By Ray Judicata
JOTR Legal Expert
This is a speech I gave to the Limpieza de Sangre Society at its national convention in Knownothing, Indiana. I gotta say, some of those Limpieza folks are real kooks. They’re so far to the right, they’re to the left of me. If that makes sense. Does it? I don’t give a flying you-know-what. Their extremism makes Attila the Hun seem as mild as Casper the Ghost. Enough. Here is my speech:
Ladies and gentlemen of the Limpieza de Sangre Society. I can’t find words to express how pleased and honored I am to appear before a group of people who have worked so tirelessly to rid the United States of America of the dregs of humanity.
At last, we are about to have our day.
Finally, courageous people are speaking out against the evil you have preached about lo these many decades.
“Immigrants,” as polite society calls them.
“Wetbacks,” as we know them.
“Greasers.”
“Wops.”
“Spics.”
“Towel-heads.”
At last, we can call them what they are: People who don’t share our right-leaning values.
People who think society ought to protect the weak.
People who proclaim that we ought to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.
People who believe that all men are created equal and all women, too!
Now, thanks to those courageous few, we can call these lamebrains what they are.
Saps. Weak-kneed, lily-livered morons.
Polluters of the body politic.
The heroes I am talking about are calling for a two-track path to citizenship.
At last, we are hearing sense: Just because you are born in the U S of A doesn’t mean you should automatically be deemed a citizen.
We want to have something to say about who gets to be a citizen.
And this is where a legal scholar like myself can have some effect.
I hear self-styled constitutional scholars across the land scoffing at the idea of two-track citizenship.
They say the Constitution guarantees citizenship to anyone who is born within the borders of the U S of A.
So what if it does?
Does that mean we have to abide by it?
Not if we don’t like it and we can muster the power to defy the Constitution at will.
Screw the Constitution, I say, if we can get away with it.
What a marvelous opportunity to dump some miscreants I’ve been dying to de-citizize for years.
Is that a word — de-citizize?
Well, it is now.
I’ve got a little list, folks. I’ve got a little list.
For too long, this nation has labored under the delusion that every racially different, intellectually unsound or politically deviant person must have equal clout.
The time has finally arrived when we real white American men can talk openly about eliminating the wrong-believers in our midst.
As a legal expert, I want to propose something very radical. I want to tell you here today that purifying the blood of America is NOT unconstitutional.
The problem is that people have simply forgotten the most important institution embedded in the original founding document of this great Nation.
What institution am I referring to?
Well, at times, it has been called the “peculiar” institution, as if it somehow were disreputable.
And to be sure, generations of legal do-gooders have largely erased the effect of this constitutional language. But the idea, the very institution itself, remains a vibrant though latent part of our fundamental charter.
And yes, I am referring to that institution that dares not speak its name.
Slavery.
Did not, I ask you, did not the Constitution enshrine this divinely-ordained institution in our Constitution?
It boggles the mind that a Civil War was fought to abolish this heavenly-sanctioned status when slavery was woven into the very fabric of our constitutional system.
Anybody remember the three-fifths compromise?
C’mon — poli sci 101!
Right there in the Constitution. How do you count slaves for calculating the allotment of taxes and members of the U.S. House of Representatives?
A slave counted as three-fifths of a white.
I wouldn’t be a legal expert if I didn’t trot the very wording out for you:
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
The precedent is there, folks. All we have to do is revive it and use it.
If the Constitution justifies counting people of different skin color in different ways, why not differentiate when it comes to conferring citizenship?
Now, once we have established that citizenship is not automatically a birth right, thus creating the possibility of excluding pretty much anyone we don’t like, we will have our foot in the legal door.
Having established that citizenship can be diluted capriciously and arbitrarily, there will be nothing to stop us from yanking the citizenship of anyone whose skin color, religion, sexual preference, gender or ideological orientation we don’t appreciate.
Don’t throw that “man without a country” bullshit at me. These people would not be without a country. We need them right here in the good ol’ U S of A.
They will not be citizens, but they will be working for us.
As slaves!
And yes, logically, the selection process of de-citizenizing could lead us to the point were there would only be two citizens left in the good ol’ U S of A.
You and me.
And I’m not so sure about you!
