Saturday, June 30, 2012

Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes Divorce

No, the big news last week was not that the Supreme Court ruled Obama Care legal. The major story was that Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are divorcing! OMG!

Tom claims that he will fight for custody of his daughter. And while I think it can be cute to see a grown man so naive, the reality is that the USA is a matriarchy and fathers no longer have any legal claim over their children. This has led to the explosion of women having multiple "baby daddys" instead of fathers. And, of course, the results are disastrous.

A behind behind the scene note:

Tom Cruise did a famous "jump on the couch" incident when he was on the Oprah show a few years ago. I guess that he was so much in love with Katie that he had to leap with joy onto the couch. This incident was parodied by South Park, Family Guy, etc.

So I decided I would experiment with my own parody. I set up the camera and then did a practice jump. Things went wrong and I ended up falling off the couch onto the tile floor. When I was a kid, I used to do pratfalls for fun. But this was the real thing. I decided to use the raw video.  heh.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Honesty on Fieger - Presidential Election 2012

Jeff Fieger is a famous lawyer in Michigan. He is pretty much a high profile ambulance chaser that takes cases with the goal of generating maximum publicity. He also ran (unsuccessfully) as the Democratic nominee for the governor of Michigan.

Fieger recently aired the following ad in Michigan. Michigan is a key battleground state for the election and Feiger is attempting to intimidate Whites into voting for Obama. His primary argument is that White people who criticize Obama are "racist".

Interesting, he uses as his prime example the people who question Obama's birth location. According to Fieger, these people are obviously racist. And his evidence of such racism is his claim that Mitt Romney's father  (William Romney)  was foreign born (born in Mexico) and no one cared back then because William Romney was White. But people now care because Obama is an African-American.

Of course, people DID care about William Romney's  birth place and this was a huge controversy with the Democrats at the time. So much so, that William Romney dropped out of the race.

So a simple search on the Internet proves Jeff Fieger's central example of racism was false. The only possible explanations are:

1. Jeff Fieger is a liar


2. Jeff Fieger's legal firm is woefully incompetent in researching basic matters

Such is rather ironic in that Fieger titled his commercial "Honesty on Racism".  Life is always amusing.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Arizona Immigration Law

A pretty major decision by the Supreme Court today. The court has overturned much of Arizona's immigration law.

Justice Scalia wrote the dissent. As this is freely available to all Americans, I thought I would copy his response here. This way you can see what he wrote instead of hearing that the MSM claimed he wrote.

No.11-182 - Arizona v. United States

For almost a century after the Constitution was ratified, there were no federal immigration laws except one of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts that was discredited and allowed to expire. In that first century all regulation of immigration was by the States, which excluded various categories of would-be immigrants, including convicted criminals and indigents. Indeed, many questioned whether the federal government had any power to control immigration—that was Jefferson’s and Madison’s objection to the Alien Act.

The States’ power to control immigration, however, has always been accepted, and is indeed reflected in some provisions of the Constitution. The provision that “[t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States” was a revision of the provision in the Articles of Confederation which gave those privileges and immunities to “inhabitants” of each State. It was revised because giving that protection to mere “inhabitants” would allow the immigration policies of one State to be imposed on the others. Even that revision was not thought to be enough, because the States were not willing to have their immigration policies determined by the citizenship requirements of other States. Hence the Naturalization Clause of the Constitution, which enables the federal government to control who can be a citizen.

Of course the federal power to control immigration was ultimately accepted, and rightly so. But where does that power come from? Jefferson and Madison were correct that it is nowhere to be found in the Constitution’s enumeration of federal powers. The federal power over immigration cannot plausibly derive from the Naturalization Clause. Not only does the power to confer citizenship have nothing to do with the power to exclude immigrants, but, as I have described, the Naturalization Clause was a vindication of state rather than federal power over immigration.

Federal power over immigration comes from the same source as state power over immigration: it is an inherent attribute—perhaps the fundamental attribute— of sovereignty. The States, of course, are sovereign, the United States being a Union of sovereign States. To be sovereign is necessarily to possess the power to exclude unwanted persons and things from the territory. That is why the Constitution’s prohibition of a State’s imposing duties on imports made an exception for “what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws.”

Thus, this Court’s cases have held that the States retain an inherent power to exclude. That power can be limited only by the Constitution or by laws enacted pursuant to the Constitution. The Constitution, as we have seen, does not limit the States’ power over immigration but to the contrary vindicates it. So the question in this case is whether the laws of the United States forbid what Arizona has done.
Our cases have held, with regard to claimed federal abridgment by law of another inherent sovereign power of the States—their sovereign immunity from suit—that the abridgement must be “unequivocally expressed.” The same requirement must apply here; and there is no unequivocal congressional prohibition of what Arizona has done. It is not enough to say that the federal immigration laws implicitly “occupy the field.” No federal law says that the States cannot have their own immigration law.

Of course the Supremacy Clause establishes that federal immigration law is supreme, so that the States’ immigration laws cannot conflict with it—cannot admit those whom federal law would exclude or exclude those whom federal law would admit But that has not occurred here. Arizona has attached consequences under state law to acts that are unlawful under federal law—illegal aliens’ presence in Arizona and their failure to maintain federal alien registration. It is not at all unusual for state law to impose additional penalties or attach additional consequences to acts that are unlawful under federal law—state drug laws are a good example. That does not conflict with federal law.

In sum, Arizona is entitled to impose additional penalties and consequences for violations of the federal immigration laws, because it is entitled to have its own immigration laws.
As my opinion describes in more detail, however, most of the provisions challenged here do not even impose additional penalties or consequences for violation of federal immigration laws; they merely apply stricter enforcement. The federal government would have us believe (and the Court today agrees) that even that is forbidden.

The government’s brief asserted that “the Executive Branch’s ability to exercise discretion and set priorities is particularly important because of the need to allocate scarce enforcement resources wisely.” But there is no reason why the federal Executive’s need to allocate its scarce enforcement resources should disable Arizona from devoting its resources to illegal immigration in Arizona that in its view the Federal Executive has given short shrift.

Arizona asserts without contradiction and with supporting citations the following: “[I]n the last decade federal enforcement efforts have focused primarily on areas in California and Texas, leaving Arizona’s border to suffer from comparative neglect. The result has been the funneling of an increasing tide of illegal border crossings into Arizona.

Indeed, over the past decade, over a third of the Nation’s illegal border crossings occurred in Arizona,” Must Arizona’s ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the Executive’s unwise targeting of that funding?

But leave that aside. It has become clear that federal enforcement priorities—in the sense of priorities based on the need to allocate so-called scarce enforcement resources—is not the problem here. After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1 .4 million illegal immigrants. The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since those resources will be eaten up by the considerable administrative cost of conducting the nonenforcement program, which will require as many as 1.4 million background checks and biennial rulings on requests for dispensation.

The President has said that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizonacontradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.

The Court’s opinion paints what it considers a looming specter of inutterable horror: “If §3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every State could give itself independent authority to prosecute federal registration violations,” That seems to me not so horrible and even less looming. But there has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A federal government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws exclude.

So the issue is a stark one: Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?

A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Imagine a provision—perhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, ci. 4, the Naturalization Clause— which included among the enumerated powers of Congress “To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits from Independence Hall.

As is often the case, discussion of the dry legalities that are the proper object of our attention suppresses the very human realities that gave rise to the suit. Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are simply unwilling to do so.

Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. For these reasons, I dissent.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Diversity is our strength

Windows to the soul

Cultural Marxist


Watching the Unfair Campaign PSA video of the White people marking up their faces in a degrading and grovelling manner reminded me of the movie Braveheart (a great Nationalist movie).

Tim Wise marks up the face of a White male

For the Scottish warriors also marked their faces. But the Scottish patriots did not paint their faces in an abject manner and they did not mark their faces as a form of penance. As with the American Indians, the paint was a symbol of defiance against the enemy.

How our people once marked our faces

Maybe the Unfair Campaign has started a new trend. Our people painting their faces. But it might be in a slightly different manner that they expect. heh.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Don't Tread On Me Campaign PSA

Many people have sent me messages today asking for me to respond to the new anti-White video by the University of Minnesota-Duluth. This group has been creating much anti-White "White Privileged" propaganda. If such a video was made of any other race, YouTube would have immediately pulled it due to "Hate Speech". But as of tonight (June 21) the video is still up. This video is so vile that I have had some Asian and Black friends send me messages about how they find it to be disgusting.

I believe that ALL people should be proud of their heritage. And seeing these White people grovel on their knees ashamed of their families, their heritage, their people, is very disturbing. Luckily, most women refuse to have sex with these spineless males who act like worms. Hopefully, these losers genetics will be culled from our people. I can't imagine how humiliating it would be to be part of such a video. Gay pron is more honorable than this crap.

But there are enough of us to fight this crap. The blood of our forefathers still runs deep within us. And we shall never forget this treason against our people and our families.

A New Nationalist Hope!


Comment Policy Update

I have closed the comments on my old videos. However, the comments are still there. They are just hidden. Over time I will be “cleaning” the old comments and make them visible. For the old videos (over a month old) comments will be placed on moderation. As there is usually not much back and forth conversations on these old videos, I think that will work OK.

New videos will continue to have open comments. Any comment that has the word “nigger”. “chink”, “spic” or “Jew” will be removed. Yes, I know that the word “Jew” is not always a bad word. But I don’t have time to evaluate every comment for its context. In one video I had over 10,000 comments.

Again, this is to conform to YouTube’s policy that we help maintain the Community Standard on our videos. If you don’t like the Community Standard, don’t complain to me, call Google and complain.

I have my own policy that I don’t allow people to call me or other people “racist”. I also immediately block people who have a clear anti-White agenda.

I personally prefer open debate. I used to allow all people to post anything. That is freedom of thought. But as certain groups are closing the window of freedom on us, I will no longer give such people a platform on my videos. People can still disagree, but only in the most respectful manner. Calling someone a “racist” or a “cracker” or an “asshole” will lead to an immediately block.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Immigration and babies

Do we really need to import people from the Third World to make up for a lack of native born babies? CNN thinks so. RAMZPAUL has another solution.

Monday, June 18, 2012

Obama changes immigration policy

Obama by fiat changed the immigration policy of the United States. Of course, the president of the United States does not have that authority based on the Constitution. But we are now pretty much a banana republic and the Constitution is a mere formality.

Republicans have been slow to criticize the change in policy. And the criticism tends to be an argument based on jobs and employment. Very few Republicans will state the core reason that many Americans are opposed to such immigration. The reason is that we want self-determination. While the Mexicans might be good people, they are not our people. They have a country - Mexico. And we want our own country.

Of course, such a response would be considered politically incorrect. I am sure it would even be deemed as "hate". And, yet, just a week ago the US House of Representatives voted 411-2 to guarantee that the  state of Israel remain Jewish. Concerning Israel the politicians and media are strict ethnic Nationalists.  However, they would consider American Nationalism to be very wicked.

Saturday, June 16, 2012

Upcoming changes to the RAMZPAUL show

YouTube has changed their policy. Channel owners are now responsible to ensure that the community standards are upheld in the video comments. As such, here are the rules for commenting on my videos:

1. The Friday show has been changed to Saturday
2. Do not use the word "nigger" in the comments
3. Do not use the word "Jew" in the comments
4. Do not use the word "spic" or "chink"
5. Do not accuse other people of being "racist". The "r" word is just a code word for anti-White. As such, it will no longer be tolerated in the comments.
6. Do not post if you have a swastika in your avatar.
7. Do not make threats
8. Do not advocate illegal activities
9. Trolls will be immediately blocked.

YouTube now requires us to police the comments. As such, we will abide by their rules on my channel. If you see any violations in the comments, please send me a private message.

You can still use whatever words you want on this blog.

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Plutonium

May 11, 1969 was Mother's Day. I am sure we attended church and later celebrated at our home in Arvada, Colorado.  My brother would be celebrating his third birthday on May 14. And I was a month a away from being six.

On Sunday afternoons we typically played outside in the back yard. I remember my Mom had a clothesline that we had to avoid as we ran around.  We also had a sandbox. At about 2:00 P.M. that day the worst nuclear accident in American history occurred at the Rocky Flats plant that was just West of our home.

Recent picture of my Mother in front of our old house in Arvada, Colorado (taken in 2012)
My mother has fought cancer for many years

Of course, we had no idea at the time. But a fire broke out in the plant and a stream of plutonium drifted over our neighborhood.

Pattern of the plutonium exposure
Our house was in the middle of the bright red area

Rocky Flats was a top secret nuclear trigger facility in the 1950s and 1960s. As such, most people were not even aware of the purpose of that facility. Even many workers had no idea what was done. This was at the height of the Cold War.

As this was all secret, the radiation leak was not made public. No evacuation occurred. And the government assured everyone that everything was under control. It was only later due to FBI investigations that the scope of the cover-up was reveled.

Many kids in the neighborhood developed cancer at a frightening rate. I remember my pet cat died of cancer a year later. Of course, none of us were aware that we were exposed to a plutonium leak. National Security and stuff.

A lady who was my neighbor at the time has written a book about the subject. It is interesting how this deadly incident is still relatively unknown.  But this is not a theoretical story to me. I lived through it with my family. We were at ground zero.

Monday, June 11, 2012

The Tragedy of the Commons

Outsourcing American jobs to foreign countries is a classic version of The Tragedy of the Commons.

The tragedy of the commons (or tragedy of the unmanaged commons) is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen.

In the case of American outsourcing, it is rational for an individual corporation to send jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor. However, in the long run, such a policy will deplete the shared resource (in this case American jobs) and eventually lead to the ruin of America. And the destruction of America is not in the long term interest of any American corporation.

The Great Recession wiped out nearly two decades of Americans’ wealth, according to government data released Monday, with middle-class families bearing the brunt of the decline.

The Federal Reserve said the median net worth of families plunged by 39 percent in just three years, from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010. That puts Americans roughly on par with where they were in 1992.

Friday, June 8, 2012

Mom locked up for cheering at child's graduation

When I attended my son's graduation everyone had to go through a metal detector and all bags were searched by security. Many police were on the scene.

When I graduated High School, I don't remember any security. And it was considered common courtesy not to cheer and scream in a disruptive manner.

Shannon Cooper cheered as her daughter walked across the stage to get her diploma from South Florence High School Saturday night, but just minutes later, Shannon was handcuffed and arrested.

"Are ya'll serious? Are ya'll for real? I mean, that's what I'm thinking in my mind. I didn't say anything. I was just like OK, I can't fight the law. I can't argue with the police, but I'm like are you serious? I didn't do any more than the others did. Which I feel like no one should have went to jail," said Shannon.

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Madonna and Cannibalism

TEL AVIV—Dark Catholic imagery was spliced with blood, guts and guns as Madonna burst onto the stage at Tel Aviv’s Ramat Gan stadium late on Thursday to kick off her hotly-anticipated MDNA world tour of some 30 countries.

The portentous tolling of a church bell opens the first set with bare-chested monks in burgundy robes swinging a giant golden censer in front of a giant red cross.

Monday, June 4, 2012

Obama and the wage gap myth

Looks like the Obama Campaign has decided to stick with the war on women meme. The kick-off to this campaign was the plant Sandra Fluke who enrolled in a catholic university and then complained to the government that they would not pay for her birth control pills.

Then Obama had his Hollywood friends create the video "Republicans Get Into My Vagina".  And now the Obama has resurrected the long discredited "wage gap".

This morning, the White House sent an email out to its millions-strong list asking, “Do you support equal pay for women?” Why would the White House ask such a question? Because the Obama administration, in its latest attempt to woo the women’s vote and posit the existence of a conservative “war on women,” is pressing the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would once again restrict business in the name of the supposed pay gap between the sexes.

I am on Keek!

KEEK is like a video version of Twitter.  The rule is all videos have to be under 30 seconds in length. Also, you can't do any fancy editing. My videos will just come from my iPhone.

I plan to use this for just random thoughts and observations. Take a look and if you like it, create an account and follow me. It is free!

Saturday, June 2, 2012

Do games and vice ruin men?

Here is another one of those articles scolding men for playing games and watching pron. Oddly, the article seems to assume that women never play games or watch porn.

I have always been a game geek at heart. And I love to play games with guys and girls.

Here is the game I bought when I was 10 years old. It started my life long addiction to strategy games:

Here is a vid that has a nice response. And it is by a.... GIRL. OMG!