Daniel Oliver

Diversity Is Our Strength, You Christo-Fascist!

Does anyone who doesn’t live in a gated community or who can’t afford private security guards really believe that diversity is a virtue?

Following the leak of the draft Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on abortion, first-year Yale Law School student Shyamala Ramakrishna referred to members of the Federalist Society as “Christo-fascists.”

The Washington Free Beacon added nonchalantly, “Some of her classmates were less moderate.” You might agree. The Free Beacon quoted another first-year student, Melisa Olgun, as saying: “Neither the constitution nor the courts—nor the f—ing illusion of ‘democracy’—are going to save us. How can we possibly expect a document, drafted by wealthy, white, landowning men, to protect those who face marginalization that is the direct result of the very actions of the founders?”

It is not known from under which rock those Yale law students emerged (or who let them matriculate), but you can be reasonably sure they subscribe to the mantra, endlessly repeated by the most dishonest woman ever to foul the American political scene, “Diversity is our strength.” 

Saying “diversity is our strength” is no longer the way to win friends and influence people in Europe, whose history with that experiment bears examining and remembering. 

A 2015 attack by immigrants in Sweden would, according to the Washington Post, prove to be “one of the most scandalous in recent Swedish history.” A mother and son, both Swedes, “died from their stab wounds. The two suspects, [Abraham] Ukbagabir and a fellow Eritrean named Yohannes Mahari” were arrested for murder. Was anyone surprised?

According to Reuters, “the number of people in Sweden born abroad has doubled in the last two decades to 2 million, or a fifth of the population.” One study reports that Arabic is now the second most popular language in Sweden. 

It is generally agreed that Sweden’s attempt to integrate the vast numbers of immigrants it has taken in over the past two decades has failed miserably, and that that has led to parallel societies and gang violence.

Bloomberg News reported in 2018 that “anti-immigrant parties have long linked Muslim immigration to crime, but verifiable data to support their arguments have been scarce, not least because police services and statistical agencies have been reluctant to track this aspect of criminality so as not to increase tension in societies.” And that was even before the woke Left started riding the range. 

“Research done in the Netherlands, which has a large Moroccan population, has at times shown a connection between the immigrants’ home culture and their propensity to violence,” the Bloomberg report continues.

Hmm. Does that mean different cultures produce people with different ideas about how one should . . . behave in a “civilized” society? Or even what a “civilized society” really is?


How many of those people from Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia would you want living near you?

An opinion poll in Germany a few years ago showed that 55 percent of those polled thought that Muslims were a burden on the economy. One has to wonder what the other 45 percent thought—and why. Maybe they’re the people who don’t have to mix with immigrants. In a moment of candor in 2010, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel said German multiculturalism had “utterly failed.” Has much improved in the 12 years since? 

Can a society have an infinite variety of “peoples” in it? Can America survive if it becomes a diverse society? Is there something special about America? About American democracy? Immigrants like the Syrians in Sweden may never (or certainly not soon) become a fifth of the U.S. population, but they could easily become a fifth, or enough, of your town, to produce, for your town, the problems that are plaguing Europe. 

John Jay wrote in Federalist 2 of “one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government.” 

Does anyone who doesn’t live in a gated community or who can’t afford private security guards really believe that diversity is our strength? 

Probably not—and not because they don’t believe in allowing some “strangers” into our midst, but because they want to keep America . . . America, and that means letting in only those people who understand and accept our traditions. 

Why, after all, do people come to America, governed by (or if not really governed by at least inspired by) “a document, drafted by wealthy, white, landowning men, to protect those who face marginalization that is the direct result of the very actions of the founders”? 

Perhaps because whatever its imperfections may seem to be, America’s system of government beats all the other systems on offer. America’s system is, still—but for how long?—a beacon of Western Civilization, which is at its heart a Christian civilization. 

Diversity is not our strength, as people who call us “Christo-fascists” make abundantly clear.


June 2, 2022
American Greatness

Did Chief Justice John Roberts Kill Cock Robin?

Roberts made a Supreme Court that is political instead of judicial. That’s where the buck stops now.

Question: Who killed Cock Robin?

Answer: His killing is not relevant to who leaked the draft Supreme Court decision on the abortion case.

Ah, but it is! The answer to the above question is known in legal circles as a “nonresponsive answer.” It is relevant to at least part of the current discussion. 

Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) are claiming that when they interviewed Donald Trump’s nominees to the Supreme Court or followed what the nominees said at their confirmation hearings, the nominees gave assurances that they would not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Murkowski said: “I think you look to some of the statements that were made in the confirmation, specifically to Roe, about precedent, and there’s a reliance factor there.” Collins said: “[The decision] would be completely inconsistent with what Justice [Neil] Gorsuch and Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.”

That seems most unlikely. Dissembling is simply not what Supreme Court nominees do—if only because they tend to be skillful enough wordsmiths to mollify a hostile interrogator without dissembling. But, on the other hand, the claim of being double-crossed—or double spoken to—is precisely the kind of claim to which a senator facing a difficult reelection campaign (e.g., Collins) might have to resort. It seems more likely that a campaigning politician will . . . stretch the truth than a Supreme Court nominee would dissemble. 

Here’s a story, which comes with good provenance, that Collins and Murkowski, and all the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health opponents, should ponder: Anthony Kennedy was asked by “the White House” (i.e., by someone in the White House who was vetting him for the Supreme Court) if he was opposed to abortion. The question’s import was clear: Are you likely to overrule Roe if you get the chance? Send us a signal. Kennedy’s answer was: “I’m Catholic.” 

Alas. That is known in legal circles, and to readers of this column who have been paying attention, as a “nonresponsive answer.” 

And the rest, one might say, is history (Kennedy went on not to oppose abortion in critical cases)—except that part of that history, and an important part, seems about to be changed. But who caused the leak? 

Chief Justice John Roberts.

No, Roberts may not have actually slipped the draft opinion to Politico, but he fostered the atmosphere where that sort of thing could happen. Roberts is a nice fellow, but he hasn’t run a tight ship where things like this simply don’t happen. Harry Truman would understand. Truman knew where the buck stopped. And in this case, it stops with Roberts.

But there’s more: Roberts has been an overtly political justice, an overtly political chief justice. We saw that in his 2012 opinion for the Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. He embarrassed himself and the Court when he upheld Obamacare on spurious grounds. By switching his vote, he created a decision, and a Court, that was political instead of judicial. Because of who he is, he didn’t want to affirm or deny; he looked for middle ground where there wasn’t any. That is politics. 

Leaking is a political act, too. It’s a natural progression from Roberts’ behavior in the Obamacare case. It’s a further traducing of our standards of civilized and law-abiding behavior.   

And here’s another example: In March 2020, during a protest rally in front of the Supreme Court as it was hearing a case involving an abortion question, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) bellowed threats at Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

What price is there for them to pay? They can’t be fired. Their salaries can’t even be reduced. Is there a price other than bodily harm that Schumer had in mind? Theoretically, they would know “what hit them” if they were only punched and kicked, but not if they were struck, in the right place, by a bullet. But then again, maybe Schumer was just warning them to be terrified of . . . what he might say about them in his autobiography? Please. Schumer was threatening democracy—a delicate and beautiful thing. Like Cock Robin. 

You might not have been frightened at the time by Schumer’s remarks. But consider what happened afterward: a summer of rioting, burning, looting, and yes, killing, all winked at, and even justified, by many of the same people who militantly support abortion. Oh, yes, that’s not their only defining characteristic. But the complete disregard for the rule of law by those people—who are now the people running the country!—should frighten everyone, including Supreme Court justices.

John Roberts should make amends by not issuing the decisions until it’s too late for Democrats to campaign on the issue in the coming congressional elections.  

How do civilizations collapse? Ernest Hemingway might have answered, “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” At what stage are we now? 

Cock Robin is dead. We should take his death seriously. Because whoever killed Cock Robin is coming for us, too.


May 12, 2022
American Greatness