Reader’s Links for January 23rd, 2025

Posted on by

Each day at just after midnight Eastern, a post like this one is created for contributors and readers of this site to upload news links and video links on the issues that concern this site. Most notably, Islam and its effects on Classical Civilization, and various forms of leftism from Soviet era communism, to postmodernism and all the flavours of galloping statism and totalitarianism such as Nazism and Fascism which are increasingly snuffing out the classical liberalism which created our near, miraculous civilization the West has been building since the time of Socrates.

This document was written around the time this site was created, for those who wish to understand what this site is about. And while our understanding of the world and events has grown since then, the basic ideas remain sound and true to the purpose.

So please post all links, thoughts and ideas that you feel will benefit the readers of this site to the comments under this post each day. And thank you all for your contributions.

This is the new Samizdat. We must use it while we can.

For those interested, please check out https://vladtepesblog.substack.com/ as an another avenue of expression. The Substack is a different project in a sense. It is older videos that in the light of subsequent events, look different or of increased importance, Check it out now and again if you like.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

21 Replies to “Reader’s Links for January 23rd, 2025”

  1. American speculators importing substantial physical silver to hedge against their short positions not being covered in the event of tariffs on AG imports. (This video)

    PT may force AG up to hurt Chinese industrial demand. Chinese hold AU down to control USD/Yuan pricing.

    Lots going on.

  2. Interstate closed from Alabama border to Tallahassee
    by Brandon Girod and Tom McLaughlin – January 22, 2025
    https://www.pnj.com/story/weather/2025/01/22/northwest-florida-sees-8-8-inches-of-snow-roadways-remain-impassible/77874354007/

    WATCH LIVE: It’s snowing in Florida!
    FOX 35 Orlando – Streamed 1 day ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q32hl5rRPCA

    US Snowstorm LIVE: Parts of Florida Panhandle Shut Down by Historic Winter Storm | N18G
    Firstpost – started streaming 2 hours ago

  7. Old news, but I just discovered this, and others may be unaware too:

    Southport stabbing suspect appeared in BBC Children in Need as Doctor Who
    https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/southport-stabbing-suspect-appeared-bbc-29669248
    The 17-year-old suspected of murdering three children during a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport appeared in a BBC Children in Need video as Doctor Who.
    The footage from a 2018 Children in Need segment shows a younger Axel Rudakubana, aged 11 at the time, dressed similar to the iconic Time Lord and stepping out from the Tardis. He was part of a group of child actors participating in the special ‘it’s time to do your thing’ promotional clip.
    [..]

  9. The John Moore Show | 1.22.25 | Hour 3
    Guest: Jeff Nyquist
    https://www.brighteon.com/fd67315d-094b-4317-b40b-ce0a549d77e0

    Jeff mentioned Victor Rud.
    Victor Rud is a board member of the Ukrainian American Bar Association and chairman of its Committee on Foreign Affairs. Rud has more than 35-years of experience as an international attorney. Before Ukrainian independence, he was co-counsel, in the West, for members of the Ukrainian Helsinki Accords Watch Group, and for other dissidents in Ukraine. He was also counsel to the US Public Member to the Helsinki Accords Review Conference in Madrid. He is an honors graduate of Harvard College and Duke Law School.
    https://www.kyivpost.com/authors/242

    WILL UKRAINE BE THE WEST’S LAST BETRAYAL?” ASKS VICTOR RUD
    written by Victor Rud | December 22, 2024
    https://eutoday.net/will-ukraine-be-the-wests-last-betrayal-asks-victor-rud/

    Is America Teachable? Lessons Never Learned in our Dealings with “Russia”
    The Institute of World Politics – February 26, 2024

  10. The case for ending birthright citizenship The history of the law is misunderstood

    Does it make sense to automatically grant citizenship to the children of migrants? Credit: Getty
    14th amnendmentAmerican constitutionAmerican immigrationbirth tourismbirthright citizenshipCivil WarPoliticsUS
    Ryan Williams
    January 22, 2025 5 mins

    President Trump’s second term thrusts the question of birthright citizenship to the forefront of American politics: should the United States automatically grant citizenship to any child who happens to be born on US soil? Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution requires doing such a thing. Yet defenders of birthright shut down any debate by framing opposition as cruel and racist — and obviously wrong as a legal matter.

    But there is a strong constitutional and moral case for limiting birthright citizenship. It’s the argument that led the Trump administration to issue an executive order that defines a new status quo: going forward, children of illegal aliens won’t receive recognition of their citizenship by the US Department of State or any other executive agency.

    Start with the Constitution. The question of birthright citizenship goes back to the 14th Amendment, one of the three ratified in the immediate wake of the Civil War. The relevant portion reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The phrase at issue is “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (known as the jurisdiction clause). Proponents of birthright maintain that the phrase merely means subject to the laws and courts of the United States.

    Yet the debates over the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the legislation that led to the 14th Amendment, as well as the principles of the American founding, suggest a different interpretation.

    The 1866 act was meant to secure the full benefits of citizenship for recently freed slaves and their descendants — and all black citizens, for that matter. The law’s proponents were determined to convert it from legislation to constitutional text, thus insulating its protections from change by a future Congress. Hence, the 14th Amendment. This means that the legislative history of the 1866 act can help illuminate what the 14th Amendment was supposed to be all about.

    The 1866 legislation’s citizenship clause read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” A few months later, when the 14th Amendment was debated, the floor manager, Sen. Jacob Howard, described it as “simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already”, namely, that “every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

    By the “law of the land already”, Howard meant the recently passed 1866 Civil Rights Act. The then-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lyman Trumbull, addressing an objection over the absence of the Civil Rights Act’s phrase “Indians not taxed” from the 14th Amendment, stated that it was obvious that Indians were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States”.

    In such language from some of the 14th Amendment’s chief proponents, we can discern the outlines of an argument that the jurisdiction clause meant more than merely being subject to the law and courts on US soil. It had to do with a fundamental tenet of citizenship: loyalty or allegiance.

    So how did we end up with the children of even illegal aliens receiving automatic citizenship? The US Supreme Court first addressed the meaning of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment in an 1898 case. It concerned the fate of Wong Kim Ark, a child of Chinese nationals who were permanent US residents. In a 6-2 decision drafted by Justice Horace Gray, the high court held that the common law was the proper interpretive guide to the US Constitution’s text. Since the common law mandated birthright citizenship — jus soli as opposed jus sanguine, “right of soil” instead of “right of blood” — the child was a citizen under the 14th Amendment.
    “American citizenship … was never based in soil.”

    To this day, the case remains the controlling precedent for the maximalist position on birthright citizenship, cited by sympathetic judges and law professors on both sides of the aisle. Yet the dissenting opinion, written by Chief Justice Melville Fuller, offers an interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause that is more consonant with American principles of just government than Justice Gray’s opinion.

    Fuller argued that the common law couldn’t be the controlling authority, because in separating from the British Crown in 1776, the American colonists had elevated the principles of the Declaration of Independence over the common law. The common law of England contemplated subjects owing perpetual allegiance, rather than citizens of a government based on consent.

    Fuller was right. The common law didn’t come up at all during the debate over the 14th Amendment. There were no references to Sir Edward Coke or to Blackstone, the eminent English authorities on common law, and the lawmakers were much more comfortable speaking of the interaction between the principles of America and her institutions than they were citing English precedents on jus soli.

    They believed that the principles of the Declaration would control — and, where necessary, overrule — the common law of England. If human equality is a fact of nature, then nobody may rule another without their consent. All ought to enjoy their liberties and the pursuit of happiness alike. The existence of slavery, the ensuing crisis brought on by the conflicts between these principles and American practice, and the subsequent Civil War are the historical context for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. American citizenship, defined constitutionally for the first time in the 1860s, was never based in blood. But crucially, it was never based in soil, either.

    American citizenship was based on consent. Wong Kim Ark, then, should be overturned, and we should have a robust national debate about citizenship, immigration, and national allegiance. Congress is well within its enforcement powers under section 5 of the 14th Amendment to restrict birthright citizenship much more than it does currently.

    Let’s start with two issues on which we might reach a broad national consensus: illegal immigration and birth tourism. It seems to go against common sense to allow a million or two immigrants to cross our southern border illegally and then to confer citizenship upon the children they may have here.
    Suggested reading
    The progressive case against immigration

    By Lee Fang

    Children of foreign soldiers born on US soil have always been excluded from birthright citizenship, in the same way as the children of ambassadors and diplomats. It’s controversial to call the flood of economic migrants of recent years a slow-moving invasion — but what of the subset of that group that constitute criminals, foreign spies, and terrorists? Does it redound to American national interest or civic health to confer citizenship on any children they may produce on US soil?

    Is it prudent, let alone just, to allow wealthy foreigners from China or Russia to purchase birth-tourism packages costing as much as $100,000 and including a final-trimester hospital stay in Florida or California as well as a fresh US passport for the new babies? Should we be in the business of exporting tens of thousands of newly minted Americans every year, with all the attendant privileges and benefits, to the homelands of our foreign adversaries?

    To be sure, the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause is contested. The prospects for overturning Wong Kim Ark any time soon are remote. But even under the Wong Kim Ark precedent, controlling emphasis was placed on the importance of Ark’s parents being “permanently domiciled” in the United States. Let’s update and apply that precedent to a world transformed by transportation technology in the ensuing 127 years. If you are not a lawful permanent resident, any children you may have in the United States are permanent residents with you, not automatic citizens.

    The next step after Trump’s executive order will be to get the American people more involved, which means Congress should debate, openly and with great fanfare, the meaning of the 14th Amendment on the relationship between birth, citizenship, and government by consent. None of these issues is as settled or obvious as defenders of birthright citizenship insist.

    https://unherd.com/2025/01/the-case-for-ending-birthright-citizenship/

  11. I have no idea if this is old news but……….

    Unacceptable Jessica cross-posted a post from COVID Chronicles

    Jessica RoseJan 25 · Unacceptable Jessica

    Alberta’s Report on COVID-19 “pandemic” response
    The Government of Alberta’s Report on Their Investigation Into the COVID-19 Pandemic Response
    It confirms big problems with public health and provides a roadmap for how to do it right the next time around; let justice and healing begin.
    Dr. Byram W. Bridle
    Jan 25

    Cutting Edge News

    Moments ago the Government of Alberta released a report following an investigation into the province’s response to the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    The announcement can be found in this X post from, Eric Bouchard, a member of Alberta’s legislative assembly.

    The report itself can be found here.

    This is a report that is well-worth reading from beginning to end. The government identified numerous major problems with the handling of the pandemic response by Alberta Health Services. It is important to note that the current government in Alberta is not responsible for how the province responded to COVID-19. That responsibility falls upon the shoulders of the previous government. Thankfully, the current government is interested in knowing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They also believe in being transparent with the public that they serve.

    One of my biggest concerns from the report is identified in the opening letter where it states, “Our quest for answers was impeded by barriers, including reluctance from key stakeholders to engage with the Task Force’s mandate“. Shame on those involved with developing and implementing COVID-19 policies that failed to cooperate with officials from a sitting government that launched this investigation for the wellbeing of the public. The lack of transparency from whomever these key stakeholders are is unacceptable.

    What I appreciate most about the report is that it is constructively critical, providing a path forward, that includes refocusing the mandate of public health services back onto the public as the primary clientele, as opposed to acting in the service of pharmaceutical companies. It serves as a blueprint to guide future responses. The path forward is based largely on traditional best practices that were established by truly following the science and forged in the successful management of historical outbreaks. It is highly reminiscent of the national pandemic response plans that existed in 2020; the ones that were supposed to be implemented for COVID-19 but that were thrown out within days of the pandemic being declared.

    I can’t help but wonder how many lives could have been saved, how many hospitalizations could have been prevented, and how much healthier our population and current economies would be if this far more appropriate, science-based plan would have been implemented back in 2020.

    This report from the Government of Alberta provides a precedent for the world as overwhelming numbers of people wake up and realize the need for massive reforms within public health.

    Further, the report validates many of the concerns that a lot of people had about the response to COVID-19. The totality of evidence highlights how egregious it was to have vilified critical thinkers who simply wanted to engage in robust discussions out of genuine concerns for others and not fall victim to propaganda. Firing people who didn’t want to be coerced into having experimental medical interventions and debatable policies thrust upon them, de-licensing and disciplining independent-thinking health care professionals, and censoring experts under the nefarious disguise of ‘combating misinformation’ and ‘fact checking’; THEY WERE ALL EGREGIOUS WRONGS.

    There should be fallout from a damning report like this. The gross mismanagement of COVID-19 has created a huge hot mess. The path forward starts with acknowledging this. Then we need to plot a course to navigate through this mess and thoroughly clean it up. These are essential if there is ever to be healing for all those that were victimized by power brokers that blindly followed propaganda and bought into the hatred and divisive tactics that were passionately modelled by the prime minister on down.

    Building on this report, I am honoured to have been invited to speak at an upcoming event in Alberta. It is An Injection of Truth: Healing Humanity.

    My talk will dovetail with this report from the Government of Alberta. The event is going to focus on the four pillars of healing. My presentation will start with ripping off the scab and exposing lies from public health agencies that contributed to a myriad of problems within the pandemic response. It will transition into providing some practical recommendations with respect to where we go from here.

    Please consider posting your thoughts about this report in the comments section. Do you agree with aspects? Disagree with others? Were criticisms too light or too harsh? Were key issues missed? What do you think about the ideas for moving forward? This is opportunity to provide feedback. You have a sitting government that is showing a willingness to listen to all parties and perspectives. I will share feedback with the Members of the Legislative Assembly that I will be meeting in Alberta on March 3rd.

    • I think there should be an investigation into the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons all across Canada. Here in Ontario too many doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers either lost their licenses or hospital privileges simply for refusing the so called vaccine.
      How many foreign healthcare workers have been allowed in to Canada? Are any of them vaccinated?

      How many newspaper columns were devoted to attacking anyone who had a “different” opinion of the vaccines. Why did some news organizations run a daily number of Covid cases but never mentioned the numbers of vaccine injuries or deaths shortly after being vaccinated.

      How many people died because they could not get medical treatment. I had to wait many months to have a detached retina operation and as a result lost 30% vision in my eye. And I consider myself one of the lucky ones.

      I wonder how many people know why the truckers were in Ottawa. A man was speaking in a public place the other day about the insurrection that took place in Ottawa. I finally interrupted him and said Shame on all the people who were OK with what Justine Trudeau, Chrystia Freeland, Jagmeet Singh, and Mark Carney all the NDP and Liberals who labeled the truckers terrorists and how they were treated. Those Canadian citizens had every right to protest the vaccines. Nuremberg never again was forgotten.

      I was pleased to hear the 9 people in line say “I’m with her, it should never have happened, shame on all who has supported this misfit government for their actions.

  12. Another Jupp tidbit:

    I tried to post it but instead received this:
    ## NOC.org/cdn
    ## Website firewall – Access denied

    Your request has been blocked.

    Time: 2025-01-25 08:34:00
    Your IP: 165.228.224.56
    Reason: exploit_post_sqli2 (access denied)

    ## eof

    A Reply to Bishop Budde
    Perhaps it is time for you to hear some pleas, as well.
    Jupplandia
    Jan 24

  13. I tried to post an excellent Jupp article but received this denial

    ## NOC.org/cdn
    ## Website firewall – Access denied

    Your request has been blocked.

    Time: 2025-01-25 08:34:00
    Your IP: 165.228.224.56
    Reason: exploit_post_sqli2 (access denied)

    ## eof

    I am not a patient person so if posting his articles is not on then I won’t waste my time.