Search This Blog


Tuesday, June 28, 2016


To those of you who are aware that Donald Trump has just cost Republicans the election, don't expect an apology. If The Donald knows one thing, he knows that saying you're sorry is just asking for MORE2. The Red Cross poster wasn't racist. Racist people saw the poster and—because racists are always looking for racism—immediately focused on the two white people labeled as cool. They completely ignored the white people labeled uncool because ... the critics of this poster are RACISTS!

Now the Red Cross has apologized and let it be known that they're taking down this poster wherever it was plastered. This—(apologizing)—was obviously the worst thing they could have done. They have admitted guilt. They have shown weakness. They—the Red Cross—are now vulnerable to the many millions of umbrageous black racists who carry a life-long chip on their shoulders and constantly look for weakness and white-guilt in every non-black face they interact with. The Red Cross made a poster. It could have been thought out a little bit better. The Red Cross has apologized. IDIOTS!
The Red Cross has since ceased production of the poster, removed it from their website and mobile Swim App, and requested that any facilities that have the poster displayed take it down.

“As one of the nation’s oldest and largest humanitarian organizations, we are committed to diversity and inclusion in all that we do, every day,” Red Cross said in their apology.

Still, Ebony Rosemond, founder of Black Kids Swim, an online resource for black swimmers, feels that the organization’s official statement is insufficient.

Rosemond told The Washington Post that African Americans have long faced discrimination at pools and beaches, adding that there are not many regulation-sized pools for swimming or diving in black neighborhoods. She also said that images like the one published by Red Cross could discourage young black people from swimming in public pools, KUSA reported.

“In connection with the lack of images showing African Americans excelling in swimming, the poster doesn’t make you feel welcome — it suggests to a black child that you’re not welcome here,” Rosemond told the Washington Post.

“We want to restate that that apology is insufficient,” Rosemond added. “And their system for creating and evaluating material needs to be looked at, and they need to be extremely diligent to make sure that every poster is taken down.”
Now those who are guilty must be identified. It wasn't the entire Red Cross. Answers must be given: Who were the artists? Who approved this RAAAAAACIST poster for publication? Who funded this RAAAAAAACIST poster? Who put it up on their pool fence or locker room wall? Who can be blamed? WHO CAN WE BLAME! WHO CAN WE BEAT LIKE A WHITE-BOY PIÑATA?

UPDATE 06/28/2016 4:15PM CST
It’s an issue that’s flown pretty quietly under the media radar, but the 19 “rules of engagement” originally drawn up by Black Lives Matter organizers in Ferguson and largely agreed to by the mayor of St. Louis have gradually transformed into a more comprehensive list of demands known as Campaign Zero and been shopped around Washington, D.C. to politicians like Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

One of the platforms of Campaign Zero is to require that current and prospective police officers undergo mandatory implicit racial bias testing, the results of which would be factored into hiring, deployment, and performance evaluations.

The U.S. Justice Department announced on Monday that more than 33,000 federal agents and prosecutors will receive training aimed at preventing unconscious bias from influencing their law enforcement decisions. …

In a memo to Justice Department employees, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates said the program targets “implicit biases” – subtle, unconscious stereotypes or characterizations nearly everyone makes about certain groups of people. …

The training will be mandatory for all Justice Department agents and prosecutors and will be rolled out over the next year, Yates said.

Arrest data compiled by some police departments have shown that black and Hispanic men are more likely to be stopped by police than others, suggesting officers may be exerting implicit bias in deciding whom to question or apprehend.
h/t Moonbattery

Sunday, June 12, 2016

What do I want to say?

What do I want to say? No, no useless condolences. No, no sarcastic, ironic, sardonic etc. comments about who they were, where they were. No. No outrage about gun control or lack of gun control. No talk of Heaven or Hell. No political wondering. When will people wake up and realize that there is one existential threat to civilization itself. How many times do we have to suffer this before America stands up, faces its enemy, and declares all-out unremitting merciless death to followers of the Anti-Christ AKA Muslims?

They won't stop. Why do we?

Tuesday, June 7, 2016

Trump's chances inscrutable because MSM

Polls can't predict this thing. It's only June and the mainstream media has five more months to whack the Trump Piñata with the PC stick. What's funny is that they keep expecting him to apologize. They keep expecting him to change his tune. They keep expecting that their pressure will at some point, force him to finally at long last change his schtick. I wonder if one of the richest men on Earth is aware of something that I've noticed in my half-century on this lying treacherous dirtball of a planet. Give these scumbags an inch and they'll take everything you have and then keep piling on for another twenty years. Back up one little inch and you might as well pack your bags and go home, dig a hole in the backyard, climb in and pull the dirt in on top of you.

Reporters today are nothing more than a vast pool of bloodthirsty sharks who feed on humiliation. Seeing the sweat on the brow of their latest victim and exulting at the fear in the eyes of their fresh sacrificial goat is what they desire.


Hold on! Allow me to mediapomorphize for just a minute or two.

I'll attempt to climb into the mind of a misanthropic liberal self-promoting douche-nozzle like Matt Taibbi or Chuck Todd. I'll attempt to think as they might think. Okay here goes:

Now then, if I'm a liberal piece of shit ... what is it that I really want? I want socialism! Okay, but why would I want that? Because I want to be the leader of course, but since no sane human being would ever trust me with power over them, I need to be granted that power by a jackbooted thug. A bully in the local schoolyard parlance. So, what's so important about having power? Well that's simple. I was picked on and bullied as a kid. Yes of course I was! I was a poncy little poofter—that means an effeminate self-important pretentious little asshole who was universally hated by every single person that ever knew me, except for my mother of course who breastfed me on dreams of world domination. I want power so that first I can get even with the people I learned to despise, and second so that I'll finally be treated as I truly deserve, like the world-conquering hero I really am. Kiss my royal ass you worms! Grovel like you mean it! So anyway that's me and my personality ... and that's why today I'm a misanthropic liberal self-promoting douche-nozzle.

Where was I? Oh yeah, I was explaining how my shitty childhood was what made me such a contemptible bloodthirsty misanthrope.

I learned as a young boy that the best way to avoid humiliation from the local schoolyard jackbooted thug was to deflect that humiliation the bully was looking to dish out onto someone else. I learned to be like that little chihuahua next to the big bulldog in the Looney Tunes cartoons.

It wasn't long before I discovered my true talent. What I do best is expose weakness in others. I've learned to excel and to revel in pointing out other's weaknesses, their character flaws, their educational flaws, their non-politically correct opinions, their closet racism, homophobia, you name it. If they fear others knowing something I can smell it on them like the stink of terror-piss down a trouser leg.

Okay, so that's it. That's the mainstream media. That's who they were, who they are, who they want to be. That's their life, their mindset and now perhaps you have a better understanding of who you're watching when you flip on that idiot box.

What I expect now—because I've seen this play out over and over like an endless rerun of Groundhog Day—is for the mainstream media to keep throwing dirt. Accusations of anything and everything. I expect baby mamas to come forward, rape victims to come forward, racism victims to come forward, people who got cheated, tyrannized, beaten, even murdered. it doesn't matter how asinine the claim, they're going to throw it all at Trump and wait for him to flinch. If he does...he loses.

How much shit can a jungle full of apes throw in five months? Folks they have a word for that. It's called a shit-storm!

Saturday, June 4, 2016


You may have heard the cliché "Hell is where the heart is," or some variation thereof. So many different religions believe that everlasting fiery torment awaits nonbelievers, that one could almost say: Life is like a Baskin-Robbins 31 flavors. If you happen to pick exactly the right religious flavor then congratulations, you don't go to Hell. But maybe Hell awaits no matter what? You thought vanilla was safe. Everybody likes vanilla. Imagine it. There you are, King James Bible clutched to your bosom. The psalms come tripping off your tongue like water from the tap. Your life has been one long song and dance of religious fervor, and to say that you "believe" is the greatest understatement ever known since ... "So you say there's Carolina Reaper in this chili I'm eating?"

And in spite of all that believing, praying, Gospelizing, charity, good deeds, self-flagellation, wearing hair shirts, poverty, rubbing ashes on your face...look surely by now you get the picture! With all that what if you die and still wake up in Hell? You picked the wrong religious flavor and now Eternity in Hell is your reward!

I wonder if anyone's done a study. Out of X number of religions the number that believe nonbelievers go to Hell is Y which can be mathematically graphed as such:

I think it's the ubiquitous belief in a punishment for not belonging, and a reward for belonging, a belief in Hell for the nonbelievers and Heaven for the believers that has poisoned the well and caused the world to be broken into these two camps. Those who look at the "Big Bang" and say, "Yes but what caused the Big Bang," and those who say: "Well of course! Obviously there was a big bang, an explosion that created our universe. What more do you need to know. One camp says: "First there was no life on Earth and then there was life. How did that happen?" and the other camp who says: "One popular theory is that life started on the backs of crystals." Or the even more popular: "I don't know how it started and I don't care, but the one thing I do know is that it wasn't some magic man in the sky, who punishes the bad little boys and rewards the good little boys. I know that much."

Okay, since you don't know how, but you do know how not, could life have been started by a blob of yogurt falling to Earth from a parallel dimension? Since you know it wasn't a magic man in the sky—never mind how you know, you just know somehow—could life have been started by a clod of lifeless dirt suddenly standing up and orating with such potency that it induced another lifeless clod of dirt into becoming a life partner in this their shared delusion of existence? It wasn't a magic man in the sky it was ... Shazam! Yeah! That's the ticket! It was this mystical comic book character who's magic is so powerful that within the very mists of fate themselves, a moment in spacetime happened when the very idea of Shazam became an actual idea though of course far separated from matter time or space itself. This idea of Shazam thought of by timespace itself was so powerful that it set in motion a chain of events that guaranteed the creation of Shazam's eventual creators. It's like bowling a perfect 300 score game before your parents were even born! That's how much of a badass Shazam is!

Here's what happens when you start talking Intelligent Design. The atheist argues thusly: "So if it wasn't random chance that created life, it must have been a magic man in the sky who created Eve with a rib and sentenced every human on Earth to burn for Eternity if they happen to not believe that there actually is a magic man in the sky." Then when you try to talk rationally, about possibles and impossibles, they can't help it. Off they go into some absolutely uninterruptible rant about Zeus Thor magic men in the sky ribs and some evil guy who lurks below waiting for nonbelievers. They don't just rant about how silly it all is, they literally go off into long soliloquys where they pretend to be God and then become the Devil. The atheist has a pretend argument with himself until you start to wonder, am I having an origin of life debate with Smeagol?

So Heaven and Hell. Those are the big show stoppers. The only way to debate an Atheist rationally is to somehow get him to shut up about those two. This is impossible of course, unless you possess prodigious MMA skills or alternatively sneakily slip a roofie into the unshutupable's wheatgrass smoothie.

Friday, May 27, 2016

Fat drunk and stupid, is no way to go through life, son.

That's a scene from Animal House, a raunchy teen movie about horny sybaritic college kids who care more about partying and getting it on than about their future. Hmmm that sounds exactly like practically every young person I know! When I was in my twenties I'm sure I thought I knew everything that was worth knowing. I assume that older people in dealing with me must have felt about like how I feel in dealing with twenty-somethings who already know everything there is to know. You can't tell them shit. If you're in your forties or fifties you must have met younger people [kids to be honest] who reflexively contradict almost everything you say, without even bothering to parse what you just said.

I saw something this morning that amazed me, and also saddened me. A young black woman was ahead of me in line at McDonald's. She carefully counted her money and finally ordered. She ordered a sausage, egg, and cheese biscuit and a small water. Her order came to right at four bucks. I never intervene in these things, by the way. If the lady wants to order that, far be it from me to try to tell her anything, but let's face facts, I've tried to tell young people things lots of times and its always been a complete waste of breath. The lady at the McDonald's is black and I'm white, therefore I don't know shit. She's young and I'm old, therefore I don't know shit. She's a woman and I'm a man...therefore I don't know shit. So since I don't know shit, I bit my tongue and never mentioned that a sausage biscuit at McDonald's is $1.00, and that an egg and cheese biscuit is $1.40.

Monday, May 23, 2016

Fisking Elizabeth Holtzman's logic about "Male Logic"

With the presumptive GOP nominee having just predictably pledged fealty to the gun lobby, the time has come to scrutinize carefully one of the key legal underpinnings of Second Amendment rights in America.
Elizabeth, don't you also predictably think the time has come to scrutinize carefully one of the key legal underpinnings of Second Amendment rights every time some nutjob brings his assault rifle to a gun-free zone?
This is the idea that gun rights are sacrosanct because firearms are crucial for heads of household — meaning, mostly men — to protect their families from intruders. It was most famously articulated by the late Antonin Scalia, whom Donald Trump has called “a brilliant Supreme Court justice.”
No Elizabeth, gun rights are "sacrosanct," in the same way that freedom of religion is sacrosanct, in the same way that freedom of speech is sacrosanct. Our freedoms are sacrosanct: our freedom to assemble, the right of due process, the freedom to come and go, the freedom to live our lives freely without the heavy boot of government stepping on our necks.

Isn't that what you really abhor Elizabeth Holtzman, the lack of a heavy government boot on our necks? You want to grind us all down so that everyone can be as abjectly miserable as you apparently are. Misery loves company, and you miserable left-wing control-freaks are freaking out because with all these guns, Americans can fight back when people like you come for us with the metaphorical slave collars of higher taxes, price controls, wage controls, mandatory this, that, and the other thing. You want to take our guns because that's the first step which leads to the next step where you raise taxes, and the step after that has you raising taxes again. And the step after that has you enacting price and rent controls, and printing more money, and more money and more money and raising taxes and because of the price controls and the worthless fiat money there won't be any more products on grocery store shelves. The next step has people of your ilk, Elizabeth, trying to control—by fiat—currency valuations, and the list of government controls and manipulation goes on and on. Demanding the people do what you say at gunpoint is what you want...because you people—politburo apparatchiks and your goons—will still have guns, but nobody else will.

If you want to watch it in action, take a look at Venezuela. Their whole economy was based on the sale of one product. The socialist regime—which you desire Elizabeth—was unable to attract entrepreneurs of any kind to its shores, because ... hello socialism! Thus they rode the oil wave until "predictably," they wiped out.
In 2008, Scalia wrote the Supreme Court opinion striking down Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns (District of Columbia vs. Heller). He argued that it violated an individual’s Second Amendment right of self-defense — even though the Second Amendment does not mention any right of self-defense, and refers to the right to bear arms only in the context of a “well-regulated” militia.
The Second Amendment states: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sentence states two separate things, separated by a comma. Notice that it does not say "As long as a well regulated militia is necessary, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment's semantic "logic" is inescapable, Elizabeth. The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! It's simple English Elizabeth, yet you keep trying to twist it to mean something else. I've already told you why you keep trying, deny it though you will.
In re-reading the justice’s opinion recently, I realized that it was rooted in sexist stereotypes that seriously taint his analysis.

Scalia’s support for the right to keep a loaded handgun in the house is based on his image of a “person in the founding era” (when the Constitution was adopted), who uses “a gun to protect him and his family.” While not restricting self-defense rights to men, the justice’s language suggests a traditional, outdated scenario where the man of the house with his gun wards off the intruder bent on harming his wife and children. For Scalia, “defense of hearth and home” is central to the Second Amendment, as is his assumption that the man of the house is the protector of its occupants.
Oh, here we go! It seems as though Elizabeth has gone off the rails of her gun control rant and into some wacky feminist screed where she angrily denounces the Patriarchy and all its baggage of which guns are a traditional part. Guns and men. Soldiers, cowboys, Clint Eastwood, Charles Bronson ... So a man protecting his home with a gun pisses you off? Seriously? Well please, tell us why that might be?
But, the scenario in Scalia’s mind is not the only way guns present themselves in American homes. In reality, the man of the house may be a batterer, child abuser, an alcoholic, under the influence of drugs or mentally unstable — and pose a grave danger with his gun to other members of the family.
It doesn't matter! If the "man of the house"—or woman of the house Elizabeth—is a batterer, child abuser, alcoholic, drug user, mentally unstable, then the problem is the man or woman of the house. Are you going to take all the knives, all the forks, all the furniture, the blunt objects, the strangling cords and rope, the walls themselves? If somebody wants to hurt somebody else, they don't need a gun to do it.
Even when the gun owner’s motives are benign, a gun in the house creates an enormous risk to its occupants. By focusing seemingly exclusively on the gun owner’s self-defense rights in the rare case of a criminal intruder, Justice Scalia blinds himself to the much more common case where the rights of family members and others to personal safety are jeopardized/threatened by the rights of the gun owner.

Consider the statistics on gun violence in the home. As the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has noted, a “gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.”

Over 80% of firearm deaths among children under 14 take place in the home —- mostly through accidental use of a gun by children. As Brooklyn district attorney, I would get on my desk the tragic reports of children killed by other children while playing with a loaded gun at home.

Firearm suicides among young people are also facilitated by guns in the home. Eighty-two per cent of young people under 18 who committed suicide with a gun got the gun from their home.

The danger to women also rises dramatically when a domestic abuser has a gun. Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if he owns a firearm.
Okay, lets take these "statistics" in order. Gun 22 times more likely to be used in suicide homicide or accidentally than to protect the home. Tell me Elizabeth, does using consist only of shooting? If I use my gun to scare away a home intruder, did I "use" the gun? I doubt it. That statistic is vastly overstated and until you tell me how many homes were protected by having possession of a gun—not necessarily "using" it, then your premise at stated must be seen as false on its face. That "80% of firearm deaths among children take place in the home," statistic is so stupid! Really? Where else would you like them to be shot? Maybe at school? Or the playground? Seriously? That you threw that out there smacks of desperation and straw-grasping, and the "mostly through accidental use of a gun by children" is also so obvious it begs the question else would you like children to be shot? By their parents accidentally, or by their siblings or friends on purpose? Grasp grasp grasp Elizabeth, it's pathetic! Oh and I love the next one. 82% of children who kill themselves with a gun got the gun from home. Okay Elizabeth again, where would you like them to get it? From a gun store? No wait, from a friend's house. Hey Billy can you come out and play? Hey go get your dad's pistol I need to shoot myself in the head! Weak straw. The last straw has some strength to it. But we are talking about adults here. If you're abused you need to call the police. You need to go. The problem is the abuse, not the gun, so sorry Elizabeth but that straw pulled free as well.
Unless we reside in Scalia’s mythological realm where the gun owner acts only as protector, the Second Amendment does not and cannot leave the occupants of the house at the mercy of the gun owner. The right to protect oneself in the home against dangerous gun owners and their guns is just as important as the gun owner’s right to self-defense against the intruder.
Well, I hate to be snide here, but the right to keep and bear arms is a right. The right of others to protect themselves from the gun owner with their own gun is also a right. Of course children can't do that, but certainly one spouse could protect them from the other. Such a sad state of affairs where one parent must protect children from the other parent is the problem, not the gun. Another straw plucked free and your toehold of an argument is crumbling under your feet Elizabeth.
Who, then, will mediate between the rights of the gun owner and the rights of the occupants? Who will tell the gun owner to take the gun out of the house, or remove the bullets and lock it up safely? Who will require the gun owner to listen to the occupants of the house terrified that the gun will be used against them? Who will speak up for the victim against the gun-owner batterer? Who will give voice to the children who can’t even speak for themselves?
If mediation is required there are a vast number of services and mediators available. Counselors, police, attorneys, social workers, etc.
Government must have the power to prevent gun owners from endangering the lives of other occupants of the home. It must be able to write laws, for example, that would keep dangerous people from purchasing guns, require guns in the home to be kept under severe safety restrictions — or even, once the flimsy rationale of the Heller case is understood and discarded, reinstate an effective ban on handguns.
BOOM! You said it! I knew your were thinking it the whole time. "GOVERNMENT MUST HAVE THE POWER!" ... to reinstate the [unconstitutional] ban on handguns...To ban all guns eventually. Because you want the people to be raped, mugged, beaten, and robbed. You don't want the weak to be able to defend themselves against someone stronger. You certainly don't want them to be able to defend themselves against eventual—inevitable—tyranny. Throughout the ages, tyrants rise to power. They always have and they always will. The Constitution has protected us for quite a while, but termites like you have been chewing on it for better than two centuries and it's starting to look a little ragged these days.
In the meantime, courts should reject the world of macho make-believe underlying the Heller opinion, and recognize the fundamental right to safety of those whose lives are placed at risk by guns.
Earlier Elizabeth was quick to underscore the fact that the "Second Amendment does not mention any right of self-defense." No it doesn't. In fact nowhere in the entire Constitution does it mention self-defense, nor for that matter does the Constitution mention any "fundamental right to safety." You want safety Elizabeth? Get strapped.

I was perusing my blog roll when I came upon a story on This Ain't Hell entitled New York Times’ Untold Damage, with a veritable smorgasbord of 417 true stories where the good guys with guns saved the day. You should check it out!

Sunday, May 22, 2016

The US has now become a Kritarchy

Kritarchy is a system of rule by judges (Hebrew: שופטים‎, shoftim) in the tribal confederacy of ancient Israel during the period of time described in the Book of Judges, following Joshua's conquest of Canaan and prior to the united monarchy under Saul.[1] Because it is a compound of the Greek words κριτής, krites ("judge") and ἄρχω, árkhō ("to rule"), its use has expanded to cover rule by judges in the modern sense as well, as in the case of Somalia, ruled by judges with the polycentric legal tradition of xeer,[2] and arguably the Islamic Courts Union.
The way the founding fathers designed our government was as a system of checks and balances. The President had power over the legislature by right of veto. The legislature could override that veto but only with a two-thirds vote in both houses. The two house system was also a check on Congress's power. This was the balance of power the framers of the Constitution sought. That's the way the entire document reads. They never imagined that the very brief Article III section—which was included merely to delineate specifically a judicial court which was above all the lower courts—would usher in nine de facto Kings For Life, holding the power to bestow wealth and favor on some and damnation and misery on others. That was never supposed to be their role. When the framers of the Constitution finished writing it, they expected it to be read and interpreted as written. When it was ratified by all the states, they ratified the words that were specifically written. But they were all of them deceived!

If you could have gone back in time and told the framers what has happened today. If you could have gone back in time and told the states what has happened today, if they had known that a few sentences in the Constitution would one day allow the ascension of Nine Supreme Overlords—well only eight right now get the point. The Supreme Court gave themselves the power of judicial review. They gave themselves the power to, not rewrite the words of constitution, but to reinterpret the meaning of words themselves. You know as in: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, etc.

It wasn't George Orwell who invented Newspeak; the Supreme Court has being doing it for two-hundred years. They have slowly over the generations of justices given themselves more and more power to the point where today, they can put a tranny in the same bathroom your daughter is using. Today they can force a Christian doctor, nurse, priest, even bakers and photographers, restaurant owners—let's face it anybody at all—to commit acts which they consider sins against their faith. And if they refuse, if you refuse, you'll all face both financial and criminal sanctions for refusing.

You can now be forced by your nine slave masters to create artwork that deeply offends you. You can be forced to share a public bathroom with a member of the opposite sex, who might be a rapist or a pedophile. We are one Supreme Court justice away from a reinterpretation of the Second Amendment. A national registry would be followed by a ban similar to the ones found in other disintegrating first-world countries like Great Britain and Australia. Voluntary turn ins would be followed by confiscations and then ever-harsher penalties for gun possession. When every gun has been taken you will bend the knee. You will bend the neck. You will be a slave. It doesn't require a slave collar to be a slave. All it requires is a master telling you what to do and you being forced to do it, against your will.

Below is what the Constitution says about the Supreme Court. Notice there's nothing in there about reinventing the English language. Nothing in their about creating identity people, forcing people to accept pedophiles into the same room where their daughter is trying to pee. Nothing in there about reinterpreting the words: "shall not be infringed" to mean: shall be forbidden.
U.S. Constitution
Article III
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.