Nathan Phillips, character assassin: what even his critics seem to be ignoring about him

The New Neo Posted on by

Nathan Phillips is fast wearing out his more-than-15-minutes of fame. But before he goes off our radar screen—and the next ramped-up Twitter brouhaha comes our way—I must point out something I think is important but which has been almost totally ignored even by the right and by the defenders of the Covington students.

I’ve read an awful lot about the Covington incident and Phillips’ role in it. Left and right are in profound disagreement, of course, about most of it. But there is one “narrative” about which many on both left and right seem to agree, and that is that people initially came to conclusions based on the first short video, and that the left hated Sandmann and the other boys based on people’s perceptions of that video, amplified by discussions on social media and in the press.

So even if you think the Covington teens were innocent and the rage against them obscene, you tend to think that rage was a reaction to the first video and the press and all the other viewers and tweeters who were similarly rage-filled.

The role of Phillips himself was (and still is) felt by the right to be the following: that he purposely stirred up the initial face-to-face confrontation, that he lied about his military service, lied when he stated the boys had said “build the wall,” lied when he said they had approached and surrounded him, and that he also omitted the details of the racial and other slurs the boys (and the Native Americans) had endured coming from the Black Israelites. And the media gave Phillips a forum for repeating those influential lies.

However, what’s being almost completely ignored even on the right (the NY Post is just about alone in mentioning it, and they don’t emphasize it much at all) are Phillips’ most vicious lies, told quite early in the game (I’ll get to what they were in a minute). These particular lies probably had a big role in shaping people’s perceptions of the boys and helped to spur their widespread demonization.

It was Phillips himself who quite early on, during his Saturday interview with CNN that set the original tone and was widely disseminated, gave the following description of the Covington boys:

It looked like these young men were going to attack [the Black Israelites]. They were going to hurt them. They were going to hurt them because they didn’t like the color of their skin. They didn’t like their religious views. They were just here in front of the Lincoln — Lincoln is not my hero, but at the same time, there was this understanding that he brought the (Emancipation Proclamation) or freed the slaves, and here are American youth who are ready to, look like, lynch these guys. To be honest, they looked like they were going to lynch them. They were in this mob mentality.

That is not some disagreement about who went up to whom, or whether the wall was mentioned by the boys, or what caps some of them wore. This is an extremely defamatory statement by a political agitator, designed to shape perceptions that the boys were vicious racists with a killer instinct. The language is purposefully inflammatory and of the harshest variety.

It is a lie, and unless Phillips is clinically insane and out of touch with reality (something I don’t believe is the case), it is a knowing and purposeful lie about a bunch of teenagers who were minding their own business. It is a lie so egregious, so foul, that I really lack words to describe the depth and depravity of that lie.

And as far as I can see, just about everyone is ignoring it now.

The lie wasn’t a one-off, either. This incredibly misleading article in Rolling Stone (written that same Saturday) is typical of reactions to the incident as well as to another statement by Phillips that he gave (in an interview with the Detroit Free Press) on Saturday [emphasis mine]:

“There was that moment when I realized I’ve put myself between beast and prey,” Phillips told the Detroit Free-Press. “These young men were beastly and these old black individuals [the Black Israelites] was their prey, and I stood in between them and so they needed their pounds of flesh and they were looking at me for that.”

So that saintly elder Nathan Phillips, casting himself as peacemaker, defames the boys once again, in terms designed to inflame the left into a frenzy of hatred against them as beasts preying on innocent black people. And the left (and some on the right) bought his peacemaker-against-beasts story, perhaps because of his Native American status and because his demeanor while telling the story fed into some other stereotypes that he, as an activist, was well aware they held.

Note also the literary reference (although I’m not sure how conscious it was on Phillips’ part) in speaking of “their pounds of flesh,” which is an old anti-Semitic trope from “The Merchant of Venice” that has passed into the common vernacular for describing a vengeful, bloodthirsty (and also money-hungry) person.

Why is practically no one highlighting these words of Phillips? He certainly did his bit, and then some, to set the story and release the howling Twitter dogs. Of course, people on Twitter—and especially the newspeople who pushed all of this further into the spotlight, never questioning Phillips’ statements but simply broadcasting them—were fully responsible for what they themselves did and said. My point is that Nathan Phillips was a very active and involved leader in setting the extreme tone of the demonization “narrative.”

If not for that long video that finally emerged (ironically, as a result of the Black Israelites taking it and posting it), Phillips’ pernicious and poisonous narrative would have carried the day. As it is, his narrative continues to override reality for many many people. And that is also with the assistance of the MSM, including Savannah Guthrie’s gentle, respectful later interview of him (a contrast to her challenging one of Sandmann) that failed to question Phillips on a single one of his lies. Rather, she let him continue to spread his narrative as he wished.

The evidence indicates that Phillips is an activist hatemonger who should be sued, but unfortunately he has shallow pockets and is therefore probably safe from lawsuit. I also believe it likely that someone and/or some activist group is guiding and financing him, and I hope the truth about that will be revealed as time goes on.

But my question remains: why is this portion of the story not being emphasized, even by those on the right who are highly critical of Phillips? Are they afraid of being demonized themselves for pointing out the obvious, if it reflects even more poorly on a man who’s been lionized by the left and the media? Or have they just forgotten those quotes of his because they’ve been buried in a sea of other verbiage?

The capture of Roger Stone, Public Enemy #2

The New Neo Posted on by

You can rest easy in your beds, folks, because the intrepid FBI has captured fearsome process criminal Roger Stone:

A swarm of agents in tactical gear shouting “FBI! Open the door!” outside Roger Stone’s Florida home just before dawn Friday was over the top but intended to send a chilling message to anyone else being eyed in the Mueller investigation — you’re next, former FBI agents told the Herald.

The SWAT-style raid on a white-collar suspect in pajamas went viral Friday, with CNN cameras rolling.

“It was absolutely ridiculous,” said ex-FBI agent Peter Yachmetz. “Doing it at 6 o’clock is extremely early. They were trying to get a point across and it was leaked to CNN. Why?

“It was inappropriate and improper,” added Yachmetz, an agent for three decades. “I cannot recall banging on anyone’s door at 6 a.m. for a white-collar crime. I did do it once in a kidnapping and extortion case.”

Yachmetz said the pre-dawn arrest was likely orchestrated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office working in tandem with the Mueller team.

“It’s a message for everyone else connected to the investigation,” said retired FBI supervisory special agent Todd Hulsey. “They are saying, ‘If you think we have something on you, we are going to get you.’ And it’s going to be an unpleasant arrest.

Every single decision Mueller has made seems to have one goal: to get Trump’s aides and former aides to implicate him, much as you pressure a petty drug dealer to implicate the higher-up drug czars.

So far, nada. And it has a high potential for a false confession in order to get leniency. But hey, that won’t stop Mueller. His motivation to do this sort of thing is no doubt increasing, too. The longer it goes on without him getting the goods on Trump, the more embarrassed he must feel. Thus, the screws must be turned up for those watching the arrest of Stone, and for Stone himself.

Here’s what Stone is saying:

There is no circumstance whatsoever under which I will bear false witness against the president, nor will I make up lies to ease the pressure on myself…I look forward to being fully and completely vindicated.

Time will tell.

And here’s my favorite liberal lawyer, Alan Dershowitz:

“This is typical of Mueller. He has found almost no crimes that occurred before he was appointed special counsel,” Dershowitz explained, adding that Mueller was appointed to find Russian collusion and has “virtually failed in that respect in every regard.”

…”In this indictment, [Mueller] tells stories about alleged collusion, stories about WikiLeaks, but that’s not the basis for the indictment. The basis for the indictment are all events that occurred after [Mueller] was appointed. That’s very significant.”

Dershowitz said the president should be nervous because although he is not implicated in the indictment, the point of the indictment appears to be to squeeze Stone into testifying against him because the real target is Trump.

Ya think?

And my favorite lawyer on the right, Andrew C. McCarthy:

The indictment is just the latest blatant demonstration that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office, the Department of Justice, and the FBI have known for many months that there was no such conspiracy [between the Trump campaign and Russia]. And yet, fully aware that the Obama administration, the Justice Department, and the FBI had assiduously crafted a public narrative that Trump may have been in cahoots with the Russian regime, they have allowed that cloud of suspicion to hover over the presidency — over the Trump administration’s efforts to govern — heedless of the damage to the country.

They haven’t just allowed that cloud of suspicion to hover—they’ve made sure it hovers. And that’s what McCarthy also goes on to state:

Not only was the suggestion of a Trump-Russia conspiracy not founded on fact. The officials calling the shots had reason to know that the premise was factually false. In truth, there was no evidence of Trump-campaign complicity in Russian espionage — nothing but the Clinton-campaign generated, unverified Steele dossier. The months-in-the-making Stone indictment is just the latest proof of that.

Yet investigators were not just content to let the country believe there was a Trump-Russia criminal conspiracy; they affirmatively encouraged the public to believe it was true. Even as they indicted people for providing misleading information and then failing to correct the record, they never themselves corrected the misimpression they had gratuitously created in public statements…

And what do we learn? That the Trump campaign did not know what WikiLeaks had. That is, in addition to being uninvolved in Russia’s espionage, the Trump campaign was uninvolved in Julian Assange’s acquisition of what Russia stole.

The Stone indictment reads like an episode of The Three Stooges. Stone and two associates — conservative writer and conspiracy theorist Jerry Corsi, and left-wing-comedian-turned-radio-host Randy Credico, respectively denominated “Person 1” and “Person 2” — are on a quest to find out what WikiLeaks has on Hillary Clinton and when Assange is going to publicize it. But that does not suit Stone, who has cultivated an image of political dirty trickster and plugged-in soothsayer. In public, then, Stone pretends to know more than he knows and to have an insider’s view of Assange’s operation; behind the scenes, he scrounges around for clues about what Assange is up to, hoping some insider will tell him…

Plainly, the campaign was not involved in the hacking, so it did not know what the Russians gave Assange. And it had no involvement with WikiLeaks’ operations, so it turned to Stone, who had held himself out as a knowledgeable source. But Stone, too, was unsure.

Much much more at the link.

[NOTE: Why did I write that Roger Stone was Public Enemy #2? Who is Public Enemy #1? Why, President Trump, of course!]

And about that election fraud that doesn’t exist

The New Neo Posted on by

This:

Texas Secretary of State David Whitley said a year-long evaluation found about 95,000 people described as “non-U.S. citizens” who are registered to vote in Texas. About 58,000 of them voted in Texas elections between 1996 and 2018, Whitley said.

As John Sexton points out:

Naturally, there are voter advocacy groups already claiming that voter fraud doesn’t happen and questioning the validity of the Secretary of State’s data…

It seems to me what’s really at stake here is the presumption that large-scale voter fraud doesn’t happen. If Texas can substantiate even a fraction of this list it would change the dynamic of future conversations about non-citizen voting.

I disagree with that last sentence. The evidence is never enough, or good enough, to drown out the voices of the left insisting that the numbers are too small and too insignificant to matter, and that it’s all a screen for GOP racism.

Oh, and failing that argument (which so far has never failed), they can (and almost certainly will) say that these people should be allowed to vote anyway. They are just undocumented voters.

Trump, the GOP, the wall, perfectionism, and concern trolls

The New Neo Posted on by

The problem has been around much much longer than Trump has been a politician. I’ve fought it for well over a decade, and I came late to the game.

What is the problem I’m talking about? The perception by much of the right that the GOP consists of a bunch of betrayers who don’t want what they say they want.

Let me be perfectly clear: this perception is actually somewhat true. And by “somewhat” I mean it’s sometimes true of most of the GOP politicians, and it’s almost always true of a few of them. That doesn’t mean it has some basic, permanent, kneejerk truth.

The perception is sometimes very destructive to those on the right. It fractures the right in ways that punish the entire party, sometimes (perhaps even often) leading to Democrat victory either in the presidency or in Congress. I’ve pointed this out in different ways at different times as long as I’ve been blogging, and I’m pointing it out again.

I see it starting to happen now, not so much on this blog but in a lot of venues on the right. I recommend reading Kurt Schlicter’s column on the subject entitled, “Gee, I Guess Now I’m Going To Have To Be Happy With Only 90% Of The Stuff I Wanted Trump To Do.”

Indeed:

Just chill. The wailing and gnashing of teeth on the hardcore conservative side over Trump’s delaying action – really, a hudna – in the battle for the wall is way over the top and typically overdramatic.

Trump’s caved-in!

We’re doomed!

Pelosi annihilated him with her master stratagems and it’s all over for conservatism!

Oh please. Lighten up, Francises – and many of you are my pals. But you need this bucket of cold water. What happened Friday doesn’t matter.

Not at all.

Well, that’s not quite accurate. It could matter, if you decide to keep doing exactly what Nancy Pelosi wants you to do, freaking out. That’s why she employed her brilliant stratagem of just saying “No” – since you’re upset, let me point out that this is sarcasm.

It wasn’t brilliant – it was obvious. She was counting on you to set up as a do-or-die test for Trump over something where she and Chuck Schumer held a veto…

Think about it – what do Nancy and Chuck want you to do right now? They want you to say “Gosh, Trump didn’t get the wall yet so I’m going to stop supporting him” and to give up in despair.

Maybe you should do as I do, and make it a rule not to do what Chuck and Nancy want you to do.

I don’t agree with everything Schlicter writes in the column—just as an example, I definitely don’t agree with him when he writes, “We’re winning, politically and culturally,” although I hope Schlicter’s correct on that and that I’m wrong. But I agree with his basic idea that we should not fall into the trap that has been set by the left. And yet we so often do.

[NOTE: Most of the regulars here know of a commenter known as “manju.” I find him interesting because he’s a good way to keep up with Democratic talking points. Today, right on schedule, manju wrote this:

…[Trump] was a President whose party controlled both houses. He could’ve financed the wall thru budget reconciliation, thus avoiding a filibuster.

But he squandered those years. Now he’s lost the house and it’s too late.

Or, as Schlicter wrote (sarcastically, in his case, mocking the response of some on the right, a response Pelosi and Schumer—and their obedient servant manju—are looking for) “Trump’s caved-in! We’re doomed!”

Even if what manju said were true, so what? Trump’s done most of what he said he would do, which is pretty amazing. What’s more, “he” (Trump, that is) couldn’t have financed the wall through budget reconciliation—it’s the Congress that supposedly could have done that during the first two years of Trump’s term.

But is that even true? Perhaps, but I don’t think so. The problem with having used budget reconciliation during the first two years of the Trump administration in order to get the wall financed was that the GOP margin in the Senate was paper-thin. They barely had a majority there, and would have needed nearly every single GOP member of the Senate to vote yes. I doubt very much they had the votes for that.

And now, after the election of 2018 in which the GOP managed to gain a few Senate seats, they almost certainly could pass such a bill in the Senate through reconciliation, because they probably could get a majority. But now, unfortunately, they no longer control the House.

Actually, a lot of people are reporting that if a bill including funding for the wall were to be voted on right now in the House, it could probably gain enough Democrats to get a slim majority there. However, Pelosi refuses to bring it up. Fancy that. She knows it will screw Trump, and cause a significant number of people on the right to turn against him. And then she reaps the rewards.]

Ilhan Omar might just be…

The New Neo Posted on by

…the most pernicious member of the House.

And that’s a hotly-contested position.

The bloggers at Powerline have been describing her activities for quite some time. If you’re interested in the background they provide, just go here.

The latest from Omar? She stands with Russia, Mexico, Turkey, Cuba, and all the other stalwart nations asking that the people of Venezuela continue to starve, and upholding a completely fraudulent election.

Of course, she doesn’t say it quite that way. Here’s how she says it:

Let’s see—

It’s not just “US-backed.” Nearly the entire west, and nearly all of Latin America, backs Guaido.

It’s not a “coup” (see this).

It’s not just “Trump’s efforts to install.” This is a bona fide move of the Venezuelan people against a dictator who has caused them great suffering.

It’s not “a far right opposition.” Guaido is somewhat of an unknown, but I have never seen any indication that “far right” would describe him.

I’ll grant her that perhaps it “will incite violence and further destabilize the region.” At least, temporarily. But the violence has already been “incited” by Maduro’s actions, and the “region” (Venezuela) is extremely unstable. There is hope that ultimately it will be less violent and less unstable.

This part is almost laughable: “We must support Mexico, Uruguay & the Vatican’s efforts to facilitate a peaceful dialogue.” There is no peaceful dialogue with Maduro. It is madness to think it possible. But I don’t think Omar thinks it’s possible. I think she’s just spouting memes the left likes to hear.

A three-week deal to give government workers pay

The New Neo Posted on by

Trump has made the following announcement:

President Donald Trump has announced that they have come to a deal to reopen the government for three weeks. He thanked the federal workers who went without work and promised they’ll receive their backpay soon.

The short term funding does not include wall funding…

The government could shut down again on February 16 if there is no agreement by then. He also threatened to declare a national emergency if there is no wall funding in a deal by February 15.

Interesting.

It temporarily takes the issue of “oh, the poor government workers and the mean GOP” off the table. Temporarily. And it pressures the Democrats a bit—just a bit—with the emergency funding threat. That, of course, would be challenged in court. A lower court could be found that would almost certainly rule against him, but what would SCOTUS say?

Venezuela: not a coup

The New Neo Posted on by

When I wrote yesterday’s post about the situation in Venezuela, I had assumed the uprising there supporting Maduro’s challenger Guaido was somewhat like a coup, albeit a justified one. But I hadn’t realized that the situation is less coup-like than I’d originally thought, although I was aware that Maduro’s last election was widely considered illegitimate and fraudulent both in Venezuela and abroad.

Blogger Daniel in Venezuela (who’s been my go-to guy for a long time for any Venezuela news) explains the rest:

– The election of Maduro in May 2018 has no legality or legitimacy. The election was convened outside the legal system (election in May to be sworn in in January, convened by an illegal constituent assembly, extremely unfavorable conditions for any candidate against Maduro, etc.)…

– The only Venezuelan political body that possesses the legitimacy of the ballot boxes and the constitutional legitimacy is the National Assembly. All others are 100% filled by the madurista regime sympathizers.

– On January 5, 2019 the National Assembly began its 2019 constitutional term and appointed a new board of directors supported by ALL opposition political parties. Juan Guaidó is the new president of the National Assembly.

– On January 10, by constitution mandate, an elected president has to be sworn in before the National Assembly (article 231). If he cannot do it because said assembly cannot sit, he will do it before a judge of the TSJ (supreme court). This was not the case in January since the National Assembly was in normal sessions. Nor is the argument of “contempt” of the Assembly valid since the oath is a symbol, not a law, and therefore the National Assembly is always valid for such ceremonies.

– The re-election of Maduro in May 2018 was not recognized,and thus he could not be sworn in before the Assembly, nor did this validate his oath of office before any other body…

– Therefore the National Assembly according to article 233 recognizes the lack of president in Venezuela and proceeds to the automatic assumption of the president of the National Assembly (Juan Guaidó in this case) as interim president until new elections are held in a period of 30 days.

– In this article 333 of the constitution supports the decision of the assembly since the Maduro regime has repeatedly violated the national constitution (appointment of judges at the wrong time, convocation to a constituent without a referendum, elections without guarantees, etc.) and therefore the Assembly is in duty to rescue the constitution.

– On January 23, Guaidó did not “swear” or “self-proclaim”. What Guaidó did on January 23 was to accept the responsibility of forming a 30-day interim government.

More at the link, but those are the basics.

A lot of people are spouting off about this without seeming to know any of it.

Here’s more from Daniel. I think this is especially of interest:

The regime has allowed, since Chavez time, the formation of armed paramilitary groups while there was an increase unchecked delinquency growth in popular areas so as to secure control. Once some those groups become discontent, the repression is mortal combat. In the traditional opposition areas, there are no weapons because Chavez took them away long ago.

Another reminder of the importance of the right to bear arms, and how aware dictators are of that fact.

The New York state abortion law

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s my quick take on the law just passed on abortion in New York state.

My first observation is that it’s an attempt to get a law in place that will set state rules for abortions if Roe v. Wade is overruled. I doubt very much that the latter will occur. But anyway, that’s the stated reason, and if there really is a repeal that isn’t just for some small element of Roe, and the right to set the abortion law is thrown back entirely on the states, each state will be passing such laws and they will be widely varied in their effect.

What are the main changes the New York law puts in place? The most controversial one—and rightly so—is the provision about late-term abortions. Roe and the later cases related to it don’t allow states to ban abortions prior to 24 weeks, but after that states are given a certain amount of leeway (see this for a state-by-state description of the current laws). New York’s prior law allowed late-term abortions when the fetus wasn’t viable and/or to save the life of the mother. The new law adds the provision that late-term abortions can be performed to preserve the mother’s health, and that includes mental health. Some other states have a similar provision (19 states, with another 20 limiting the “health” part to physical health).

So the New York law is hardly unique in this respect.

I’m troubled by abortion and have written about the topic quite a few times before (see these, and see this for a more personal story).

Late-term abortions are both especially horrific and especially sad—as well as an enormous flash point. Many of them occur with a baby that was wanted. Late-term abortions are rare, but some of them occur because a fetus has expired or is so malformed that its life would be short and full of suffering, and some occur in order to save the life of the mother.

Especially troubling is that provision about the “health” of the mother. This, in my opinion, amounts basically to abortion on demand of a fetus that is most likely viable. I’m old enough to recall very well the situation prior to Roe, when in certain states at certain times (I forget exactly which ones), abortion was banned and there was a legal exception made to save the life or health of the mother, and that included psychological health (at the time, these were almost never late-term abortions). Back then the psychological health provision was used to mean almost anything a psychiatrist said it meant. In practice, it could just mean that a woman was very upset. It seems to me that the psychological health provision could be used that way now in New York to allow late-term abortions essentially on demand, which would be a terrible thing.

More:

The updated New York law leaves it to doctors to decide when a woman’s health is at risk. Opponents argued that the law should have defined what constitutes a threat to a pregnant woman’s health.

Republican lawmakers say the change gives too much discretion to doctors, and could open the door to late-term abortions that are not medically necessary.

Here’s another fairly major change for New York:

The [new law] allows licensed nurse practitioners, physician assistants and licensed midwives to provide abortions, in addition to physicians.

The bill’s authors say the change is essential for rural parts of the state where women have limited access to doctors and it could take weeks before they can see a doctor.

Opponents say the change extends beyond the scope of Roe v. Wade and will ultimately result in an increase in the number of abortions in the state.

Senate Republicans argued that by allowing non-physicians to perform abortions, it will endanger the health of more women. The bill’s sponsors noted that most abortions today occur when a doctor administers a pill to a patient early in a pregnancy.

Would it also allow non-physicians to perform late-trimester abortions? I’ve tried to find the answer and so far haven’t discovered it. If so, though, it would seem even worse.

So far I’ve also been unable to locate whether the new law contains a second-physician provision for late-term abortions. This is what I mean:

Some states require the involvement of a second physician when a later-term abortion is performed.

14 states require that a second physician attend the procedure to treat a fetus if it is born alive in all or some circumstances.
9 states…require that a second physician certify that the abortion is medically necessary in all or some circumstances.

New York’s old law—the one that allowed late-term abortions only to save the life of the mother (or when the fetus was not viable) required a second physician to attend, according to the chart at that site. So it used to be one of those 14 states in the quote above. Whether it remains so, I do not know.

Nathan Phillips’ Vietnam service: in his own words

The New Neo Posted on by

I had originally thought Nathan Phillips had been cagey enough to merely use phrases that gave the impression he was a Vietnam vet who actually, you know, went to Vietnam. In other words, phrases such as “Vietnam times vet.”

But he’s said a lot more than that:

Phillips not only lied and claimed to have served “in theater” (every usage of that term I’ve ever seen means in some sort of conflict or war setting), he then lied about his lies:

…Thursday [today, that is] on the “Today Show”…

When asked to clarify whether he was saying that he served during the Vietnam war, but not in the war, Phillips adamantly denied ever saying that he was in theater.

“What I’ve always said is I’ve never stepped foot in south Vietnam. And that’s — I don’t know how clear — how much clearer can that be, you know?”

One of the interesting things about Phillips—besides being a con artist liar, that is—is that he keeps being tripped up by video evidence. He’s enough of a publicity-seeker that there is a video trail that he’s made that contradicts his current lies (that is true of his encounter with the Covington students, although the video trail that discredited him there wasn’t one he made himself or even had previously known about).

On the other hand, Phillips is probably correct in counting on the MSM to protect him from any charges of lying. We’ll see whether any of this becomes common knowledge.

A few more details about Phillips’ history:

Phillips also reportedly has a criminal history. A May 9, 1974 article in The Lincoln Star reported that Phillips, then 19 years old, was “charged with escaping from the Nebraska Penal Complex where he was confined May 3,” according to The Washington Examiner. He also reportedly had a charge of destruction of property dropped in 1973 and pleaded guilty to assault on June 19, 1974, for which he paid a fine of $200.

Phillips later reportedly served one year of probation for underage possession of alcohol and was charged in 1978 with driving without a license.

He also went AWOL three times during his stint in the military.

Quite a few people have been doing their homework on this guy—but it sure hasn’t been the MSM.

[NOTE: There’s also no indication Phillips was honorably discharged, another claim of his. This report states that he did not receive an honorable discharge, but I haven’t seen too much more about that. I doubt that at the time he made these videos making these claims, he thought he’d ever be the subject of enough attention to have people fact-checking him. So he felt free to state whatever he wanted.]

Covington and the politics of aggressive standing

The New Neo Posted on by

The starting point for this post was one of NBC’s Savannah Guthrie’s remarks to Nick Sandmann in her recent interview with the teenager:

There’s something aggressive about standing there. Standing your ground. You both stood your ground.

Both? Actually, Nathan Phillips didn’t stand his grand. Guthrie’s remark is typical of the more subtle ways in which the MSM has distorted the story (there are more overt ways as well). Phillips voluntarily walked up to Sandmann and got a few inches from him, beating a drum. That’s moving towards someone to invade that person’s space, both physical and aural.

The person whose space is invaded then has a choice of what to do. What are the choices? Let’s see.

Sandmann chose to stay put and smile, facing Phillips. It was an evil, disrespectful smirk, loaded with white-boy privilege and racist bile screams the Twitter mob.

In Sandmann’s interview, at one point he says:

…in hindsight I wish we could have walked away and avoided the whole thing.

Perhaps it’s more accurate to say he wishes Phillips had never come up to him in the first place. At any rate, I have some advice for Sandmann: it wouldn’t have mattered. If Sandman had somehow managed to walk away from Phillips, one (or more) of these things would have almost certainly resulted: Sandmann would have been criticized for disrespecting Phillips by walking away, and/or Phillips would have followed him beating that drum all the while, and/or Phillips would have focused the same technique on another boy.

So many people hated Sandmann’s smile (excuse me, smirk). But what if he hadn’t smiled? What facial expressions would not have constituted facecrime on the part a white preppy-looking teenaged boy (in a MAGA cap! Let’s not forget the MAGA cap!) being confronted by Phillips and his up-close-and-personal drumming and chanting? A grim face on Sandmann would have been considered even more “aggressive,” wouldn’t it? And laughing would have been even more disrespectful. Telling Phillips to get away? Perish the thought—racist! Turning his face away? Disrespectful again.

I’m not just trying to be cute here. I am serious in saying I believe there was nothing Sandmann could have done that would have changed the outcome, once he was selected as the target for the confrontation and the recording of the exchange on video by Phillips, who was accompanied by people with videocameras filming it from the start.

Enormous numbers of people considered Sandmann guilty on sight because of the categories of person to which he belongs, and because of what propaganda has guided them to believe. I almost wrote “guilty until proven innocent,” but that is too kind to those among them who will not even accept proof of innocence. They want him guilty, because it suits their political and their emotional purposes.

What’s going on in Venezuela?

The New Neo Posted on by

Hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans have turned out to demonstrate against the Maduro government, and this appears to include may former Maduro supporters:

Even the poorest areas, the beating heart of the country’s socialist government set up by Hugo Chavez, emptied as people joined the demonstrations.

The Chavez dream of a utopian socialist society is a distant memory now. The country is broke, inflation over a million percent, the currency worthless and government supermarkets empty of food and almost everything else.

In one of the city’s main squares thousands upon thousands gathered to see their hero, the speaker of the national assembly, Juan Guaido. He did not disappointment them.

Why now? The country’s been a basket case for a long time. Some of the timing has to do with finding a charismatic champion in the 35-year-old Guaido.

The police and military are still with Maduro, however. That’s extremely important. All over the world, turning points come for dictators when—and usually only when—one or both of those institutions decides it will no longer defend and protect and do the bidding of said dictator.

I hadn’t followed the build-up to this, and am not familiar with Guaido, Trump has lent his verbal support to Guaido, as have the leaders of Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Colombia, Peru, Chile, Guatemala, and Honduras.

Another factor in the timing is that Maduro (Chavez’s successor) was recently sworn in after “winning” another term under a very suspicious election widely considered fraudulent. And I mean widely:

Last May’s election was boycotted by the opposition and Mr Maduro’s strongest opponents were blocked from taking part.

The European Union and the US say the result was fraudulent.

And not just Trump and the EU (united at least on something), but also the OAS.

In retaliation, Maduro has told US personnel to leave the country, and:

US secretary of state Mike Pompeo has said the US will now conduct relations through Mr Guaido.

Mexico, Bolivia, Russia and Turkey have all sided with Mr Maduro.

It’s lonely at the top sometimes.

This is an attempted coup; it’s not a fair and free election. But Maduro was not elected fairly either, and he and his predecessor have ruined the country. It’s not hyperbole to say that Venezuelans are desperate and many are starving, an outrage in a country that used to be rich.

Guaido is promising free elections. But don’t they always? I hope he’s telling the truth, because he seems to be Venezuela’s only hope to free itself from the socialists who have been destroying it for much of the twenty-first century.

Some statistics on how many illegal immigrants never show up for their hearings

The New Neo Posted on by

This information was compiled by US immigration courts and recently given to Congress. The numbers apply to fiscal year 2017:

—43 percent of all aliens free pending trial failed to appear for court in 2017.
—Since 1996, 37 percent of all aliens free before trial disappeared from court.
—Aliens abscond from court more often today than they did before 9/11.
—Deportation orders for failing to appear in court exceed deportation orders from cases that were tried by 306 percent.
—46 percent of all unaccompanied children disappeared from U.S. immigration courts from 2013 through 2017.
—49 percent of unaccompanied children failed to appear in U.S. immigration courts in 2017.

It stands to reason that those who don’t appear are those with the most to hide—or, regarding the children, those who are being most exploited.

More:

In any other court system, such dysfunction would cry for redress. Only in U.S. immigration courts can litigants literally abandon their cases without fear of incarceration or removal, while litigants in nearly any other state or federal court risk arrest, contempt, and new charges for the same conduct. Federal law — 18 U.S.C. § 3146 — imposes penalties from one year all the way to 15 years or more for absconding from a U.S. district court or circuit court of appeals. Not so in federal immigration courts. Rarely, if at all, are aliens held accountable for the same misconduct that in other court systems would land them —or citizens— in jail and in some instances brand them felons.

Even more rarely are those who abscond from court ever found much less removed…

Never in 22 years of reporting has EOIR (i.e., Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Justice Department agency that manages the courts) squared with Congress and given an accurate description of failures to appear. Since 1996, it has dramatically understated FTA rates in its annual reports. In 2017, EOIR stated the FTA rate for all cases was 28 percent, never mentioning this number includes aliens whose trials occurred in detention facilities. In other words, EOIR calculates the FTA rate — or what it now calls the for all cases rate — by including those who could not evade court…

When accurate accounting is used, failure to appear rates in some years doubled the rates EOIR declared to Congress.

Please read the whole thing.