The Same Sane Thoughts On Immigration

[NOTE: This was originally posted in 2018 in English Swill.]  

ENGLISH SWILL 

... Wordsmithery at the Bottom of the Barrel by Roy Santonil

"DREAMING OF THE LAST AMNESTY"

Tuesday, January 23, 2018 

You may call me lazy.

You would be wrong, and you wouldn't be alone. I know too many people who mistake my efficiency for laziness.  Nowadays, I don't care what you think, as long as you didn't SNEAK into my country against the law. 

This is not xenophobia.

 

This is self-defense in the face of your lawless aggression, you jerks.

From American Greatness, I've condensed a written piece by Victor Davis Hanson entitled "Mythologies of Illegal Immigration." 

 

Professor Hanson is an American military historian, columnist, professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He was Professor of Classics at Fresno State University, and is currently the Martin and Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University Hoover Institution. He has been a Visiting Professor at Hillsdale College since 2004 and in 2007, Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal by President George W. Bush. 

 

Hanson is also a farmer, growing raisin grapes on a family farm in Selma, California, and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism. He is the author most recently of The Second World Wars – How the First Global Conflict was Fought and Won (Basic Books). 

This topic of immigration hits hard because my family and I are DOCUMENTED. If you know me from my Obama-era blog, there is nothing to see here.  Move on, unless you are prepared to learn why the "Dream Act" amnesty is just plain wrong.  I thought we killed in in 2010, but the damn thing keeps re-spawning like a hydra.

The last big immigration law was the Simpson-Mazolli Bill of 1986.  Since then, we've gone from under 3 million to nearly 20 million illegal entries into our country. 

 

YOU REALLY ARE DREAMING if you think that past efforts to give amnesty to illegals in the 1980's has solved any problems, especially when you look at the illegal invasion that is going on now, and has gone on since.  Hopefully, 1986 was THE LAST Amnesty.

 What is my immigration dream?  

 

NEVER AGAIN.  

 

It's 2018, and I'm free to tell the world (who cares?) what I think.  As a free citizen, you are free to not have to give a shit about shithole countries.  As a spiritual believer, my duty is God, family, and country.  Take care of my real brothers, not faceless thugs or pathetic protesters.  Defend yourself.  So simple.  No guilt trip about poor unfortunate souls being manipulated for swamp creatures and Masonic lodges.

Retweet if you agree. That was a joke. Lighten up.

Keep dreaming, you jerks -- not about your liberal virtue signalling for the lawless hordes, but keep dreaming about a REAL "land of the free" and a REAL "home of the brave." 

 

FOR NOW . . . HAVE SOME MIND-BENDING EXCERPTS ~~ 

HAVE SOME ENGLISH SWILL:

 

THE MYTHOLOGIES OF  ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

["... It’s a tiresome ploy by the Democrats, abetted by their allies in the media, using deceptive language to paint a false picture that blurs the distinction between legal and illegal, citizen and foreigner, justice and injustice...."]

["... Enough obfuscation. Here are some of the most pernicious myths of illegal immigration, debunked.... "]

MYTH #1 - The System is “Broken”

["Broken for whom exactly? Not for Mexico and Latin America. Together they garner $50 billion in annual remittances...."]

[... The immigration system is also clearly not broken for the Democratic Party. It has turned California blue. It soon will do the same to Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico, and someday may flip Arizona and Texas....]

[Open borders have ensured the hiring of industrious workers at cheap wages while passing on the accruing health, educational, legal, and criminal justice costs to the taxpayer. The present system is “working” well enough for this crowd; its possible replacement instead would be defined as “broken.”...."]

[... In sum, the system is working for everyone. It is broken only for the naïfs who worry over the long-term consequences of rendering the law null and void, and of ceding our culture to arriving populations for the most part not yet accustomed to the habits that sustain personal and political freedom..."

MYTH #2 - But the “Dreamers”!

 ["There are 700,000-800,000 DACA recipients, though no one knows the exact numbers. Nor is there a clear definition of who constitutes the population of the “Dreamers,” other than arriving into the United States illegally as a minor. It is an ossified concept, one frozen in amber, given that the average age of a so-called “Dreamer” around 25. When a Dreamer reaches 40, is he still defined as a Dreamer? Or have his “dreams” already come true?

College graduation and military service are often referenced as DACA talking points. In truth, some studies suggest that just one in 20 dreamers graduated from college. One in a 1,000 has served in the military. So far, about eight times more Dreamers have not graduated from high school than have graduated from college.

Dreamers represent less than 10 percent of all illegal aliens residing in the United States. They are also a fraction of the ignored millions of foreign students from all over the world who seek, often in vain, to study in the United States or are skilled applicants for green cards. Such depressing statistics about DACA might not matter—if supporters of open borders did not always cite incomplete or misleading data."]

MYTH #3 - Weaponizing the Language

[Most of the vocabulary surrounding illegal immigration is both politicized and weaponized—as we have seen with “Dreamers.”]

[Illegal immigration is conflated with legal immigration in order to smear critics with charges of biases against the “other” rather than of simply expressing concerns over legality and sovereignty."...]

[“Sanctuary cities” are not “sanctuaries” in the manner we think of a cathedral in a Victor Hugo novel. They are nullification centers [bold added] where foreign nationals who have broken laws are not subject to full enforcement of immigration laws, due entirely to political considerations."]

[...“Undocumented immigrant” suggests that the problem is a matter of forgetting to bring legal documents, rather than a decision to ignore the need for legal authorization....]

[...“Diversity” is often associated with illegal immigration. In fact, the majority of illegal immigrants come from Latin American and Mexico. They are hardly diverse. Real diversity would be re-calibrating immigration to be legal, meritocratic, and aimed at roughly equal representation from Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Europe—and thus politically unpredictable.]

MYTH #4 - Political Epithets: Racism and Xenophobia

[The cargo of illiberal accusations is likewise constructed, given the United States is the most pro-Latino country in the world, Mexico included. Half of all immigrants, both legal and illegal, come either from Mexico or Latin America—a sort of inverse racism that assumes illegal Spanish-speaking immigrants are intrinsically more deserving of U.S. residence than legal immigration applicants from Uganda, South Korea, or Ukraine....] 

[What is also not diverse is Mexico and Latin America....] 

[... Strange, too, are the outward theatrics and themes of illegal alien activism—the frequent waving of Mexican flags, the often loud criticism of a generous host country, the usual demands made upon a foreign nation—mysteriously coupled with the overwhelming desire of millions to enter or remain in the supposedly demonic United States. Waving a flag of a country that one does not wish to return to while shunning the flag of a country in which one very much wishes to reside is incoherent....] 

MYTH #5 - Is America Great or Not?

[The entire image of the United States has been smeared in most discussions of illegal immigration....] 
 
[... But who are the arbiters of American ethics? Vicente Fox? MS-13 gang-bangers? Those whose first act [emphasis added] in entering America was to break its laws?]

[... Millions are fleeing paradigms that they apparently judged as wanting, either politically, economically, or socially, or all that and more. Why, then, would foreign nationals have ceased romanticizing their new generous hosts upon their arrival and begun idealizing, instead, their rejected birthplace? And if these are their true feelings on the matter, why did they leave?...]

[... [T]here rarely is expressed any formal analysis of why one wishes to enter the United States and leave one’s home country.]

The question is not just mindless American boosterism. In the past, immigrants accepted that they had left Ireland, Italy, or Poland because habits, customs, and government in their home countries were deemed wanting and unworkable, and therefore it was necessary to embrace their antitheses in the United States. It would have made no sense to flee from Italy and expect to live life in America on the premises that an Italian lived in Italy. Immigration, again brutally or not, is a complex two-step hard bargain that succeeds only when one accepts his chosen country—and de facto rejects the collective protocols of his birthplace.

[Why do these mythologies abound? Largely because Americans, the hosts, either cannot anymore even define their own civilization to would-be immigrants, or are so intimidated that they are terrified to even try.]

2025 Update: We're trying now.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

DOBBS for Dummies (Part 5 of 5: Respect)

Start here.

OK, this is a tough one.

Looks like we made it. 

5 of 5, or should I joke? 

6 - 3. No joke.

In this Series Finale of Dobbs for Dummies, we talk about "RESPECT FOR THE COURT," and the impact that this decision has had and will have on American governmental institutions, law, and civil discourse. Not to mention millions of lives in utero.

As an officer of the court, I am essentially ogligated to be honest, transparent, and fair to everyone involved in this legal debate. It is settled for now, and I say that presuming we maintain a constitutional republic and not surrender to barbarism.

Perhaps we should just end it here, and going forward each of us can just figure shit out on our own.

Thanks, Dad.

© 2024 Roy B. Santonil

DOBBS V. JACKSON for Dummies (Part 4 of 5: "Stare Decisis")

Hello friends, and welcome back. 

I pretty much stopped writing since January. When your precious, charming, lovely, smart, witty daughter gets married and buys a house, you had better be there to help them make transition, or you have no purpose in life. I also got a part-time job at my true habitat, a local municipal golf course, so 2023 has been a bad year for my blogging.

Still, in the past year, I have managed to cross off a couple of items on my musical bucket list, and learned the guitar solos to Hotel California and Kid Charlemagne.  Maybe it's time to start posting videos?

Our legal journey can be summarized, so far, as follows: the Dobbs decision is a resultant of two primary vectors. These vectors are moral force and social experience. 

Applied through Reason during the course of Time, our common law system arrived in 2022 at a place where logic could lead, where apolitical imperatives could survive, a place where -- after 50 years in the jurisprudential wilderness -- our nation highest court signaled to the citizenry the merits of reading and following the U.S. Government User's Manual that begins "We the People."

Conscience (Part 1) and Culture (Part 2), refracted through Lessons of History (Part 3), brought the Supreme Court of the United States to this milestone opinion on June 24, 2022.

***

In Part 4, we discuss the legal doctrine upon which I think the Dobbs case truly turns. That doctine is neither Privacy, nor Federalism, nor is it States's Rights, as some would have you believe, Nikki Haley.

Rather, it is a pet doctrine of Chief Justice John Roberts, whose legal instinct is to seek to preserve the  institutional integrity of the court with strong deference to a principle called "Stare Decisis" (STAH-ray Deh-CY-sis), or, as I like to call it -- "Poking the Bear."

The 50+ year legal debate over the existence or non-existence of abortion "rights" has culminated with the recognition in Dobbs that, as with the numerous instances listed in footnote 48, SCOTUS is a HUMAN institution. 

Not being perfect, we seek the more perfect.

Because we acknowledge imperfection as an intrinsic human quality, legal writer Eric Segall asserts that the Court's past errors, albeit corrected through footnote 48 types of subsequent rulings, nevertheless render SCOTUS opinions as "non-legal." Segall further asserts that SCOTUS is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. 

In other words, though we are imperfect, Seagall takes the position that making wrong legal decisions, invalidates all future and other decisions, legally speaking. Hmm.

Sorry, Eric, you missed the point. Several logical fallacies arise from dismissing the Court's legitimacy, discounting their opinions because they historically, though rarely, reverse an opinion. Ad hominem, False Cause, Genetic Fallacy, Straw Man, Non Sequitur, and Hypothesis Contrary to Fact are the most obvious fallacies of Mr. Segall's opinion. That's just for starters.

If anything, lawyers (the good ones) should take solace in the fact that, SCOTUS can and occationaly does, reverse itself.

“Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.” 

-- MLK

OK. King might not be the best person you would want to quote, but the principle is one that I believe, which is that reversing a Supreme Court decision, like it or not, indeed, bends the arc of the moral universe.

Alarmists could call it bad karma. Others, divine retribution. Petty political operatives, revenge. 

How about calling it a course correction?

As "A Nation of Laws, and Not of Men," seeking Justice, however idealistic, is the preferrable and most sane way to fix things, to right wrongs, and to teach us how best to coexists as human beings.  The members of the Supreme Court aren't called "judges." And to whatever extent my tin foil hat, conspiracy theory espousing, anti-colonial, libertarian tendencies are suppressed, all we have is our fellow citizens doing the best they can to survive, and perhaps, thrive.

They are called "Justices." There is Reason for that.

***

Stare decisis is the legal doctrine that preserves the status quo, or rather, the proper status quo. It is a heavy legal presumption that rests on respect, to promote integrity in an institutional setting. Yes, it also rests on an element of faith, a reliance on the correctness of past decisions and their social impact. It is a colloquial acceptance of the general idea that "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Real life tells us, of course, that our past is chock full of bad, or at least flawed, decisions.

Dobbs is a remarkable legal opinion precisely because it overcomes the institutional inertia, as well as the mass effect of the political barriers imposed by stare decisis. At the same tiime, the opinion provides future guidelines for jurists, showing us how to proceed when faced with demonstrably erroneous and poorly reasoned legal opinions such as Roe v. Wade.

HERE IS WHAT THE COURT ACTUALLY SAID, verbatim [jargon and citations edited]:

"We next consider whether the doctrine of stare decisis counsels continued acceptance of Roe and Casey. Stare decisis plays an important role in our case law, and we have explained that it serves many valuable ends. It protects the interests of those who have taken action in reliance on a past decision. [Citations omitted]. It “reduces incentives for challenging settled precedents, saving parties and courts the expense of endless relitigation.”[Kimble] It fosters “evenhanded” decision making by requiring that like cases be decided in a like manner. [Payne] It “contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” [Ibid.] And it restrains judicial hubris and reminds us to respect the judgment of those who have grappled with important questions in the past. “Precedent is a way of accumulating and passing down the learning of past generations, a font of established wisdom richer than what can be found in any single judge or panel of judges.” [emphasis added, citing Gorsuch article].

We have long recognized, however, that stare decisis is “not an inexorable command,” [Pearson] and it “is at its weakest when  we interpret the Constitution,” [Agostini]. It has been said that it is sometimes more important that an issue“ ‘be settled than that it be settled right.’ ” [quoting Brandeis 1932 dissent]. But when it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution — the “great charter of our liberties,” which was meant “to endure through a long lapse of ages,” [Hunter’s Lessee] — we place a high value on having the matter “settled right.” In addition, when one of our constitutional decisions goes astray, the country is usually stuck with the bad decision unless we correct our own mistake. An erroneous constitutional decision can be fixed by amending the Constitution, but our Constitution is notoriously hard to amend. [Article V]. Therefore, in appropriate circumstances we must be willing to reconsider and, if necessary, overrule constitutional decisions.

Some of our most important constitutional decisions have overruled prior precedents. We mention three. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Court repudiated the “separate but equal” doctrine, which had allowed States to maintain racially segregated schools and other facilities. In so doing, the Court overruled the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, along with six other Supreme Court precedents that had applied the separate-but-equal rule. In [1937], the Court overruled Adkins v. Children’s Hospital of D. C., which had held that a law setting minimum wages for women violated the “liberty” protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. West Coast Hotel [v. Parrish] signaled the demise of an entire line of important precedents that had protected an individual liberty right against state and federal health and welfare legislation. [citing Lochner (holding invalid a law setting maximum working hours); Coppage (holding invalid a law banning contracts forbidding employees to join a union); and Burns Baking (holding invalid laws fixing the weight of loaves of bread)].

Finally, in West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, after the lapse of only three years, the Court overruled Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis, and held that public school students could not be compelled to salute the flag in violation of their sincere beliefs. Barnette stands out because nothing had changed during the intervening period other than the Court’s belated recognition that its earlier decision had been seriously wrong.

On many other occasions, this Court has overruled important constitutional decisions. (We include a partial list in the footnote that follows.⁴⁸) Without these decisions, American constitutional law as we know it would be unrecognizable, and this would be a different country. No Justice of this Court has ever argued that the Court should never overrule a constitutional decision, but overruling a precedent is a serious matter. It is not a step that should be taken lightly. Our cases have attempted to pro-
vide a framework for deciding when a precedent should be overruled, and they have identified factors that should be considered in making such a decision.

In this case, five factors weigh strongly in favor of overruling Roe and Casey: the nature of their error, the qualityof their reasoning, the “workability” of the rules they imposed on the country, their disruptive effect on other areas of the law, and the absence of concrete reliance." 

***

I have nothing to add. We can either put on our thinking caps and figure it all out, or . . . OK, just pout.

Agree with it or not, our highest legal authority had to decide whether to poke the bear and disturb a well-established line of cases because multi-generational Justice demanded so. They risked the wrath of those wishing to preserve, protect, and defend mistakes of the past.

Why, after 50 years, did the Supreme Court reverse itself?  

Because the ruling in Roe was, in legal terms of art, "clearly erroneous."  

Clearly - without logically valid counter-argument. 

Erroneous - wrongly decided.

In other words, the Roe decision was so fucked up that -- despite the weight of stare decisis, despite majoritarian mass media pro-choice proscriptions, and despite physical threats of violence -- Conscience, Culture, Reason, Logic, and above all, the Constitution itself compelled the Court to restore balance and to repair the damage done to untold generations of American lives.

Analytically, the Dobbs opinion uses a five-factor test to help determine whether a Supreme Court case is "clearly erroneous", and therefore subject to being overruled:

• The Nature of the Courts Error
• The Quality of the Reasoning
• The Workability of the Decision
• The Effect on Other Areas of the Law
• The Reliance on the Court's Decision
  

I will not further elucidate. 

The majority opinion is thorough and complete, insofar as it details each of these factors, demonstrating (6-3) how false historical narratives were invented by the Roe opinion, how those narratives disregarded fundamental differences between an abortion "right" and a privacy "right." 

The only rational conclusion is that the nature of the error in Roe was so morally and culturally significant (as in Plessy, West Coast Hotels, and Barrett) that we had to reverse course. 

The concurring opinions suggest there is more work to be done.

Dobbs decimates the untethered reasoning in Roe -- its arbitrary tests, and its concocted rules regarding "viability" and "trimesters." The inconsistent line-drawing of Roe worsened in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, which wrongly applied stare decisis to affirm Roe, further diluting the "viability" question and jettisoning the "trimester" test for another unworkable standard -- the cost/benefit analysis of "undue burdens." 

In the future, my hope is that constitutional jurisprudence which drifts away, unmoored from cultural values, historical roots, and written foundations, will be met with greater resistance, resistance to the deceptions and injustices foisted by unprincipled or unethical lawyers who devalue themselves and cheapen their profession by acting as mere political operatives, with bad intent, harming families, and destroying psyches.

Yes. A long and winding road lies ahead. 

It has been a painful course correction, America.

The way things are looking, we had better hold on to our hats.

Happy New Year!

 

© 2024 Roy B. Santonil

"One Thing Leads to Another" -- The Fixx -- Reach the Beach (1983)

Start here.

For you lawyers, do you recall this classic case study from Torts class? 

Palsgraf vs. Long Island Railroad Co. 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928) is legendary because Judge Cardozo's analysis of proximate cause reinforced one of the basic elements required in order to plead a valid cause of action for liability on the grounds of negligence. But back to my point, since I refuse to walk back into those weeds planted in my brain during those hellish indoctrination rituals called "law school" and "bar exam." 

Let it suffice to say that chasing Truth down rabbit holes is a journey full of surprises, and you never know where gritty, honest research will lead you. The Newtonian paradigm is gone. Quantum Mechanics and the Butterfly Effect are real things. Dark Matter and String Theory rule science. 

For now.

I simply wanted to discuss the problem of Factions in a large republic (link here!). 

But, in a momentary lapse of reason, during the course of my study, I had a flashback -- yes, another 80's song (no, not "Take On Me"). This one is by The Fixx, called "One Thing Leads to Another." 

Good tune. May be worth your time (3:12 duration). Press "Play," and pay attention to the lyrics.

Or not.

So back to the problem of dealing with Factions, what they are, and how Madison thought we could handle the problem of factionalism within a large republic such as ours. A Faction is a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

In Federalist 9, Hamilton needed to address the ideas of Charles Montesquieu, a French Philosopher whose prinicipal work, L'Esprit Des Lois, is one of the greatest works in the history of political theory and in the history of jurisprudence. Madison's Federalist 10 was a sequel to Hamilton's Federalist 9.

See? One thing leads to another. 

It started with Federalist 10, a proper study of which necessitated that we retrace the origins of the debate back to Federalist 9, which led to a recognition that Montesquieu's work set the foundational precepts. This sequence of connected historical sources led me to thinking about how so many apparent effects have unacknowledged causes. That led me to realize the legal importance, and occasional futility, of finding proximate causes, which was the key issue in the Palsgraf case. For me, the whole discussion of proximate cause reconciled musically, to The Fixx.

Simple Minds Need Complex Stimuli

Boomers, I've said it before and I'll say it again -- gettin' old ain't for sissies. 

Brief history lesson: The Federalist Papers were published under the pseudonym "Publius," and were written to persuade American Revolutionaries that a "federation" of sovereign States was, for many reasons, the best course of action to form a government in the late 1700's. 

After we defeated the British, a world without kings became possible. The ideal of human Liberty now superceded the "divine right" of inbred dilettantes. Uncharted aspirations and claims that were made, written, and signed by our nation's wisest elders on July 4, 1776, could now become manifest without monarchic suppression.

"Equal Rights Under The Law!"

Now to the problem of forming that government. Montesquieu advocated Separation of Powers doctrine as a way to address the problem of factions, however, he also contended that the theory would fail in large republics. He thought large republics, such as that proposed on the North American continent were prone to fall into despotism due to their sheer size, and therefore, the cannibalistic nature of factionalism would not be contained. As a sidenote, he was also an early adopter of the notion that climate (!) has a substantial influence on the human society.

Beginning with the formal title, Madison responded:

"THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED

THE UNION AS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST DOMESTIC FACTION AND INSURRECTION"

Now that title appears to be written in English, and because I am a natural, native, English-speaking American citizen, I am empowered to understand (as you should) what the author is saying. 

Literally. Today. Year 2022.

I mean, WTF did we go to school for? To learn to drink? Was it to learn how to woo a spouse. And by "spouse," I mean that person you married who has a different chromosomal composition than yours. 

But I digress.

Look, writers are accountable for the words they utilize. But conversely, a reader is NOT entitled to ascribe to a writer thoughts and ideas not at all supportable in the words expressed in writing. Some may call this form of constitutional/statutory interpretation a curse. I disagree. It would be more precise and correct to say that holding words to the users meaning is a "spell." Deviate from the word, you deviate from the spell. The constitution is a covenant, a spell structured to maximize Liberty (for ALL), by recognizing natural democratic processes, but limiting their reach, in order to counteract and suppress tyrannical leaders, who desire to implement their factional, numerically justified aims, regardless of their adverse effects. Unchecked factions lead to injustice and they are the fatal flaw of direct democracy. Thus, our Founders, through the words "We The People," called for and eventually ratified A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.

Why? Because words cage thoughts.

Publius creates the argument. Whether you think it valid and logical, or misleading and fallacious, the contention is that the Union of States are a SAFEGUARD, a protection, a precaution, an answer, a bulwark, if you will, literally against domestic factions and insurrection.  

Please note the correct usage of "literally."

Whether from the loony left or stenchly conservative right, it is literally indisputable that the Founders saw the creation of our Union (as constituted and ratified among the several States) to be the ideal answer to the problem of political factions, which are the early formative stages of mass psychosis. (Hello, Mr. Hitler)

Despite our large geography, and the cacophony of Tweets, the melting, snowflake tears claiming that THEIR particular untethered rights should prevail over others more wisely and virtuously considered, Federalist 10 shows how we avoid the mistakes of past civilizations and transcend the fate of past governments that descended into centralized, totalitarian, madness, like the current one, surrendered to the whims of senile, insane, child-molesting, sock puppet, power-hungry, criminal creeps of a certain faction. You can guess what THEIR letters stand for.

"I'll circle back you on that."

I'll drink to that. 🍺

 © 2022 Roy B. Santonil

Code Breakers (Part 1 of 3)

Start here. 

I'm not lazy, dammit. 

I'm efficient, and to some that looks lazy. Of course it doesn't help to be middle-aged and (slightly) overweight. Some stereotypes are justified. But even if 60 is the new 40, that doesn't affect my work. 

I happen to think that stereotypes serve a comedic impulse. Unfortunately, when misused, they exacerbate improper discrimination. Clearly, a person's immutable physical attributes are an awfully unreliable predictor of their attitude. Fellow Boomers, my prevailing attitudes about life were shaped in a crucible of American military tradition. 

Have you identified your crucible?

This week's comment (BTW, yours are welcome, too) deals with codes. No, not the millions of lines of mathematical computer codes that people smarter than me write in exotic languages like Python, Perl, Pascal, Forth, Frink, Erlang, Haskell, C, C+, C++ (D), Eiffel, Oberon, Occam, ChucK , or one of many scripting codes such as Beanshell or Mondrian (a combination of Haskell and Java). These codes, whose names resonate like Pokémon creatures, are written to create the programs and algorithms that let us play video games, text messages to friends, schedule dental appointments, write blogs, surf porn, order sandwiches, and catch car rides via your computer, telephone, and tablet screens. 

I'm talking here about linguistic codes, utilized by so-called humans, media types, and public policy advocates. You know. The "cheat codes" are used formally and informally, suggesting a manner that is, let's say, less than direct, and often misleading. Weasel words, wiggle words, any way you put it, abuses of language, forked tongues using cheat codes are the oldest tool the devil uses to deceive and defraud. 

The unwary must suffer the swampy mendacity of professional psychopaths who conjure black into white, up becomes down, male and female become indistinguishable, putting future generations at risk. And probably the worst effect of all is that evil and corruption disguises itself as something worthy and good. It is a way of talking without speaking. It slips past your common sense, hypnotically. It washes brains clean of natural caution and slithers into the listener's unconscious mind to open paths for itself, turning half-asleep audiences into victims of mass fraud and craven deceit. (Hello, Doctor Fauci.)

Sure, we are all guilty from time to time, but when you realize the extent to which language is, and always has been, manipulated for nefarious ends, it's easy to become disheartened. Again, I emphasize that we are all guilty in limited and varying gradients of degrees, but here I hope to wring out some of the most obvious examples, if for no other reason than that someone may spot them in common parlance. If you find it helpful, humorous, or even enlightening, I am so good with that

Anyway, stop calling me lazy. To do so would be a grave mistake of ethnic proportions. Thirty years after passing the California bar exam, I am confident when I assert that corporate lawyers are overpaid tricksters, playing games with language cheat codes. And to me, that has been the cause of even greater harm than the current digital "pandemic." And as for you medical doctors, I say, "An apple a day."

I no longer seek clients, but I did not quit "the Law." I just changed my number and address.  So here goes.

Whenever you hear the phrase:

 "With all due respect,"  

. . . simply substitute this phrase: 

"I do not respect you,"

See? 

Once you break their codes, then the true meanings become clearer.

I am talking about cheat codes for language games. Contrast oxymorons, which are combinations of words with opposite meanings. Language cheats are those occasions where weasely lawyers, and their ilk, use words in seemingly complementary, but ultimately meaningless, fashion. Spin doctors and lawyers can amplify, but more often they obscure, true intentions and hidden agendas. Language codes are a purposeful, sinister, spell casting, dark, political, art.

And the Road to Hell is paved with . . . good linguistic cheat codes.

Wise Men Still Seek Him

Now you may ask yourself, how do I discern a speaker's or writer's truthful intended meaning? 

Aye, there's the rub! Before say, 2001, we could pay closer attention to a person's non-verbal physical cues. Full body, face to face, implied meanings carry great effect when your are in person.

However helpful, those non-verbal cues only matter when your gather with other humans, outside of digital space. We are destroying humanity, one cyber-meeting at a time. The Spoken Word carries subtle and I think unmeasurable variations of tone, volume, pitch, and inflection, some are obvious, most are subconscious. You don't receive the full import of that from a Zoom call or a chat room. We can talk about the tyrannical impulse of muzzle mask mandates, and the unhealthy effects of remote learning on child development -- later.

Whenever you hear, "It doesn't matter." Be careful. Be very careful. It might. And you may someday have to justly and precisely assert why something does. And unless words matter, all Honor is lost.

Our multiverse is baked in with innumerable message transmissions which are accessible or inaccessible at different levels of reception. Decades ago, TV and radio broadcasts of "Your Show of Shows," "I Love Lucy," "Happy Days," "Charlie's Angels," "Mission: Impossible," "Paul Harvey," "Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C." or more recently "Breaking Bad," Game of Thrones," and "Super Bowl LVI" were transmitted and continue to transmit their electromagnetic wave signals throughout Space. 

Ham radio hobbyists, walkie-talkies, CB truckers (!) and two cans on a string -- all have provided a method for humans to transmit messages across the divide, messages now ethereal, persisting long after their senders have exited the stage. Waves and particles from the past are now light years away. 

The intention of the sender's message becomes less urgent as Time passes and Nature reclaims. 

The emotions and the agendas necessitating cheat codes dissipates. Motives die. 

All that remains is Content. Thank the Lord.

Discern for yourself whether or not to give credence to random speakers to whom you may be listening (including me). Whether they come from the left, right, or center, whether justified or wrongful, whether on-screen or IRL (in real life) -- the fact is, if you pay attention, you will spot the lies.

 Got Content? 

To PART TWO

 © 2022 Roy B. Santonil

 

Varieties of Durham (Part 2 of 2)

Hello, Whitey.

Start here.

 Welcome to the nitty gritty.  Or the fucky-wucky. Or whatever idiomatic phrase that implies funtime is over, and where drilling down to real facts inevitablly means losing your audience. So much sex and violence, a mere mouse click away, makes it so reading legal jargon for cultural content just plain sucks. And it sucks more when the content herein suggests the world-as-we-know-it is crumbling.

So we grind on. 

Welcome to post #3 of my return to blogging.

For those of us at the "boomer" stage of life, I humbly suggest we maintain focus on a prime imperative. We should and quite often do care about what our generation hath wrought, yet growing old gracefully is a tough challenge. Being jaded is part of the deal, as is unrequited sentimentality.

So, let's focus on facts, folks. Do with them (true facts) what you will, but remember there are many out there who weave wicked webs, and they practice to deceive the elderly. Think for yourself.

This is the way. Logic for nothing. Links for free.

• The Federal law authorizing Special Counsel says the Attorney General (or acting Attorney General in cases where the Attorney General is recused) can appoint Special Counsel when a case presents a "conflict of interest" for the Justice Department, or "other extraordinary circumstances." Basically, Federal agencies cannot and should not investigate and prosecute themselves.
  

• This is not John H. Durham's first rodeo. He has a unique career history of successfully obtaining convictions in specific types of criminal cases, those involving racketeering and government corruption. Some of that history is behind a Boston Globe paywall, but it may be well worth the price of admission, given their track record.
  

•  Attorney General Order No. 4878-2020 outlines the scope of the job. Quick take: the goal is to find out how and why our nation was subjected to "Russia, Russia, Russia," including, but not limited to, the origins of Operation Hurricane. As of the date of this post, we have tangible results from Durhams work. Personally, I think there is much more to come. Others may think it just sound and fury, signifying nothing. Whatever. It would be nonetheless edifying for curious minds to ask, just who the hell are these clowns, and what are the implications, if any, for their crimes?
  

Kevin Clinesmith: FBI lawyer -- pleaded guilty to falsifying a reply email from CIA. The email had confirmed Carter Page was an agency "source." Clinesmith consciously (brazenly) added the words "not a source." Seriously. 

 How busted is their operation? 

The FBI then relied on that altered email to support an application for a FISA surveillance warrant as part of Operation Hurricane. Clinesmith has been sentenced to one year probation and 400 hours community service. Huh?

Don't downplay the seemingly light sentence of this flunkie (he faced five years and $250K in fines). And don't be naive. The only reasonable conclusion here is that he is fully cooperating with the Durham team. Phase One complete. 

KEY FACT: At least one, if not all, of the applications for FISA warrants to spy on the president for "Russian connections" were based on bogus political and institutional fuckery.

Michael Sussman: Perkins Coie Lawyer -- cybersecurity expert, and subject of that juicy 27-page indictment. You almost never see that much detail for a piddly false statement charge. 

Like Clinesmith, Sussman is charged with making materially false statements (lying) about his role and his purpose when he requested and obtained a meeting with FBI General Counsel James Baker. Perkins Coie had been retained and paid by Hilary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and the several "tech companies" mentioned in the indictment. He is accused of using his access to client DNS "look-up" logs to conduct and present oppo research, e.g. Trump-Russia collusion. As we all eventually learned, there was none. 

I read the indictment as "Sussmann's actions started this insufferable hoax."

Forget all the "Trump was never exonerated" bullshit from the Mueller Report. 

If you insist on pursuing red herrings, go here.

Bottom line about Sussman case: it further supports the FACT that the Trump/Russia collusion narrative was conjured through deception, deep and wide. Further, it was a DNC/Clinton/MSM operation all along. All that wasted time and energy. And furthermore, America continues to suffer from its mass effect. (Side note: James Baker was the highest ranking legal officer in the FBI.)

KEY FACT: Given proof of charges, the only reasonable conclusions are, either 1. A lawyer on the Clinton/DNC payroll, himself an ex-U.S. Attorney, duped the top lawyer of the FBI into issuing a series of directives, implemented by rabid partisans (e.g. Strzok, Page, Clinesmith), to illegally surveil a presidential campaign, or worse, 2. Baker was in on the conspiracy.

Take your pick. Logic for nothing. Links for free.

Why else would a minion like Clinesmith wilfully do what he was convicted of doing? 

Nice "insurance policy." Today, an adventurous thinker might even try to connect those dots leading to the FBI's role in the J6 events. Anyone care to discuss Ray Epps? Too early? How about Randy Weaver? David Koresh? But I digress. On purpose.

Again, in spite of this shitty scenario, I always emphasize ... think for yourself.

Sussman's trial date is set for May 2022, but Durham is pushing for a later date, July 2022, for what I think are more than tactical reasons, to properly coordinate certain classified discovery items with the Brady disclosures.

Normally, it is the defense who seeks to push back trial dates. Almost always, it is the defense seeking to extend time. 

Former DoD Chief of Staff Kash Patel explains that conspiracy fraud prosecutions normally run three, four, and five years. He has been there.

For now, the question is whether Sussman will "plead out" the same way Clinesmith did.

See the Deep State squirm. Have I lost you?

Be a Critical Thinker. Fuck Secret Societies.

Igor Danchenko: a Russian citizen, living in the U.S.A. -- Danchenko worked at various academic kink tanks (sic) including the Brookings Institution, the Open World Russian Leadership Program, and Louisville University. As political analyst, his official title was "Spin Doctor." 

I kid.

The 39-page indictment charges that Danchenko made material misrepresntations to Federal agents. These are consitent with the overall target and theme of Durham's work, i.e., that a bunch of fucking psychopaths with reckless disregard for the rule of law and general public welfare, dreamt up and executed an insane plan to distract, harass, and hopefully destroy, the eventual winner of the 2016 presidential race. 

Danchenko allegedly lied when asked if he was indeed the sub-source for the infamous Steele dossier, that "garbage" document upon which the whole of Operation Hurricane and the FISA warrant applications for judicial permission to spy on an American citizens, were based.

OK, let me filter out the rhetoric. Danchenko's indictment when considered with the rest, suggests that the ever-meticulous Durham has uncovered a pattern, a plan, a scheme or design, a course of conduct ... what's the word? ... oh, yeah a conspiracy to defraud the government, and thus, the American people. It should be apparent to a knowledgeable observer that this 3rd in a series of indictments establishes greater, and I believe more ominous, legal consequences for the "upper echelons" in the chain of criminal activity. I believe more indictments are yet to be unsealed. 

Just who are these "upper echelons?" 

Well, who were Clinesmith, Sussman, and Danchenko's bosses? 

KEY FACTS: Clinesmith worked under James Baker in the FBI Counsel's Office. Sussman worked closely with Mark Elias, at Perkins Coie, the DNC and Clinton main law firm. Danchenko was allegedly given the "dirt" (for the "Russian" dossier) by another Clinton lawyer, Charles Dolan.

Trial date is supposed to be April 2022, however, Danchenko's counsel, Stewart Sears's law firm are ... you guessed it ... currently (!) Clinton campaign lawyers, so ...

Meanwhile, the Durham team has filed a Motion to Inquire Into Potential Conflicts of Interest. 

Excerpt:

SUPER KEY FACTS: The Hillary Clinton Campaign and some of its former employees are currently subject to “matters before the Special Counsel, in addition to another lawyer who works with Danchenko's lawyers.

There you have it.  

It's official and we're only warming up, boomers. 

Oh, I completely forgot ... did we just go through . . . (clears throat) ... a pandemic?

See you next time.

 

 © 2022 Roy B. Santonil

Varieties of Durham (Part 1 of 2)

We are All Boat People

Start here.

You could look it up, but I'm here so you don't have to. 

The word "Durham" should invoke more than the surname of the DOJ Special Counsel whose work triggers both sides of the political echo chamber.  

True, from a corporate mass media perspective, that's the first bell rung when you hear a reference to Durham. 

Etymologically, the combination of Olde English "dun" (hill) and  Scandinavian "holmr" (city) was adopted by 1st century Normans. 

City on a hill? Hmm.

They eventually stopped adding the letter -r- because, the Anglo-French quite often lost or combined words containing the letters -l-, -n-, and -r-.  They just couldn't properly pronounce "dunholmr."

Geographically, there are two primary locations called Durham. One Durham is a city and county bordering the North Sea in England (pop. ~511,000). The other Durham is a city located northwest of Raleigh, North Carolina. Durham, NC is the home of the minor league baseball team popularized by the 1988 movie Bull Durham. Oh, and the Blue Devils.

I'm gonna fart.

There is also a hybrid cow, the "Red Durham," registered as a mix of the Red Angus and Shorthorn cattle breeds. No, I'm not going to talk about anthropomorphic global warming.

Finally, a "Durham" is the type of boat like the one in the painting above. The photo was taken at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. The painting, as most of you recognize, is titled "Washington Crossing the Delaware." The artist is a German-American painter, Emanual Leutze, who completed the work in 1851.The subject commemorates the Christmas Day surprise attack and victory over the King's troops at the Battle of Trenton

    Here are 5 Quick Facts about Washington Crossing the Delaware:

1. Washington crossed the Delaware River to execute a surprise attack on an isolated Hessian (German mercenary) garrison located in and around Trenton, New Jersey. The enemy consisted of about 1,400 soldiers. After several war councils, Americans needed to boost sagging morale, and encourage more recruits to join the Revolution. The crossing took place Christmas night, 1776.

2. The original plan provided for 3 separate crossings. Only one made it. Colonel Cadawaler and General Ewing were to strategic support for Washington's main force, but did not make the ice-filled crossing. Despite a three-hour delay, Washington managed to cross the river north of Trenton, at McConkey's and Johnson's ferries. The 2,400 Continental soldiers surprised the Hessians that morning.

 3. ENEMY SPIES AND TRAITORS had informed the British and Hessians that the attack was likely to take place. Makes you wonder how history is changed by the way one responds to intelligence. The Hessians ignored the intel and were unprepared.

Take Me To The River

 4. THE BOATS. Yes, those "Durham" boats. Washington had the foresight to commandeer all available watercraft along the Delaware, denying the British use of the craft, making them available only for American crossings. Durham boats are shallow draft cargo boats ranging from 40 to 60 feet in length. These stout craft were designed to haul iron ore and bulk goods down river to markets around Philadelphia. The high side-walls helped the vessels make it through the ice-choked river. For horses and heavy artillery pieces, they used large flat-bottomed ferries and other such vessels. The bottom of the Durham boats were neither comfortable nor dry, which explains why so many of the soldiers were portrayed standing up.

 5. Colonel John Glover's MARBLEHEAD REGIMENT INCLUDED MANY SAILORS from New England who provided lots of muscle and skill to make the perilous nighttime crossing. Also, watermen from the Philadelphia area had congregated in the area who had extensive experience and were familiar with that exact stretch of the river.

There are other details about the 300 YARD crossing, such as the terrible winter WEATHER delays and the fact that the attack was ALMOST CANCELLED. 

Interestingly, the canvas itself measures approximately 21' x 12'. That's a lot of acrylic paint!

Anyways, that's only the tip of the ice floe (get it?) when someone mentions Durham.

***

Meme Lady

Now, circling back to the most prominent public usage of the word Durham. Clearly, it is DOJ Special Counsel John Henry Durham. I would simply remind the boomers out there to stand strong ... there is a difference between what is a true fact and what is intentional deception. For non-boomers, be patient, we're almost there. Mr. Durham's wiki-bio does not do justice to this topic, nor to the man, nor to his body of work. 

Justice, indeed.

Honestly, you don't have to have had a cellphone-free childhood to accept the premise that seeking justice is is a good thing, right?

For now, disregard our generational bias. Let's look at the things that none of us can deny -- hard, cold, FACTS. They are annoying things we cannot ignore and should willingly acknowledge. FACTS -- those observable events, established as true, verifiable, stipulations --the places from where each of us, boomer and millennial alike, can together reclaim, nay, brandish, our ability to reason in 5G, seeing through the forcible inoculations of corporate media trash, post-Donald Trump, and pre-American Renaissance. Let's just call them helpful signposts; things to know for future guidance.

Let's get to the fucking facts. Stay tuned. And Subscribe!

(Addendum) January 14, 2022: Obviously, there are more Durhams out there than I mentioned in the post, and I apologize for the incomplete research. Shout out to my homies in Durham, Ontario, CANADA and any others that I may have unsuspectingly failed to list. Peace, out. RBS)

 © 2022 Roy B. Santonil

Don't give up. DON'T EVER GIVE UP.

That'll do, pig.

IN THE BEGINNING . . . 

there was "WIT, GUN, and STEIN." That was the title of my first blog. 

Some of you already knew that.

WGS existed from January 2009 to March 2011. 

In it, I mixed blood, sweat, and tears, with golf course and music reviews. Sometimes, I tried to be funny.

Not much is left of WGS, other than the internet way-back machine archives, which means some but not all of the internet, lasts forever. 

Some of the internet just dies. Notwithstanding the grandiose experiment in literary expression and political polemic, I feel successful in having conducted my verbal excercise, working through variously apt sub-titles, patching together broken phrases, just to say: "Hey. Words mean things."

For example:

 WGS -- "3 Things You Will Need For The End Times"

As it turns out, the reference to  "End Times" was a bit melodramatic. Too early, perhaps?

Wittgenstein, get it?

Another sub-title was:  

• WGS - "A Golf Blog. Between Rounds"

And, frankly, it was that, first and foremost. But the work needed more, something more than the game of golf, which I love, but still, it required something more relevant to those with ears to hear.

I tried "You Have the Floor," and "Floor It." (above)

Nah. 

Finally, I ended up with

• WGS - "Too Old To Care. Too Young To Quit." 

Ah, the sweet spot. Just the right sub-title. Explains just what I am doing, and why I do it.

Dad's death in 2011 was an actual apocalypse ... for me and for him. 

And so ended WGS.

Yet my compulsion to write would not rest. 

Writers write because their visions are their release. 

I think, yes, in the long run, ultimately, writing is a process of self-editing. And every writer's raw material, the archetypes, the ideas, myths, their experience, and opinions, exist a priori. Then they are birthed for the world at large, for those with eyes to see.

Please, Sir, More Swill

Thus spake "English Swill."

My first resurrection as a content creator turned into something more polemical than WGS. 

The Swill began publication late in 2011. 

Concurrently, I was faced with the fact that the liberal stronghold of institutional learning were gaining influence in my personal life. I began writing with greater dismay, on topics related to my observations about 21st century American life, the stark differences between conservative and progressive politics, the rickety bridge between old and young, while trying to keep faith with humor, music, and yes, more golf.  I spent years stirring digital swill with English words. It was decent.

 "Wordsmithery -- At The Bottom Of The Barrel," 

By Christmas 2018, all my efforts to provide generational guidance crumbled under the sledgehammer of corporate media marketing and outright fraudulent deception (Hello, Congressman Schiff). I even tried to write rap lyrics, a vain effort to explain my thoughts about what constitutes proper American jurisprudence (damn you, Fox Network). Sadly, only (1) one post that was served from English Swill survived the corporate pogroms of the Trump years. 

But it was one of my favorites, a classic rant on immigration policy.

Anyway, the Swill dried up because well ... you know ... the President spoke for millions, if not billions, of U.S. citizens. 

Fast forward to 2022. 

All over the globe, for the last 23 months, there's been only one pervasive topic: the COVID. With this third effort (second resurrection) - BOOMERS ANONYMOUS - I plan to go far beyond the political shills, their sketchy fuckery; beyond the vast, innumerable scams put forth by the mainstream grift, the purportedly authoritative, sources . . . on and offline.  

If you are reading this, congratulations, you have ventured light years from the mainstream.

Together we sit perched and prayerful. It is the beginning of the end of Fauci's Folly, on the verge of 'the Great Awakening," or "the Great Reset," or "the Fourth Turning," or "the Quickening," or "the 5G rollout," "the Year of the Water Tiger," or even "Jewish New Year 5782," or just plain old 2022 C.E. 

I personally have found my home ... in the shade of the freeway ... and have filled in most of the missing colors in mine and my bride's paint-by-number dreams. Generational biases have been exposed. Becoming socially relevant is irrelevant to us.  

It's Time To Own It, Boomers.

But persist. Keep runnin' down the dream, take off those dark sunglasses, and mow that lawn ... taste the wine. Frankly, my dear reader ... there still a giant load of stuff to share, a lot of worldly crap that needs a response, even if it comes off as ... back-of-the-cereal-box philosophy. 

When the inter webs were born, some corporate media mogul said,

"Content is king." 

What he forgot to remember was that the medium is still the message. 

So. 

Here we are.

Every Internet Post in the World

We're boomers. We've got decades worth of content. We've earned it.

This is OUR safe space, and your subscription seals the deal!

Share with other baby boomers. Share with an intelligent millennial or even an open minded Gen X'er, if that's not an oxymoron.

Everyone on the internet plus their Uncle Bob wants you to Like, Share, Comment, and Subscribe to their shit ... ads nauseaum. 

(Spelling intended.)

I'm shamelessly asking you to do the same. 

Don't think of it as Spam. Think of it as Corn Flakes and Milk.

 And you may ask yourself, "Why should I follow your blog, 15ML?"

No reason. It's just goddamn social media! 

But remember ... here, kids eat free.

 © 2022 Roy B. Santonil