With The Loss Of Our Wisest Supreme Court Justice, I Now Share Some Of His Wisdom With You All


The following is an article I wrote in February of 2005 about a debate on foreign law influences upon the American legal system between originalist Justice Antonin Scalia and activist Justice Stephen Breyer. I hope you find it illuminating.

.

.
WHO WILL SPEAK FOR YOU?
By Edward L. Daley

A few weeks ago I was watching a program on C-Span pertaining to the impact of foreign court opinions upon the U.S. justice system. The primary participants in the discussion were Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer, and the event took place at the American University Law School in Washington D.C.
rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/sc/sc011305_scalia.rm

The debate revolved around questions asked by a moderator named Professor Norman Dorsen, and the first multi-part question asked was, “When we talk about the use of foreign court decisions in U.S. Constitutional cases, what body of foreign law are we talking about? Are we limiting this to foreign constitutional law? What about cases involving international law, such as the interpretation of treaties, including treaties to which the U.S. is a party? When we talk about the use of foreign court decisions in U.S. law, do we mean them to be authority, or persuasive, or rhetorical? If, for example, foreign court decisions are not understood to be precedent in U.S. Constitutional cases, are they nevertheless able to strengthen the sense that U.S. law assures a common moral and legal framework with the rest of the world? If this is so, is that in order to strengthen the legitimacy of a decision within the U.S., or to strengthen a decision’s legitimacy in the rest of the world?

Some question, huh? I don’t think I’d be comfortable trying to answer it all in one fell swoop, and apparently neither did the two justices. Justice Scalia began his reply by stating that most of the parts of it should be posed to Justice Breyer, simply because Scalia does not use foreign law in the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

He stated that he will use it when interpreting a treaty, because treaties are based upon a mutual understanding of the law by the signatories thereof. That seemed like a no-brainer to me, and the point was not argued by Breyer.

Scalia went on to say that, aside from that, he refuses to use foreign decisions in Constitutional law. He argued that some justices refer to foreign law because they want to feel assured that we have the same “moral and legal framework as the rest of the world.” He then pointed out, quite matter-of-factly, that we don’t have the same moral and legal framework, and we never have.

He continued by referring to the Federalist Papers, saying that they are full of statements which make it clear that our founding fathers had little respect for the laws of European countries in that day and age, citing a passage by James Madison to that effect. He then asked the rhetorical question, should we be willing to change our laws based upon the fact that many of them are not in step with the vast majority of foreign law decisions, mentioning the issues of abortion on demand, and the exclusionary rule relative to ‘Miranda’ as examples.
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist
http://www.robertslaw.org/4thamend.htm

He went on to ask the question, why haven’t we changed these laws if the court feels we should use foreign law… or do we just use foreign law selectively, whenever it agrees with what an individual justice would like a particular case to say? He then asked what the criterion is for citing foreign law, if doing so is not meant to be authoritative.

Justice Breyer responded by saying, among other things, that law emerges from conversations among law practitioners, law students, and academics. He recounted an event at which he was first confronted with the question of whether or not foreign law decisions should be considered by U.S. courts. He described a past seminar he’d attended with various judges and law makers wherein a Congressman had remarked that he thought it was a terrible idea to use foreign law in U.S. court decisions.

Breyer reflected that he’d told the Congressman “Of course foreign law doesn’t bind us in Constitutional law. Of course not.” But, he added, these [foreign justices] are human beings who often have problems which are similar to our own.

He mentioned that the societies about which these foreign decisions are concerned, are becoming more and more democratic, and that in a case which is similar to one he might face as a Supreme Court Justice, “why don’t I read what he says, if it’s similar enough?” Apparently the Congressman he was speaking to at the time said fine, go ahead and read it, just don’t cite it in your legal opinion.

Breyer’s response to this remark had been that since foreign courts cite our Supreme Court’s findings in their decisions, he didn’t see anything wrong with citing theirs in his. He added that by doing so, we might actually lend credibility to their laws, or as he put it, “give them a leg up.” The Congressman’s response was that Justice Breyer should simply write them a letter of approval instead, if he felt that way.

At that point, Breyer seemed to stall, relating that the Congressman had “made a point,” and then failing to explain why he felt that position wasn’t essentially correct. He went on to refer to Justice Scalia’s implication that we do not understand enough about any particular foreign decision to cite it responsibly, asking, “how do we know we cite both sides” of an argument in foreign law cases? “How do we know we look for everything?” His answer to both of those questions was that such problems arise in every sort of citation. “A judge can do what he’s supposed to do, or not,” he continued, “and we hope they do what they’re supposed to do.

This is where he lost me, and, apparently, where he lost Justice Scalia as well. After all, the fact that American justices face decisions without looking at every possible viewpoint available in the written law, has nothing to do with the fact that foreign law systems are often completely alien to our own. It’s not a question of whether or not we are able to see every bit of available information, but rather that the systems by which other countries arrive at legal decisions are usually not very similar to ours. Also, as Scalia pointed out, other legal systems may only have adopted part of a law that has originated in the U.S. (e.g. Miranda), and ignored other parts (e.g. the exclusionary rule) that are just as important to the fundamental principle underlying that law.

I found it interesting that Justice Breyer first announced that foreign law is “of course” not binding in Constitutional law, yet followed up that point by giving reasons, ostensibly, why it should be.

Justice Scalia seemed just as confused as I was by certain points that Breyer had made, beginning his retort by declaring, “I don’t know what it means to express confidence that judges will do what they ought to do, after having read the foreign law. My problem is that I don’t know what they ought to do. What is it that they ought to do? You have to ask yourselves, why is it that foreign law would be relevant to what an American judge does when he interprets – INTERPRETS – not writes [the law]… it [foreign law] is very useful in devising a Constitution, but why is it useful in interpreting one?

Scalia then explained his basic theory as it relates to the interpretation of the Constitution, saying that he tries to understand what it means, and what society understood it to mean when it was adopted, adding that his philosophy used to be orthodoxy prior to the 1940s. He stated that foreign law is irrelevant to anyone who embraces that philosophy, with the exception of old English law, because of the fact that many of our legal definitions were taken from that to begin with.

He went on to relate two other approaches to interpreting the Constitution. The first, he explained, was the notion that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it meant when it was first ratified, but that it changes from era to era to conform to, as Scalia then quoted, “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” – Troy v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101

At that point he mentioned that he detests that phrase, arguing that societies don’t necessarily mature, and that “sometimes they rot.” However, he opined, even if you buy into that theory, you are still primarily concerned with the standards of decency of Americans, not foreigners, and that the only way a person would ever be willing to accept the standards of other countries as being applicable to our standards, is if that individual espoused a third way of interpreting the Constitution.

That third philosophical approach, Scalia continued, says “I am not looking for the evolving standards of decency of American society, I’m looking for what is the best answer in my mind, as an intelligent judge. And for that purpose, I look to other intelligent people, and I talk sometimes about conversations with judges, and lawyers, and law students. Do you [the law students in the audience] think you’re representative of American society? Do you not realize you are a small, cream at the top, and that your views on innumerable things are not the views of America at large? And doesn’t it seem somewhat arrogant of you to say I can make up what the moral values of America should be on all sorts of issues?

The whole time he was saying this, Breyer looked as if he’d just swallowed a prune pit, since he clearly understood (as did I, and probably everyone else watching) that Scalia had just implied he was arrogant. Once Justice Scalia had concluded by saying that he did not wish to undertake the responsibility of deciding what is moral and what isn’t for all of society, Justice Breyer commented, “I think that’s pretty good.

It’s really because I think, and I think many judges think, that your own moral views are not the answer, that people look other places for trying to find out – how to find answers,” he added. Yet once again his statement didn’t have any bearing upon the issue raised. The question isn’t whether one should look for answers as to what may be the morally right thing to do, but rather, where it is they’re looking!

Breyer pointed out that there is “nothing in ‘Blackstone,’ ‘Bracton’ or even ‘King Arthur,’ that says that cruel and unusual punishment – to determine that – you cannot look, except to England, or except to the United States… So, there’s nothing barring me.” This statement is a dead giveaway that Breyer believes it is reasonable to define morality in America based upon what other countries think, or upon what members of the legal profession think. Does it really need to be written that American moral issues should be decided by the American citizenry? Isn’t that just plain common sense?
http://www.agh-attorneys.com/4_william_blackstone.htm
http://culaw2.creighton.edu/rarebooks/display1/bracton’s.htm
http://www.gongfa.com/common%20lawbuliedianbaike.htm

Apparently Justice Breyer doesn’t think so. Even though he goes to the trouble of saying once again that he doesn’t look to himself to determine the answers to moral questions within the law, the undercurrent running throughout his remarks is that he’s willing to let someone other than the American people make the call.

But I’m thinking, Well, on this kind of an issue you’re asking a human question, and the Americans are human – and so is everybody else,” Breyer states, “and I don’t know, it doesn’t determine it, but it’s an effort to reach out beyond myself to see how other people have done… So I’d have to say I’d rather have the uncertainties and I’d rather have the judge understanding that he’s looking but it’s not controlling. And I’d rather have him use it with care, hoping that the judges won’t lack the control to do so. Then I would like to have an absolute rule that says legally never. And the fact that I cannot find such an absolute rule – legally never – even in King Arthur – gives me some cause for hope.

Hope? Hope of what?

Justice Scalia carried on the conversation by repeating the points he’d made before, discussing in greater detail certain cases in support of his argument, and stating that “One of the difficulties of using foreign law is that you don’t understand what the surrounding jurisprudence is, so that you can say, you know, Russia follows Miranda, but you don’t know that Russia doesn’t have an exclusionary rule.

He said that it was unfair to compare American death penalty cases, and the issue of whether it is cruel and inhuman for someone to wait a dozen years before being executed, to similar foreign cases. His basic point was that foreign and American cases were not comparable because of the enormous differences in the way each system deals with the death penalty to begin with. The question of what might be considered cruel and unusual in one country would not apply to another for that reason, and, therefore, would be rendered irrelevant.

This argument seemed to be completely lost on Breyer, as was evidenced by the fact that he responded with the following statement: “Well, it’s relevant in the sense that you have a person who’s a judge, who has similar training, who’s trying to, let’s say, apply a similar document, something like cruel and unusual or – there are different words, but they come to roughly the same thing – who has a society that’s somewhat structured like ours.

At that point Justice Scalia wisely decided to ask the moderator for a new question, and the professor’s response was to say that, “Although you have suggested your view about this, I’m still unclear about what the harm or risk is of considering foreign sources that may bear on problems that are common to both countries. For example, you mentioned the – both of you have mentioned the death penalty. Why shouldn’t U.S. constitutional decisions take account of shifting world standards on such things as the death penalty, on the execution of juveniles, on the execution of the mentally ill? Are we that far from the rest of the world in terms of the way life is lived?

The first thing I thought after hearing this was WHAT AN IDIOT! However, even though I suspect that Scalia was thinking the same thing, he showed enough restraint to continue the conversation without becoming insulting to his host, and eventually related that in his dissenting opinion regarding a homosexual sodomy case, he’d pointed out that the court had cited only European law. “Of course,” remarked Scalia, “they [the Europeans] said it not by some democratic ballot, but by decree of the European Court of Human Rights, who was, you know, using the same theory that we lawyers and judges and law students – we know what’s moral and what isn’t.

Breyer attempted to water down the argument, by infusing some mundane legal point into the mix, but the issue’s course was quickly corrected by Scalia when he related that, “it [the matter of selectively citing foreign decisions] lends itself to manipulation. It lends itself – It invites manipulation.” His subsequent remarks on that score were nothing short of eloquent, and were masterfully reproachful of Justice Breyer’s opinion without actually being too insulting to the man personally.

Justice Breyer was quick to change the subject, saying, “Can I go into a different topic? Because I – it’s slightly – it’s still international application. But I’m curious what my colleague thinks of this because I actually do believe, which I’ve said several times, that this is really a very dramatic issue and so forth, but it isn’t really the important issue to me.

Of course it wasn’t the important issue to him at that point in the conversation. He’d just had his head handed to him, figuratively speaking, and was obviously perplexed as to how he could continue to address Scalia’s line of reasoning without either agreeing with him, or looking like a jackass.

Be that as it may, he then went on to talk about a few cases which were, as he put it, “much less glamorous,” rounding out his comments by asserting, “this world we live in is a world where I think it’s out of date for people to teach about foreign law in a course called ‘foreign law.’ I think it’s in date to teach in contract law or in tort law, because those are the cases we’re getting.

I must admit that in certain cases relative to contract law, where companies deal with one another internationally, there are foreign law principles which may well permeate the meat of the matter. But the supposition that the more important and far-reaching moral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, pertaining to American societal norms and conventions, should necessarily be dependent upon the whims of foreign law decision-makers, merely because such is the case in the aforementioned respects, is ridiculous on its face. But then, that’s just my opinion.

Later on, Mr. Dorsen queried, “The question I have in my own mind is whether this question is a naive question. And that is, rather than looking at foreign courts to say Greece decided our way, the United Kingdom decided our way, X country decided a different way, another country has a different view, rather than thinking about these courts and cases in terms of the results to think about them in terms of the persuasiveness of the opinions, just as a New York court might look at a Montana decision and be influenced not by the result of the Montana court or the Wyoming court or the Illinois court but by the cogency of the arguments, by the depth of the reasoning, by the logic.

To which Justice Scalia responded, “Well, you’re begging the question. I mean, your question assumes that it is up to the judge to find THE correct answer. And I deny that. I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that’s what it says, that’s what it says.

Ask yourself why Antonin Scalia would say such a thing. If you understand the role of a judge in the American system of government, the answer should be obvious. It’s not his job to write the law, only to interpret it. Writing law is the job of the legislative and executive branches. Even if he disagrees with the law he’s considering, he has no lawful authority to change it, nor should it be his desire to do so. You see, Judge Scalia understands the fundamental principle behind the words “separation of powers,” and he actually practices what he preaches.

Furthermore, he proves his allegiance to the Constitution, and to the American people when he contends, “And on these Constitutional questions, you’re not going to come up with a right or wrong answer; most of them involve moral sentiments. You can have arguments on one side and on the other, but what you have to ask yourself is what does American society think?” Although the discussion continued for nearly another half hour, nothing was said by anyone present which was more profound than that, so I won’t bother reiterating further.

Suffice it to say that if I were a Supreme Court Justice, I’d ask myself the following questions:

Do judges in the U.S., at any level of jurisprudence, consider the Constitution to be satisfactory or not?

If not, what other nation has exhibited the capacity to improve upon it, or even to approach its standards of excellence in such a way as to be worthy of my consideration of its views?

Should justices of the highest court in the land be allowed to speak for the attitudes of the American people, while simultaneously ignoring them, respectful only of the opinions of elitists from other countries, and/or the American legal intelligencia?

In short, do we really want these people making moral judgments for the rest of us?

I may not be a law professor, an attorney, a judge, or even a formal student of the practice, but it seems to me that the law should be based, at least in part, on common sense and practicality. It should also be reflective of the will of the American people, if it is to have any true weight at all.

As Ulysses S. Grant once said, “The will of the people is the best law.

.

.

Armed Citizen Saves Cop From Vicious Youth Mob In Pennsylvania

Police: Gun Owner Saved Cop From Attack By Kids – Philadelphia Inquirer

.
…………….
Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood praised the efforts of licensed gun owner who came to the aid of a police officer.

.
Police are crediting a vigilant gun owner with saving the life of an Upper Darby cop Friday after he saw the officer being attacked and surrounded by a large group of teens.

“There were 40 kids. If it wasn’t for the good Samaritan stepping forward, he’d have been dead meat,” Upper Darby Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood said. “There’s no doubt they would have attacked him.”

About 3 p.m. every weekday, from six to eight township police officers patrol the area near Upper Darby High School as nearly 4,000 kids pour out of the building on Lansdowne Avenue near School Lane.

Most kids and most days are good, Chitwood said.

Friday was not.

That afternoon alone, police responded to three fights in three locations near the school. When the dust settled, eight teens, ages 13 to 17, were charged with crimes, and two officers were injured so severely that it’s unclear when they’ll be able to return to work, Chitwood said.

The most egregious of the incidents took place on Wayne Avenue near Marshall Road, less than a mile from the high school.

An officer who broke up a fight between two teen boys that had attracted a large crowd at that location was holding one of the combatants at bay when the teen’s opponent attacked the officer, Chitwood said.

“As he breaks up the fight, he takes one kid and then the other jumps [on] him. Now he’s fighting two of them and he’s calling for an assist officer at the same time,” Chitwood said. “There’s a crowd of 40 or 50 kids watching the fight, and they all move in towards the officer.”

That’s when the good Samaritan, who lives on the block, came out of his house with a gun in his hand and told the teens to get away from the cop, Chitwood said.

“He had the gun in his hand, but he didn’t point it at the kids, he just told them to back off,” Chitwood said. “If this guy didn’t come out and come to the aid of the officer, this officer would have had significant problems.”

The 35-year-old gun owner, who has a concealed-carry permit, kept the group of teens at bay until responding officers arrived, Chitwood said.

Not only did the officer who tried to break up the fight suffer significant hand injuries, Chitwood said, but an officer who responded to the request for backup also suffered a major injury to a leg when he was kicked by one of the teens in the fight.

The two juveniles in that fight each were charged with aggravated assault on police, riot, harassment, and related offenses. They were remanded to the Delaware County juvenile detention facility in Lima, Chitwood said.

Six more youths were arrested for fighting around the same time that day at two other locations near the school, Chitwood said; one was sent to the juvenile detention facility and the other five were released to a parent or guardian. Six of the eight arrested students attend Upper Darby High. The seventh attends Beverly Hills Middle School; the eighth goes to a school in Ridley Township.

“There’s thousands of kids that walk to and from that school without a problem, but every once in a while you get these wannabe gangsters, and if they want to be gangsters, we’ll treat them like gangsters,” Chitwood said.

Since Friday, police said, after-school patrols around Upper Darby High have been doubled.

“Our goal is to make sure these kids get home safe,” Chitwood said. “I can’t emphasize it enough, but the majority of these kids are decent kids.”

.

.

Ted Cruz Mocks Hillary Clinton With Brilliantly Funny New ‘Office Space’ Ad (Video)

Hilarious New Ad From Ted Cruz Spoofs Classic ‘Office Space’ Scene To Mock Hillary Clinton – Right Scoop

Wow I love this ad. Morning Joe released part of a video from Ted Cruz showing Hillary Clinton destroy a server in a spoof from a classic scene in the great movie, “Office Space.”

Take a look:
.

.
Just on a personal note, I really love the wit and humor of this ad. The panel on Morning Joe, who all hate Ted Cruz, of course were flabbergasted that he would do such a thing as transgress against Hillary, their Mother Gaia of liberalism. Well screw them, I think it’s hilarious.

BUT – will South Carolinians like it? If Cruz did it specifically to target my age demographic, then it’s brilliant. If it’s meant to be a general ad, then it might miss the mark among older Americans. Now I’m gonna watch it again and laugh, BRB!

We’ll post the whole ad once it’s available, keep checking back.

.

.

*VIDEO* Vermin Supreme Makes Last-Minute Pitch To Democrat Voters In New Hampshire

.

.

*PODCAST* The Andrew Klavan Show

THE MEDIA LEVEL THEIR GUNS AT CRUZ AND RUBIO


……………………………Click on image above for podcast

MORE:

THREE REASONS OBAMA VISITED A TERRORIST MOSQUE

TRUMP’S NO TOUGH GUY, HE JUST PLAYS ONE ON TV

IOWA MAKES CAUCUSES GREAT AGAIN

IOWA: HOW SCREWED ARE WE?


.

*PODCAST* The Ben Shapiro Show

#BEYONCEHALFTIMESOBLACK



MORE:

HILLARY CLINTON IS A FLAMING GARBAGE HEAP

TRUMP FINALLY GOES NUCLEAR

THE GREATEST IOWA CAUCUSES EVER

IOWA IS TONIGHT – I HATE EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING


.

Austrian Woman Regrets Teaching Kids To Welcome Refugees After Her 10-Year-Old Son Is Raped By One In Public

Mom Regrets Teaching Kids To Welcome Refugees After Young Son Raped At Public Pool – BizPac Review

An Austrian woman, who’d always instructed her children to have compassion for refugees, did an abrupt about-face after an Iraqi immigrant raped her son whom he’d met at the local public swimming pool.

Dunja, who immigrated to Austria from Serbia during the 1990s, was appalled by the man’s defense to the attack, calling it “just monstrous,” according to the Daily Mail.

Rather than denying the act, the rapist claimed he had “too much sexual energy.”

The 10-year-old victim, named Goran, sustained serious injuries as a result of the attack and was hospitalized. His mother said her son cries himself to sleep every night.

.

.
Although the attack took place in December, Dunja only opened up to local media recently. She said she’d arrived in Austria as a refugee from the Serbian civil war and struggled to make ends meet while instructing her five children not to prejudge other people.

But when she’d learned that the Iraqi claimed that he’d had a “sexual emergency,” she regretted her previous advice.

“I couldn’t believe it when I heard that. I come from Serbia, and I spent five years living in a Caritas home together with people from many different nations,” Dunja said.

“You certainly can’t call me a racist, but to try and defend himself in that way is just monstrous. It’s like me saying I’m going to go to a bank tomorrow and rob it because I don’t have enough money for my five children.”

Her thoughts then turned to her son.

“I know that the physical wounds will heal, but the wounds to his soul may never heal,” she told the local media.

Although the attack happened in December, it wasn’t immediately reported to protect the victim.

Dunja explained that her son loved swimming, and on the day of the attack, she gave him three euros so that he could go to the local public swimming pool in Vienna after school.

“He was so happy at having the money, and after school went there straight away so I wasn’t expecting him back home immediately,” Dunja said.

“Three hours after school finished, I got a phone call from him and he was crying into the phone. I couldn’t understand a word he said, but then somebody came on the phone and told me: ‘Please come straight away, your child has been sexually assaulted.’”

The last thing any parent wants to hear.

The Mail reported:
.

She said that she had rushed there straight away and was devastated when she looked through a glass window and saw her crying child sitting in a room with a man in swimming trunks who had handcuffs on.

She said her sister was with her, and the police had to stop her from attacking the man straight away.

.
“I don’t want the man to be deported, I want him to be jailed because I have heard what they do to child sex attackers in jail,” Dunja said.

“I want him to experience everything in jail that child sex attackers can experience from the other convicts. And then I want him deported.”

.

.

More Proof That Leftists Are Batshit Crazy

‘Experts’ Warn ‘Global Warming’ Is Making Pet Dogs Depressed – Breitbart

.
…………….

.
A leading “dog behaviourist” and an “animal behaviour counselor” have warned that “global warming” is responsible for a supposedly massive rise in bored and depressed pet dogs.

The “experts” said that “extreme” weather and a spate of wet winters was responsible for the tragic trend, which the Independent newspaper attributed to “decades of global warming”.

“I’ve been working with dogs for more than 20 years and I can’t remember a time when they’ve been this bored. I tend to see boredom in bursts but I’m seeing it chronically this winter”, said Carolyn Menteith, a dog behaviourist who was named Britain’s Instructor of the Year in 2015.

Ms. Mentheth said that cold crisp winters had given way to “constant wet dreariness”, with the Independent explaining that, “she – like many scientists and meteorologists – puts this down to climate change and expects to see more bored dogs in the future as global warming unleashes increasingly frequent and intense bouts of winter rainfall.”

She said the dogs “are just really, really, bored” because “People are quite happy to get their dogs out in frosty, hard weather but not when it’s muddy and horrible.” The problem, therefore, is that dogs are not being walked enough, regardless of whether or not this is due to global warming.

However, Sarah Fisher, an animal behaviour counsellor with around two decades experience, has also said she had noticed a level of canine unrest that is unprecedented in her career.

“I’ve never seen our dogs or horses this bored before in 20 years. Horses that have lived happily outside before are saying ‘I actually can’t cope with this mud and wet anymore’,” she said.

“We’re turning them out of their stables and they’re saying ‘Get me back in straight away’.

“They can’t settle, they look bored, but actually it’s to do with physical stress and mental boredom, they can’t go off quietly and graze because they keep sliding around the field,” Ms. Fisher added.

.

.

*AUDIO* Mark Steyn And Howie Carr Discuss The Presidential Primaries (02/05/16)

.

.

Obamanomics Update: All U.S. Job Gains Since December 2007 Have Gone To Foreign-Born Workers

All Job Gains Since December 2007 Have Gone To Foreign-Born Workers – Zero Hedge

With the Fed on the verge of a full relent and admission of policy error, the Fed’s “data (in)dependent” monetary policy once again takes on secondary relevance as we progress into 2016. However, even with the overall job picture far less important, one aspect of the US jobs market is certain to take on an unprecedented importance.

We first laid out what that is last September when we said that “the one chart that matters more than ever, has little to nothing to do with the Fed’s monetary policy, but everything to do with the November 2016 presidential elections in which the topic of immigration, both legal and illegal, is shaping up to be the most rancorous, contentious and divisive.”

We were talking about the chart showing the cumulative addition of foreign-born and native-born workers added to US payrolls according to the BLS since December 2007, i.e., since the start of the recession/Second Great Depression.

As usually happens, it is precisely this data that gets no mention following any job report. However, with Trump and his anti-immigration campaign continuing to plow on despite the Iowa disappointment, we are confident that the chart shown below will soon be recognizable to economic and political pundits everywhere.

And here is why we are confident this particular data should have been prominently noted by all experts when dissecting today’s job report: according to the BLS’ Establishment Survey, while 151,000 total workers were added in January, a number which rises to 615,000 if looking at the Household survey, also according to the same Household survey, a whopping 567,000 native-born Americans lost their jobs, far less than the 98,000 foreign-born job losses.

.

.
Here is a chart showing native-born non-job gains since the start of the depression:

.

.
Alternatively, here are foreign-born worker additions since December 2007:

.

.
Putting the two side by side:

.

.
And the bottom line: starting with the infamous month when it all started falling apart, December 2007, the US has added just 186,000 native-born workers, offset by 13.5x times more, or 2,518,000, foreign born workers.

.

.
If Trump wins New Hampshire and South Carolina, and storms back to the top of the GOP primary polls, expect this chart to become the most important one over the next 10 months.

.

.

51 Muslim “Refugees” Beaten To A Pulp In Russia After Molesting Women At Night Club

Refugees Go Clubbing In Russia, Harass Girls, Wake Up In Hospital The Next Morning – Daily Caller

.

.
A group of 51 refugees were brutally assaulted outside a night club in Murmansk, Russia, after they groped and molested women at a night club Saturday.

The refugees had previously been ordered to leave Norway for “bad behavior” and tried their luck in Russia. What they didn’t realize when they went out clubbing in Murmansk is that Russians have less tolerance when it comes to sexual assault on local women than other European countries.

The refugees allegedly groped and harassed women in a similar manner as the assaults in Cologne on New Year’s Eve. A group of male Russian took them aside to “educate” them that “Cologne is 2,500 kilometers south of here.”

The refugees tried to flee but were quickly captured by the Russians. They then took them out to the street and gave them a beating they will remember. Police arrived to break up the fight but locals report that they threw a few punches at the refugees before arresting 33 of them. Eighteen refugees were in such bad condition they had to be take to the hospital.

Police decided to let the beatings slide and didn’t file a report. The only thing they could confirm was that there was “a mass brawl involving refugees.”

.

.

Another Record-Setting January For Gun Sales In U.S.

January Gun Sales Set Yet Another Record – Washington Free Beacon

.

.
The FBI conducted more gun-related background checks this January than in any other January since the system was created.

With 2,545,802 checks processed through the National Instant Background Check System, January 2016 beat the previous record, set in January 2013, by 50,326 checks. Though January’s number represents a drop from the all-time single month record set in December 2015, it is also marks the ninth month in a row that has set a record. It is also the third month in a row with more than two million background checks.

The number of background checks conducted by the FBI is widely considered the most reliable estimate for gun sales in the country since all sales conducted through federally licensed gun dealers and some sales conducted by private parties are required by law to obtain a check.

However, the number is not a one-to-one representation of gun sales. Many private sales are not included in the system. Also, in some cases a single background check can apply to the sale of multiple guns. Some states use background checks for their gun carry permitting process, which does not involve the sale of a gun.

The new record comes in the wake of President Obama’s executive action targeting gun sales. The White House had signaled that those selling even one firearm in their lifetime could be subject to federal licensing requirements, though it was later revealed that the written guidance issued by the ATF was at odds with the administration’s public comments.

A steady stream of comments supportive of gun control by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton may also have contributed to record sales.

A move by Virginia Democrats to unilaterally eliminate gun carry reciprocity agreements with 25 states also received national attention in January. The policy was instituted by the state’s attorney general after the party failed to recapture the state Senate despite millions from gun control advocates. The backlash to the plan was strong enough that the state’s Democratic governor reversed it in a deal with Republicans.

The Second Amendment Foundation said the continued spike in gun sales was in line with other indicators from around the country.

“The Boston Globe reported last week that tens of thousands of new gun licenses were issued in Massachusetts last year,” Alan Gottlieb, the group’s founder, said in a statement. “In New Jersey, with tough gun laws, applications for gun purchases last year nearly tripled over what they were in 2005. One Missouri county reported a three-month back-up in processing permit applications. A county sheriff in North Carolina is so overwhelmed, he’s asking that citizens make appointments.”

“Add to this the fact that scores of sheriffs and police chiefs have encouraged citizens to arm themselves. Suddenly, gun ownership sounds like a very good idea to people concerned about personal safety,” Gottlieb said.

.

.

President Asshat Continues His Shame-The-Infidels Tour In Baltimore

Obama Visits Mosque: ‘Islam Has Always Been Part Of America’ – Big Government

.
…………….

.
President Obama spoke warmly about Islam during his speech at a mosque today, highlighting the contributions that Muslims had made to the fabric of American society.

“Islam has always been part of America,” he said, detailing the beginnings of the religion among African slaves brought to America. He also pointed out that Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Virginia statute for religious freedom that the “Mohammedan” should have his faith protected in the United States.

Obama met with Muslim leaders during a visit to the Islamic Society of Baltimore, before delivering a speech there. This is Obama’s first visit to a mosque as president – although George W. Bush also visited a mosque in New York City after the attacks of 9/11.

During his speech, he praised the religion for being a religion of peace – not the hate preached by groups like ISIS.

“The very word Islam comes from ‘Salam’ – peace,” he said. “The standard greeting is ‘As-Salaam-Alaikum’ – ‘Peace be upon you,’” he explained. “Like so many faiths, Islam is rooted in a commitment to compassion and mercy and justice and charity. “Whoever wants to enter paradise, the prophet Mohammad taught, let him treat people the way he would love to be treated,” he said as the audience applauded.

“For Christians like myself, I’m assuming that sounds familiar,” he continued.

Obama has frequently defended Muslim Americans – even meeting with leaders at private event at the White House last year. This is the biggest public display of support for the Muslim American community – cited by White House aides as a response to the anti-refugee and anti-Muslim rhetoric on the campaign trail from Republicans like Donald Trump.

Obama reminded the audience that political opponents of Thomas Jefferson accused him of being a Muslim. “So I was not the first,” he said lightly as the audience laughed. “It’s true. Look it up. I’m in good company.”

Obama pointed out that the founding fathers also supported the religion of Islam.

“Jefferson and John Adams had their own copies of the Koran,” he said. “Benjamin Franklin wrote, that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.”

He also recalled the history of mosques in America – pointing out that the oldest surviving mosque was in Iowa and that the first American mosque was built in North Dakota.

Obama also urged Christians to defend Muslim-Americans when their religion was under attack.

“If we’re serious about freedom of religion – and I’m speaking now to my fellow Christians, who remain the majority in this country – we have to understand, an attack on one faith is an attack on all our faiths,” he said.

He demanded that Americans stop profiling Muslims and treating them differently because of their faith – criticizing political rhetoric for inflaming hatred against the Muslim community.

“We have to reject a politics that seeks to manipulate prejudice or bias and targets people because of religion,” he said.

He specifically addressed young Muslim Americans, urging them not to grow cynical.

“Let me say it as clearly as I can, as President of the United States, you fit in here. Right here. You’re right where you belong. You’re part of America too,” he said.

According to photos on Twitter of the speech, the audience in the mosque was segregated – men in one section and women in a special balcony.

As Obama concluded his speech, he said, “May God’s peace be upon you and God Bless the United States of America.”

.

.

Dozens Of Fed Up Swedes Drive Muslim Refugees From Stockholm Train Station (Video)

Swedes Fight Back – Powerline

.

.
We wrote here about the refugee crisis in Europe, including the fact that hundreds of Moroccan “youths” have taken over Stockholm’s central train station, stealing, assaulting women and attacking security guards. Last night, fifty or more Swedish men, described in some accounts as suspected soccer fans, decided they had had enough and swept through the train station, attacking and driving out the Moroccans who were living there.

The Daily Mail reports:
.

Before the attack, the group of 200 people handed out xenophobic leaflets with the message “Enough now”.

Swedish media reported that the thugs, allegedly linked to Sweden’s football hooligan scene, were targeting unaccompanied minors with a “foreign” background…

The mob, wearing all-black balaclavas and armbands, “gathered with the purpose of attacking refugee children” Stockholm police spokesman Towe Hagg said. “Police are now looking into the leaflets that were handed out by masked people before the attack”.

Authorities confirmed that at least 40-50 people went on a rampage at 9pm on Friday night attacking migrants.

.
This video shows the scene, which doesn’t appear to have been very violent:
.

.

“All over the country, reports are pouring in that the police can no longer cope with preventing and investigating the crimes which strike the Swedish people,” reads the leaflet.

“In some cases, for example, in the latest murder of a woman employed at a home for so called ‘unaccompanied minor refugees’ in Molndal, it goes as far as the National Police Commissioner choosing to show more sympathy for the perpetrator than the victim,” it continues.

.
We wrote about that incident, and the perverse reaction of Swedish authorities, here.
.

“But we refuse to accept the repeated assaults and harrassment against Swedish women. We refuse to accept the destruction of our once safe society. When our political leadership and police show more sympathy for murderers than for their victims, there are no longer any excuses to let it happen without protest.

“When Swedish streets are no longer safe to walk on for normal Swedes, it is our DUTY to fix the problem,” the leaflet reads.

“This is why, today, 200 Swedish men gathered to take a stand against the north African ‘street children’ who are running rampage in and around the capital’s central station.

“Police have clearly showed that they lack the means to stop their progress and we see no other way than to hand down the punishment they deserve ourselves.

“The justice system has walked out and the contract of society is therefore broken – it is now every Swedish man’s duty to defend our public spaces against the imported criminality.”

.
Is such vigilante action a good thing? Of course not. But it is inevitable when a nation’s authorities put ideology above their most basic duty to protect the citizenry. Across much of Western Europe, the authorities would rather cling to their discredited illusions than do their jobs.

Thus we have the absurd spectacle of the leaders of the European Union denying any connection between the sexual assaults perpetrated against hundreds of women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve and the million migrants who have recently entered Europe:
.

The sex attacks that took place in Cologne on New Year’s Eve were simply a “matter of public order” and had nothing to do with the refugee crisis, Jean-Claude Juncker’s inner circle believe.

The European Commission will be the “voice of reason” and tell the public that there is no link between the migration crisis affecting the continent and attacks on women in Germany, internal minutes disclose, amid growing concerns at a “xenophobic” backlash.

The minutes of the European Commission’s weekly cabinet meeting from January 13 hint at officials’ fears that the events in Cologne could turn public opinion sharply against the million migrants who have entered Europe.

.
That and many other events, yes.
.

“As far as the crimes in Cologne were concerned, he said that these were a matter of public order and were not related to the refugee crisis,” the minutes say.

.
European democracy is broken, to an even greater extent than our own.

.

.

*VIDEO* Prissy Holly: Exposing Mark Zuckerberg And A Direct Message For The Rape-ugees In Europe

.

.

Where Are The Men Of Germany? (Carol Brown)

Where Are The Men Of Germany? – Carol Brown

A 16-year-old German girl is more articulate and honest than most adults on the matter of the Muslim invasion and the transformation of Europe. Bibi Wilhailm has just made an extraordinary 20-minute video that I urge every reader to watch. In it she expresses her terror as she faces tectonic shifts in Germany’s cultural landscape. She makes stark and accurate observations while also sharing personal stories that highlight the nightmare that is now life in Germany. She speaks with unabashed clarity, best summed up by her own statement: “It’s really a sad truth.”
.

.
Like many of us, she struggles to make sense of what is happening – how the German government would admit throngs of people who behave in violent and threatening ways, how the police don’t seem to care, while also begging German men to step up to the plate to protect women and girls.

She states that her once beautiful Germany (and the rest of Europe) has been ruined.

She wonders how a person can be a guest in a country and behave in such a violent way and wonders why Germany is not doing anything about it. She wonders why “immigrants” chanting on the streets of German cities their intention to kill Germans are not deported. She states a theme repeated throughout the video: she cannot understand it.
.

How blind do you have to be that you don’t notice that there will soon be a war?

.
She says she does not want to live in a world like this and that she is “truly speechless.”

She reflects on Islamic supremacy, wondering why Muslims push Allah on everyone else and can’t let people believe what they want.

She notes how the media covers demonstrations in Germany against immigration but are silent about the havoc “migrants” are wreaking across the country.

She mocks the recommendation the mayor of Cologne made for women to keep an arm’s length between themselves and strangers, stating: “Who [s***] in your brains?” She continues: “Do you really think when someone attacks you, you do this [gestures by extending her arm]? That’s the solution. Yes. OK. I wanted to rape you, but you stretched out your arm. I can’t do it anymore. Bummer.”

She imagines how “migrants” must be laughing at how stupid Germans are, while noting that the entire German government is also laughing because they don’t take their citizens seriously when they say they are scared. Her desperation is palpable as she implores listeners for help while observing the government dragging the country down farther and farther.

About a third of the way through the video, she makes a desperate plea, one first directed to the men of Germany and then to politicians:
.

Protect your children and women… We need this protection. We are really afraid to go out. Protect them. Be there for them, and don’t let them go out alone. Like shopping when it’s already dark. We are afraid. It’s a cry for help, and you still don’t do anything. You politicians sit there in your mansions, slurp your cocktails, and do nothing. I don’t know in what world you are living, but people are afraid. Please, finally help us. It can’t go on like this. Please do something. I really can’t understand this anymore… I am, we are all very frightened. Please, please, please do something.

.
She shares many stories of her experiences and those of people she knows, including an experience of a Muslim who verbally degraded her because she was wearing a tee-shirt. She says: “People, we are in Germany. Yes, I wear a tee-shirt. I will not wear a headscarf. I will not mummify myself.” She continues, as if speaking to the barbarians directly, telling them they have no right to insult, to grope, to touch, to sexually assault, to rape German girls because of what they wear.

She notes that the German government has abandoned its people and that “sometime the German citizens will take the matter into their own hands,” adding, “believe me, that won’t be funny.”

Near the end of the video, she wonders if Germany still has a chance to survive, if it can “regenerate from this big crisis.” She makes a plea to everyone listening not to give up on Germany. She urges every German citizen to pour into the streets for peaceful demonstrations. And she begs people to do it for their women and children.

She hopes the government will change its immigration policy and wonders what is wrong with Merkel, questioning her state of mind while making a general comment that things aren’t “normal anymore.” She calls Merkel out for playing with “the German psyche” and doubts that Merkel even knows what she’s doing.

She hopes her video will have an impact, thanks people for watching it, and makes a final plea: “Protect the women and us girls because it is a cry for help that everybody ignores right now.”

She hopes something changes for the better soon, “because nobody wants to live in such a world… Protect us.”

To say the video is heartbreaking would be a vast understatement. This young woman has stated what so many are thinking and feeling. And she has done so with incredible clarity. And bravery. She has summed up the situation, posed the questions so many have, and ultimately begs for help in this mad, mad crisis that was all unavoidable and is entirely inexplicable.

My heart goes out to this girl, and to every single human being feeling the weight of Islamic supremacy fall upon him and his country – falling that much faster because the country will not protect and defend itself. We are all somewhere on that curve right now with no end in sight.

May God help us all. And with a special prayer for Bibi Wilhailm, that He keep her safe. And may her urgent pleas be answered.

.

.

Leftist Mizzou Professor Who Called For ‘Some Muscle’ To Silence Journalist Is Charged With Assault

Fascist Mizzou Prof Who Smacked Journalist Has Been Charged With Assault – Right Scoop

.

.
We reported a lot about the fascist professor at the University of Missouri that smacked a photojournalist who was covering their racist temper tantrum last year.

Well, we can all sigh in relief because the totalitarian ginger has been charged with assault:
.

.
More from USA Today:
.

A misdemeanor assault charge was filed Monday against a University of Missouri assistant professor who received nationwide attention when she called for “some muscle” to help remove a student journalist from a campus protest in November.

Melissa Click, who works in Missouri’s communication department, faces a Class C misdemeanor simple assault charge for the incident, in which she was filmed having physical contact and berating a student journalist, according to the office of Columbia, Mo., prosecutor Steve Richey. The student was trying to conduct interviews at a site set up on the university’s quad by students protesting the treatment of African Americans by administrators.

A video of the confrontation, which was taken by student journalist Mark Schierbecker and went viral on the Internet, begins with a group of protesters yelling and pushing another student journalist, Tim Tai, who was trying to photograph the campsite. At the end of the video, Schierbecker approaches Click, who calls for “some muscle” to remove him from the protest area. She then appears to grab at Schierbecker’s camera.

Schierbecker filed a simple assault complaint with the campus police department days after the incident.

Richey’s office confirmed that charge has been filed but declined further comment. If convicted, Click could face up to a $300 fine and 15 days in jail.

The incident occurred as the campus had been embroiled in weeks of protests over school administrators’ handling of a series of a racially charged incidents on campus. Shortly before the confrontation, the state’s university system president, Tim Wolfe, and Missouri chancellor R. Bowen Loft announced their resignations. Click was at the campsite to show her support for the student protesters.

Under fire, Click resigned her courtesy appointment with the journalism school the day after the incident but remains an assistant professor in the university’s Department of Communication.

Yes, it’s a small victory, but I can dig it.

.

.

Apparently, Germany Has Already Lost Track Of 600,000 Syrian “Refugees”… Now Who Could Have Seen That Coming?

German Has Lost 600,000 Absconding Migrants Who Could Be In Other EU Countries By Now – Breitbart

.

.
The German government has admitted it cannot account for 600,000 of the 1.1 million migrants who arrived into the country last year – raising concerns that the migrants have absconded into Germany and other European Union (EU) nations.

Delays in processing applications may account for some of those missing, it is reported, buts other may have moved on to different EU countries, the Interior Ministry has confessed.

The 1.1 million migrants registered with the German state’s ‘EASY’ system, operated by the German Ministry For Migration and Refugees. It does little more than record an applicant’s arrival and their country of origin.

Once migrants have registered, officials assign them a place where they are to be cared for, and where they can then make a full application for asylum.

However, according to the Daily Mail, only 476,649 of the 1.1million migrants have so far turned up at their assigned destination and registered their asylum case there. That number breaks down as 326,529 men and 150,120 women.

There are three possible explanations as to why the missing 600,000 migrants have not yet appeared.

They might indeed have registered, but have not showed up due to delays in the system. Or, they might never have existed – migrants are known to register more than once to increase their chance of reaching their preferred destination. The second option here is less likely, as it would not account for the numbers known to have travelled to Europe over the past year.

Most alarmingly, however, it is entirely possible that they have moved on, disappearing into Germany, or indeed travelling to other European Union member states.

Despite the cold weather, the number of migrants making it into Europe from the Middle East has shown little sign of slowing, and many countries are expect greater numbers to arrive this year.

According to a new court ruling, reported yesterday, migrants inside the Schengen area with a reasonable claim to a “family life” inside the UK, must now be admitted into the country.

.

.

*VIDEO* 2016 March For Life – Washington, DC

.
Click HERE to visit the official website of the March For Life movement.

.

.

Connecticut High School Student Pledges Allegiance To ISIS – Feds Investigating

Student Says ‘ISIS’ In Pledge, Gets Pulled From High School – WTNH

.
…………….

.
A 15-year-old high school student in Ansonia is under federal investigation for comments he made during class.

In a statement to News 8, the Ansonia Police Department said that; “The allegation is that the male was allegedly making pro-ISIS statements during the Pledge of Allegiance.”

Ansonia High School officials alerted police who passed the incident report on to the Department of Homeland Security. New Haven Civil Rights Attorney John Williams called the whole situation a shame.

“This is in my view exactly what the terrorists want,” Williams said. “They want to scare us so much that we become crazy and turn on each other.”

The Ansonia Superintendent of Schools also declined an on-camera interview, but released a statement that reads in part; “ …we did not deem the incident a legitimate threat to the safety of students or staff. Out of an abundance of caution, the incident was reported to the appropriate authorities. As far as the Ansonia Public Schools is concerned, the matter is resolved.”

The 15 year-old student is now at an alternative school. Williams – who is not involved in this case – calls this a clear violation of the student’s First Amendment rights to free speech. He said the teenager is being punished for the content of his words.

“It’s pure speech. Not like the proverbial shouting fire in a crowded theater. No harm to anybody, except to himself, because he looks silly.”

According to the minutes from the school board meeting, the student’s mother calls the decision to investigate her son “irrational and impulsive.”

.

.