

Kai Murros on Why Hate is Good (Video)

A two and a half minute lecture explains why hatred empowers you.

One thing Kai is wrong about is his claim that animals cannot hate. I’ve seen some dogs who hate a particular dog with a strong passion and energy.

Inspirational Quote of the Day: One by Pat Buchanan

If America had elected Pat Buchanan president in the 90s, we’d be a far better country for it.

(((Chelsea Handler))) Insults Melania: “she can barely speak English”


I was going to illustrate this story with a screen capture from the Chelsea Handler sex tape, or one of her many nude photos, but decided to play it straight. It would be too easy to mock her use of nudity and sex to promote her far-left political views. It would also be easy to ignore her except for the fact that the Jewish entertainment industry keeps giving her TV shows.

She’s not funny, for sure. But she’ll do anything for publicity to shore up her sagging career, which would match her sagging breasts, except they’ve been lifted by silicone.

That ((())) symbol has been getting a workout lately with all the Chosen Ones spouting their anti-Trump nonsense. At least Handler had sense enough to lay off Barron.

New York Daily News

Melania Trump isn’t welcome on Chelsea Handler’s Netflix show — because the comedian wouldn’t be able to understand her.

Handler wouldn’t interview the First Lady on “Chelsea” because “she can barely speak English,” she told Variety at the Sundance Film Festival.

“I don’t respect either one of those people,” she said about the Trumps.

The First Lady, who grew up in Yugoslavia, speaks Slovene, English, French, Serbian and German.

This isn’t the first time Handler has taken shots at Trump’s accent.

“Trump said Melania will give two or three more speeches,” the comedian tweeted on Oct. 28. “Hopefully an interpreter will be present.”

“Tim Kaine delivered a speech entirely in Spanish. Still easier to understand than Melania,” she wrote on Nov. 4.

Handler, an outspoken Hillary Clinton supporter during the presidential election, said she was going to register as an independent because “it isn’t working, this two-party system.”

“That’s what I’m going to make my agenda about: educating anyone I can while also getting educated,” she told Variety.

You know that Chelsea Handler wouldn’t mock and ridicule a Mexican maid who speaks no English. That would be racist. But Handler is a Jew mocking a Goyim. Isn’t that by logic also racist?

First Ladies should be left alone with two exceptions. The first was Hillary Clinton, who was as much a politician as Bill, and thus fair game.

The second exception was Michelle Obama who became the nation’s scold, trying to shame us for disagreeing with her husband and changing school cafeterias for the worse.

michelle-melania_trump obama

Leftist Scum Who Punched Richard Spencer Had a Wrench Up His Sleeve (Photo)

That cuts it. The wrench makes it attempted murder in my book.

There’s a reward out for this garbage. Let’s help find him.

As Spencer pointed out in his video I posted yesterday, we’re entering a new phase of the War on Whites. Open violence by the American left is now normalized and applauded on Twitter. It’s been that way in Europe for a while. Only thing, here in America some of our people carry concealed weapons.

All our people need to be armed, when legal. Spencer needs a concealed carry permit and a weapon, just like Donald Trump. And maybe a body guard/friend with a weapon.

Vice Asks Jew “Ethicist” If It’s OK to Punch Richard Spencer in the Face

Across the Internet many fuckwits celebrated the violent punch delivered to Richard Spencer’s face–a punch that could have killed him.

But hey, to ignorant libturds who populate America today, Spencer deserved it because he’s a Nazi. Except he really isn’t a Nazi. As Stefan Molyneaux put it, he’s an ethnostate guy.

The debatable question became “Is it OK to punch a Nazi?” By extension, “Is it OK to punch anyone with conservative views?”

One British newspaper, The Independent, said “yes” before taking down that ignorant, short-sighted response by a woman writer.

Most so-called peaceful leftists said yes like the writer. By extension since Donald John Trump is also a Nazi, it’s OK to punch the POTUS. By extension, it’s also OK to punch his family members. Again, by extension, since they’re all Nazi scum, it’s OK to kill them all.

Vice engaged a Jewish “ethnicist” (whatever that is) to answer the question of the day, “Is it OK to punch a Nazi?”


VICE: So—punching Richard Spencer in the face, OK or not OK?

Randy Cohen: No. You don’t get to punch people in the face, even if their ideas are odious. You don’t. We want a civil society, where ideas are met with other ideas. We don’t want a society that encourages thuggish behavior, where if someone has politics different from yours, you get to beat them up. Aside from it just being morally wrong in itself to assault people, there’s the practical consideration that in a society where ideas are met with fists, one is as likely to be the punched as the puncher, and it’s no fun to be punched in the face.

Does violence against a political enemy become justified if they are not only encouraging violence against targeted groups but systematically committing it?

Not for speech. Even though he’s encouraging actions that we find horrible, he’s not our moral teacher, we’re not supposed to imitate his methods. We don’t do that. There is no tipping point there—you don’t respond with violence. You do have the right to defend yourself if physically attacked, but that’s not what this was.

Certainly there must be a tipping point.

There’s a point at which encouraging violence becomes a crime. There are harassment laws and laws against assault. Inciting violence is a crime in many jurisdictions. But, no. The response to that is still not physical violence. The great example here is still Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement of the 60s. It was a nonviolent movement, which was a profoundly moral act. That was a group of people who had the courage to uphold a nonviolent stance even when attacked. They would not fight back, which is so impressive and so powerful, and something that we ought to aspire to.

Why do you think people who are smart and relatively civil in their regular lives taking joy in the punch?

There are no thought crimes. So it’s hard not to feel some glee when a proponent of physical violence against others is himself the victim of the very act he prescribes. I’m not saying you don’t get to feel good when someone punches Richard Spencer in the nose. You would have to be superhuman and a more moral person than I not to feel some happiness that he received just the treatment he was advocating for others. But that doesn’t make it right to do it.

Is it OK to laugh privately at the video? What about share it?

That’s a little iffy, because that’s when it’s on the brink of encouraging such actions. It really is important not to do this, and to not be a violent movement. Violence against unpopular ideas is not permitted. I would not circulate them, but if in the recesses of your heart, you feel a moment of glee at seeing Richard Spencer punched in the nose, I would not criticize you. Not for your feelings, but for your actions if you encouraged other people to punch him.

So what should you do if you see a Nazi then? Certainly there’s value in shaming them.

It’s not just what you’re supposed to do at that moment; it’s what you’re supposed to do before you see the Nazi. It’s organizing for social change, it’s struggling, it’s resisting, it’s being aligned with progressive social movements, it’s being out on the streets marching, it’s writing your local representatives. There are a hundred things you’re supposed to be doing, and what you do if you happen upon some nitwit is a trivial question. You can yell at him; you can verbally confront him. And in a way, that’s good. It’s good to remind people that some ideas are so odious that they have no place in decent society, and that [if you have them], you will be scorned. But you ought not be met with punches.

Cohen mischaracterizes Spencer’s message. He’s also preaching that good old MLK “nonviolence” as representing the highest morality.

Well, guess what? When your ethnic group is being silently set up for extermination, nonviolence may not be the best answer. White people are already too nonviolent in the face of violence from nonwhites. We used to burn down their fucking neighborhoods and lynch them when they attacked us. Now, we file police reports. We’re losing.

Spencer’s message is that whites want a divorce from nonwhites. He sees a peaceful secession as the road to that white ethnostate. Although a Dylann Roof may come along now and then, it’s the left that advocates violence, not the right. That white nonviolent approach may have to change.

ABC News Reporter Says Trump’s “America First” Speech is Antisemitic

Hey, Trump! Ain’t you heard? Israel comes first.

Yep, if you put America first, you’re a NAZI.

What say you, Mr. Bill Kristol, Jewish “conservative?”

The Hill

ABC journalist Terry Moran on Friday said President Trump’s inaugural address used a ”loaded term” that carried “overtones from the 1930s, when an anti-Semitic movement” blamed Jews for global problems.

Moran, ABC’s chief foreign correspondent, said Trump’s America-first rhetoric carries “ugly echoes in our history.”

“It’s a loaded term in American history,” argued Moran. “Now, he defined it here as total allegiance to the United States of America, and it is something, as [anchor] Cecilia [Vega] said, this is why he was sent here by people who want to hear that message of America first.

“However, it carries with it overtones from the 1930s, when an anti-Semitic movement [said], ‘We don’t want to get involved in Europe’s war. It’s the Jews’ fault in Germany!’ Charles Lindbergh led them.”

The Anti-Defamation League has argued that Trump borrowed America-first language from Nazi-friendly Americans in the 1930s.

Trump said in a speech in June that his definition of the “America First” slogan applies to fighting “unfair foreign competition,” by utilizing America’s energy resources, creating and implementing protectionist tax and regulatory policies, reducing taxes for the middle class, loosening regulations, and protecting American workers from immigrant competition.

The press continues its subtle smear job on Donald Trump by bringing up something that is totally irrelevant to the moment at hand. This story just feeds into the low information voter’s mind the idea that Donald Trump is a secret Nazi who wants to lampshade six million Jews. In reality, if he did that, he be killing his daughter Ivanka and his son-in-law Jared Kushner.