Exposing once again the Bush/Clinton dynasty, and the Neocon/Progressive cabal....
___________________________________________________
THE "FIX" IS IN
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
September 28, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
"Bush quietly advising Hillary Clinton, top Democrats." This is the title of a much under-reported news story, which appeared in The Examiner on September 24th. The Examiner opens the story by saying, "President Bush is quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president."
The story stems from an interview with White House Chief of Staff, Josh Bolten, for The Examiner's Senior White House correspondent Bill Sammon's new book, "The Evangelical President."
The Examiner said "Bush wants enough continuity in his Iraq policy that 'even a Democratic president would be in a position to sustain a legitimate presence there.'" Bolten went on to say that "He [Bush] wants to create the conditions where a Democrat not only will have the leeway, but the obligation to see it [the war in Iraq] out."
Bolten made it clear that Bush expects the war in Iraq to continue "[n]o matter who the president is, no matter what party . . ."
The Examiner story also reported, "A senior White House official said the administration did not put much stock in pledges by Democratic presidential candidates to swiftly end the Iraq war if elected."
The White House official said, "They [the Democratic frontrunners] are being advised by smart people. We've got colleagues here on the staff who have good communications with some of the thinkers on that side.
"And there is recognition by most of them that there has to be a long-term presence [in Iraq] by the United States . . ."
The Examiner also quotes Vice President Dick Cheney as saying, "And I think we'll increasingly see a lot of emphasis on deciding who the next occupant of the Oval Office is going to be."
As you read the above, did you not ask the question, "Why is this not a front page story in the mainstream media?" If the media truly wanted to do its job, this story would be page one in every major newspaper and the lead story on every television and radio network news show. But it's not. Why? Because the powers that control the mainstream media are the same ones who control the two major parties and they don't want the American people to know that the "fix" is already in. George W. Bush knows it; Hillary Clinton knows it; Dick Cheney knows it; the CFR knows it; Democrat and Republican insiders know it; and now you know it.
I have attempted to warn my readers that the Bushes and Clintons have been "best buds" for years. My initial source for this report was someone who was among the Clintons' closest friends for much of his life. Whatever acrimony one may perceive to exist between the two families is purely for show. Democrats expect the Clintons to lambaste the Bushes. Republicans expect the Bushes to do the same thing to the Clintons. So they do. It is all political theater.
For that matter, Bill Sammon's new book promoting the idea that Bush is an "Evangelical President" is more political theater. Bush has simply hijacked the evangelical movement in order to push forward a globalist New World Order agenda.
Believe me, the Bushes and Clintons are friends, and have been for decades--at least since George H.W. Bush was President and Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. At least since then--probably longer.
However, the connection between the Bushes and Clintons is much deeper than that. Both families are also part of the inside cabal of New World Order globalists. They share the same clubs, the same parties, and the same agenda. Why else do you think that when G.W. Bush became President he did not undo anything Bill Clinton had done? For the same reason that Hillary Clinton will not undo anything that G.W. Bush has done when she becomes President--and that includes the Iraq war.
Mark it down: Hillary will keep U.S. troops in Iraq. She will also follow through with whatever other military plans Bush has already put in place. She will continue with Bush's push for the North American Union, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the NAFTA Superhighway. She will continue the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance, and even Bush's "enemy combatant" classification for American citizens. She will also do nothing to restore Posse Comitatus.
Those Democrats who really believe they are voting for "change" when they vote for Hillary next year are in for a rude awakening. They will awaken to the same reality that those who thought they were voting for change when they voted for Dubya have come to realize: it does not matter to a tinker's dam whether G.W. or Hillary is elected President. They are both marching to the same drummer. (Neither would it matter should Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, or John Edwards become President.) The "fix" is in. So much so that G.W. Bush is already privately counseling Hillary on what to do after she becomes President.
I tried to warn my readers of this connection as far back as 2002 (see article). I thought the set up would put Hillary in the White House in 2004, but obviously, my timing was off one election. 2008 is the year the global elite--with much help from both the Clinton and Bush machines--will put Hillary in the White House.
It is no accident, my friends, that there is no "top tier" contender in the GOP this year that is able to galvanize grassroots Republicans. Neither is it an accident that Bush's policies are increasingly unpopular, thus further alienating both the Republican and conservative base and the American people in general from the GOP ticket next year. Dubya is merely setting up a Hillary victory in much the same way that Daddy Bush set up a victory for Bill back in 1992.
Make no mistake about it: Hillary Clinton is the "anointed" pick of her fellow elitists to become President of the United States in 2008.
Obviously, a wholesale political revolution could derail the plans of the elitist egomaniacs who control our country right now, but I don't believe the American people, and especially the pastors (who have the most power to accomplish this task), have the stomach for it.
The only way for the American people to thwart the plans of the international cabal currently calling the shots in Washington, D.C., and New York City is by a massive rejection of both major parties' prominent Presidential candidates. This would require wholesale support for independent-minded, non-elitist candidates such as Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, or Alan Keyes. Even better, a grassroots uprising of support for independent constitutionalists such as Jerome Corsi or Judge Roy Moore--on a Constitution Party ticket--would put the elitists in retreat for decades to come. However, I see little hope for such a revolution. (Then again, there was little hope for George Washington and the boys either.)
So, come November 2008, Hillary Clinton will be your President, and she will continue the same basic policies of one George W. Bush, who continued the same basic policies of one Bill Clinton, who continued the same basic policies of one George Herbert Walker Bush. One would think that eventually the American people would begin to catch on. Until they do, however, the "fix" is in.
© 2007 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved
Friday, September 28, 2007
Driving a Stake Through the Heart of Freedom of Speech
Once again, the drunken whale known as Teddy Kennedy, is attempting to cram the sham known as "tolerance" down our throats again- this time, by attaching a "hate crime" provision to the 2008 Defense Authorization bill- a bill the Neocons have to support in order to continue funding their present wars. If this travesty makes it through and becomes law. our freedom of speech rights as patriotic Americans are dead. Basically, the only people in the United States who it won't be a crime to criticize are White Christians of European descent.
The Amendment passed 60-39... that means 1 vote. Guess one vote can make a difference after all, don't you think?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HATE BILL PASSES!
By Rev. Ted Pike
27 Sep 07
By a vote of 60 to 39 this morning, Sens. Kennedy and Smith’s hate crimes amendment was attached to the defense authorization act. After three days of virtual silence, several Republican senators spoke against the bill within the two hours of debate. Sen. Lindsey Graham briefly argued that, if passed, the President will veto the hate bill and arms bill together, jeopardizing timely support of our troops. Sen. Jeff Sessions contended that states are adequately dealing with hate crimes and that Kennedy’s amendment burdens the defense authorization bill. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, arriving after the debate, was allowed to very briefly state that a hate bill was irrelevant to an arms bill.
The real hero of the day was Sen. Orrin Hatch. Yesterday he stood alone among Republicans to publicly oppose the hate bill. But today he spoke three times with powerful, logical, legal, and constitutional reasons why the hate bill is redundant to state law enforcement, which adequately deals with all kinds of violent crime. He said that gender identity, as put forth in this legislation, is unclear. Its definition depends on the subjective perceptions of both the hate criminal and the victim. He offered his own amendment (which was later passed unanimously) calling for the federal government to authorize studies to determine if states are adequately enforcing hate crimes laws.
Remarkably, Sen. Byrd of West Virginia , habitual supporter of the hate bill, voted against it. If only one more pro-hate bill Senator, Democrat or Republican, had been persuaded, either by massive calling during the last week or by impassioned attack of the hate bill on the floor of the Senate, the hate bill would have been destroyed in this Congress. It would have to be resubmitted in the next Congress under the stigma of having been rejected six times. Yes, the President has promised to veto today’s hate bill victory. But at the same time, the hate bill, through passage now by both House and Senate, is energized and dignified as never before to be easily ratified in the next Congress, little more than a year from now.
Credit for hate bill victory must largely go to the repeated impassioned speeches by Sens. Kennedy and Smith, but leaders of the religious right and Republican senators are, by default, just as responsible. Since the defense appropriations act was introduced 16 days ago, opening the possibility of hate bill attachment, there has been an astonishing lack of consistent warning from leaders of the religious right. This has grown even more acute since Monday, with a virtual blackout of warning from all new right websites (See, Do New Right Leaders Want Hate Bill Passed? and Hate Bill Ready for a Vote). As a result, the millions of calls which might have been generated amounted to a relative trickle. Only at the last minute, yesterday, when it became virtually impossible to influence today’s Senate vote, did new right leaders send out calls to action.
Such dereliction of duty was reflected on the floor of the Senate this week by the silence of Senators well known to oppose hate laws. Day after day they ignored invitations to speak to the Senate against the hate bill.
Both new right leaders and Republican senators represent themselves as watchmen on the wall, guardians of our freedom. Yet God told the prophet Ezekiel that if, as such a watchman, he knew the enemy was coming and yet did not sound the alarm, he would lose his eternal soul (Ez. 33)
For the past several weeks, both Christian and Republican leaders have seen the enemy coming. Yet they did not sound the alarm in a timely and effective way. For this they will have to answer to their Creator. Meanwhile, all Americans now are very, very much closer to having to answer to the federal “thought police” for every idle word that is not politically correct.
Credit: TruthTellers.org
The Amendment passed 60-39... that means 1 vote. Guess one vote can make a difference after all, don't you think?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HATE BILL PASSES!
By Rev. Ted Pike
27 Sep 07
By a vote of 60 to 39 this morning, Sens. Kennedy and Smith’s hate crimes amendment was attached to the defense authorization act. After three days of virtual silence, several Republican senators spoke against the bill within the two hours of debate. Sen. Lindsey Graham briefly argued that, if passed, the President will veto the hate bill and arms bill together, jeopardizing timely support of our troops. Sen. Jeff Sessions contended that states are adequately dealing with hate crimes and that Kennedy’s amendment burdens the defense authorization bill. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, arriving after the debate, was allowed to very briefly state that a hate bill was irrelevant to an arms bill.
The real hero of the day was Sen. Orrin Hatch. Yesterday he stood alone among Republicans to publicly oppose the hate bill. But today he spoke three times with powerful, logical, legal, and constitutional reasons why the hate bill is redundant to state law enforcement, which adequately deals with all kinds of violent crime. He said that gender identity, as put forth in this legislation, is unclear. Its definition depends on the subjective perceptions of both the hate criminal and the victim. He offered his own amendment (which was later passed unanimously) calling for the federal government to authorize studies to determine if states are adequately enforcing hate crimes laws.
Remarkably, Sen. Byrd of West Virginia , habitual supporter of the hate bill, voted against it. If only one more pro-hate bill Senator, Democrat or Republican, had been persuaded, either by massive calling during the last week or by impassioned attack of the hate bill on the floor of the Senate, the hate bill would have been destroyed in this Congress. It would have to be resubmitted in the next Congress under the stigma of having been rejected six times. Yes, the President has promised to veto today’s hate bill victory. But at the same time, the hate bill, through passage now by both House and Senate, is energized and dignified as never before to be easily ratified in the next Congress, little more than a year from now.
Credit for hate bill victory must largely go to the repeated impassioned speeches by Sens. Kennedy and Smith, but leaders of the religious right and Republican senators are, by default, just as responsible. Since the defense appropriations act was introduced 16 days ago, opening the possibility of hate bill attachment, there has been an astonishing lack of consistent warning from leaders of the religious right. This has grown even more acute since Monday, with a virtual blackout of warning from all new right websites (See, Do New Right Leaders Want Hate Bill Passed? and Hate Bill Ready for a Vote). As a result, the millions of calls which might have been generated amounted to a relative trickle. Only at the last minute, yesterday, when it became virtually impossible to influence today’s Senate vote, did new right leaders send out calls to action.
Such dereliction of duty was reflected on the floor of the Senate this week by the silence of Senators well known to oppose hate laws. Day after day they ignored invitations to speak to the Senate against the hate bill.
Both new right leaders and Republican senators represent themselves as watchmen on the wall, guardians of our freedom. Yet God told the prophet Ezekiel that if, as such a watchman, he knew the enemy was coming and yet did not sound the alarm, he would lose his eternal soul (Ez. 33)
For the past several weeks, both Christian and Republican leaders have seen the enemy coming. Yet they did not sound the alarm in a timely and effective way. For this they will have to answer to their Creator. Meanwhile, all Americans now are very, very much closer to having to answer to the federal “thought police” for every idle word that is not politically correct.
Credit: TruthTellers.org
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Get ready for a Jena repeat
4 Black students in NC try to beat up a white Assistant Principle. The racist cracker, how dare he tell one of them to "go to class." Just who does he think he is?
I wonder if Al and Je$$e are on their way to Fayetteville yet. I also wonder if the Fayetteville DA will have the testicular fortitude to charges these thugs with a "hate crime." How silly of me, I forgot that law is only used against white folks.
(Since of course the mainstream media won't come out and say that the Assistant Principle is a white man, here's a link to his picture on the school website.)
_______________________________________________________
Charges filed in Pine Forest High brawl
By Nomee Landis
Staff writer
Four Pine Forest High School students were charged with inciting a riot Tuesday after reportedly fighting with coaches and an assistant principal in a school hallway.
One of the students, 17-year-old Luis Angel DeJesus, also is charged with assault on a school employee.
The incident happened early in the school day.
According to arrest reports and a statement from Debbie Tanna, a spokeswoman for the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office, it began when Vernon Aldridge, one of the school’s four assistant principals and the school’s athletic director, repeatedly asked DeJesus to get to class. Tanna said DeJesus allegedly spit in Aldridge’s face.
An arrest report said DeJesus spit at Aldridge twice.
The fight broke out as Aldridge was taking DeJesus to the principal’s office for counseling, Tanna said. Three students identified as friends of DeJesus — Davon Demtrice Nowell and Anthony Dranell Dickerson, who are both 16, and 17-year-old Michael Pinkney Draper — had seen what happened and reportedly began to threaten Aldridge.
Four coaches at the school tried to bring the students under control, Tanna said. She said they were injured in the fight and all received medical treatment afterward. None of their names were available Tuesday.
Punched, scratched
In an arrest record narrative, school resource officer Marc Dedeaux wrote that he was called to a back hallway of the school because a fight had broken out. When he arrived, he saw several students fighting with several school employees.
The students were cursing and several school officials were bleeding because they had been punched or scratched by the students.
All four of the students were charged with resisting arrest and misdemeanor inciting a riot. Tanna said no other students at the school were involved, but because more than one student was fighting, it is considered to be a riot.
Draper lives on the 200 block of Village Drive in Fayetteville.
DeJesus, Nowell and Dickerson all live in the Deerfield Home, a group home owned by Lighthouse Group & Associates that is in the 200 block of Wapiti Drive in Spring Lake.
Charles Davenport is the director of the home. He said he received a call from the school at 9:05 a.m. By late afternoon, he said, he had contacted the boys’ parents or guardians.
Some of the children who live in group homes are in the custody of the Department of Social Services, Davenport said.
The Deerfield Home is for high school boys who have had troubled home lives, Davenport said. He said four boys live at the home right now. The home has been open since 2001.
“Some of the children graduate and go to college and to the military,” Davenport said, “but the success rate is not very high.”
Wanda McPhaul, spokeswoman for the Cumberland County schools, said the principal of Pine Forest High School, Cindy McCormic, is investigating to determine the students’ punishment from the schools.
Article Source with pictures of the thug students: Fayetteville Observer
I wonder if Al and Je$$e are on their way to Fayetteville yet. I also wonder if the Fayetteville DA will have the testicular fortitude to charges these thugs with a "hate crime." How silly of me, I forgot that law is only used against white folks.
(Since of course the mainstream media won't come out and say that the Assistant Principle is a white man, here's a link to his picture on the school website.)
_______________________________________________________
Charges filed in Pine Forest High brawl
By Nomee Landis
Staff writer
Four Pine Forest High School students were charged with inciting a riot Tuesday after reportedly fighting with coaches and an assistant principal in a school hallway.
One of the students, 17-year-old Luis Angel DeJesus, also is charged with assault on a school employee.
The incident happened early in the school day.
According to arrest reports and a statement from Debbie Tanna, a spokeswoman for the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office, it began when Vernon Aldridge, one of the school’s four assistant principals and the school’s athletic director, repeatedly asked DeJesus to get to class. Tanna said DeJesus allegedly spit in Aldridge’s face.
An arrest report said DeJesus spit at Aldridge twice.
The fight broke out as Aldridge was taking DeJesus to the principal’s office for counseling, Tanna said. Three students identified as friends of DeJesus — Davon Demtrice Nowell and Anthony Dranell Dickerson, who are both 16, and 17-year-old Michael Pinkney Draper — had seen what happened and reportedly began to threaten Aldridge.
Four coaches at the school tried to bring the students under control, Tanna said. She said they were injured in the fight and all received medical treatment afterward. None of their names were available Tuesday.
Punched, scratched
In an arrest record narrative, school resource officer Marc Dedeaux wrote that he was called to a back hallway of the school because a fight had broken out. When he arrived, he saw several students fighting with several school employees.
The students were cursing and several school officials were bleeding because they had been punched or scratched by the students.
All four of the students were charged with resisting arrest and misdemeanor inciting a riot. Tanna said no other students at the school were involved, but because more than one student was fighting, it is considered to be a riot.
Draper lives on the 200 block of Village Drive in Fayetteville.
DeJesus, Nowell and Dickerson all live in the Deerfield Home, a group home owned by Lighthouse Group & Associates that is in the 200 block of Wapiti Drive in Spring Lake.
Charles Davenport is the director of the home. He said he received a call from the school at 9:05 a.m. By late afternoon, he said, he had contacted the boys’ parents or guardians.
Some of the children who live in group homes are in the custody of the Department of Social Services, Davenport said.
The Deerfield Home is for high school boys who have had troubled home lives, Davenport said. He said four boys live at the home right now. The home has been open since 2001.
“Some of the children graduate and go to college and to the military,” Davenport said, “but the success rate is not very high.”
Wanda McPhaul, spokeswoman for the Cumberland County schools, said the principal of Pine Forest High School, Cindy McCormic, is investigating to determine the students’ punishment from the schools.
Article Source with pictures of the thug students: Fayetteville Observer
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Michael Anthony Peroutka, 2004 Constitution Party Presidential Candidate, Endorses Rep. Ron Paul
Further to my previous quote, Michael Peroutka, the 2004 Constitution Party Presidential candidate, is supporting Ron Paul.
------------------------------------------------------------------
By Michael Anthony Peroutka
The following statement has been issued by Michael Anthony Peroutka, the Presidential candidate of the Constitution Party in 2004. He is also co-founder, with his brother Steve, of “Institute On The Constitution.” And he is co-host, with John Lofton, of “The American View” radio show.
I endorse Rep. Ron Paul for President. And I endorse him not because he is the lesser of two evils. A Christian can never endorse any kind of evil. I endorse Rep. Paul because — from a Christian/Biblical and Constitutional perspective – he is, by far, the best candidate running for President.
— Rep. Paul believes, correctly, that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant word of God and thus it is not the role of God-ordained civil government, at any level, to feed, house, clothe or educate anybody.
— Rep. Paul takes his oath to God as a Congressman seriously and believes, correctly, that the Constitution is the highest man-made law in our land, that it severely restricts what the Federal Government can legally do, and it must be obeyed. This is why, as he states on his campaign web site, he has: never voted to raise taxes; never voted for an unbalanced budget; never voted for a Federal restriction on gun ownership; never voted to raise Congressional pay; never taken a government-paid junket; and has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
In addition, Rep. Paul has voted against: the Patriot Act; regulating the Internet; and he voted against the Iraq war. He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
— Rep. Paul, again correctly, is truly pro-life and believes that there are no circumstances under which it is OK to murder by abortion any innocent unborn babies.
Another admirable characteristic demonstrated repeatedly by Rep. Paul is that he speaks honestly and plainly. In one of the recent GOP candidate debates, re: the Iraq war, he said: “Yes, I would leave. I would leave completely” – no troops in the region there, none. Period. He added: “We need a new foreign policy…to mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend this country, defend our borders.”
When his questioner dishonestly accused him of saying that we should take our marching orders from Al Qaida who also want us to withdraw from the Arabian Peninsula, Rep. Paul replied: “I’m saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it’s an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We’ve committed the invasion of this war. [The Constitution is] where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy.”
Well, amen!, Rep. Paul. God bless you, sir, and your family as you proceed in this campaign. And God does bless us when we obey Him.
Rep. Ron Paul is a real patriot who understands that true love of country requires, first, trusting in God’s Providence and next obedience to our Constitution. He is a man who rejects mindless jingoism such as “My country right or wrong.” Instead, he believes that when our country is wrong – as it is today in many ways — true patriots must work to set us right. As President, Ron Paul, I believe, would work Christianly and Constitutionally to set our country right. This is why, in good conscience, I endorse his candidacy for President of the United States.
Source: The American View
------------------------------------------------------------------
By Michael Anthony Peroutka
The following statement has been issued by Michael Anthony Peroutka, the Presidential candidate of the Constitution Party in 2004. He is also co-founder, with his brother Steve, of “Institute On The Constitution.” And he is co-host, with John Lofton, of “The American View” radio show.
I endorse Rep. Ron Paul for President. And I endorse him not because he is the lesser of two evils. A Christian can never endorse any kind of evil. I endorse Rep. Paul because — from a Christian/Biblical and Constitutional perspective – he is, by far, the best candidate running for President.
— Rep. Paul believes, correctly, that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant word of God and thus it is not the role of God-ordained civil government, at any level, to feed, house, clothe or educate anybody.
— Rep. Paul takes his oath to God as a Congressman seriously and believes, correctly, that the Constitution is the highest man-made law in our land, that it severely restricts what the Federal Government can legally do, and it must be obeyed. This is why, as he states on his campaign web site, he has: never voted to raise taxes; never voted for an unbalanced budget; never voted for a Federal restriction on gun ownership; never voted to raise Congressional pay; never taken a government-paid junket; and has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
In addition, Rep. Paul has voted against: the Patriot Act; regulating the Internet; and he voted against the Iraq war. He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
— Rep. Paul, again correctly, is truly pro-life and believes that there are no circumstances under which it is OK to murder by abortion any innocent unborn babies.
Another admirable characteristic demonstrated repeatedly by Rep. Paul is that he speaks honestly and plainly. In one of the recent GOP candidate debates, re: the Iraq war, he said: “Yes, I would leave. I would leave completely” – no troops in the region there, none. Period. He added: “We need a new foreign policy…to mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend this country, defend our borders.”
When his questioner dishonestly accused him of saying that we should take our marching orders from Al Qaida who also want us to withdraw from the Arabian Peninsula, Rep. Paul replied: “I’m saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it’s an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We’ve committed the invasion of this war. [The Constitution is] where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy.”
Well, amen!, Rep. Paul. God bless you, sir, and your family as you proceed in this campaign. And God does bless us when we obey Him.
Rep. Ron Paul is a real patriot who understands that true love of country requires, first, trusting in God’s Providence and next obedience to our Constitution. He is a man who rejects mindless jingoism such as “My country right or wrong.” Instead, he believes that when our country is wrong – as it is today in many ways — true patriots must work to set us right. As President, Ron Paul, I believe, would work Christianly and Constitutionally to set our country right. This is why, in good conscience, I endorse his candidacy for President of the United States.
Source: The American View
Contact Your Congressman
Tell them to support H. Con. Res. 40, "Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada."
This legislation "Urges: (1) the United States not to engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System; (2) the United States not to allow the Security and Prosperity Partnership to implement regulations that would create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and (3) the President to oppose these acts or any other proposals that threaten U.S. sovereignty."
Three GOP Presidential candidates are listed as sponsors/cosponsors- Ron Paul (Sponsor), Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo (Cosponsors).
The full text of the Bill (including the quoted portions above) can be read at
GovTracks.com.
This is an important step in beating back yet another attempt by the Neocon/Progressive cabal to strip America of her sovereignty.
This legislation "Urges: (1) the United States not to engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System; (2) the United States not to allow the Security and Prosperity Partnership to implement regulations that would create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and (3) the President to oppose these acts or any other proposals that threaten U.S. sovereignty."
Three GOP Presidential candidates are listed as sponsors/cosponsors- Ron Paul (Sponsor), Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo (Cosponsors).
The full text of the Bill (including the quoted portions above) can be read at
GovTracks.com.
This is an important step in beating back yet another attempt by the Neocon/Progressive cabal to strip America of her sovereignty.
Anger at Giuliani 9/11 Fundraiser
What a jackass Giuliani is. $9.11? How crass can one be? That is insulting, regardless of who you think was behind 9/11.
He's pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-gun control, yet the media claims he is ahead in almost all the GOP preference polls. That either shows how low the Republican Party has sank, or how ignorant the media is- I personally think it's a combination of both. How anyone can look at his record and his positions and even consider voting for him is beyond reason.
I wonder why this hasn't been hammered a lot in the American press as of yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the BBC:
Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani has been criticised over a fundraising party at which participants are being urged to donate $9.11.
The International Association of Fire Fighters accuses him of exploiting the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks.
Mr Giuliani rose to national prominence as New York's mayor on 9/11.
The Giuliani campaign says it did not plan the event, which is due to take place on Wednesday evening in California at the home of a supporter.
Nevertheless, the firefighters association said the stated theme of the fundraiser - "$9.11 for Rudy" was in poor taste.
"It is nothing short of disrespectful to the legacy of the thousands of civilians and 343 brave firefighters who died at Ground Zero," said Harold Schaitberger, IAFF president.
Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd described the fundraiser's theme as "unconscionable, shameless and sickening."
Responsibility
A Giuliani campaign spokesman said the idea was selected without the campaign's knowledge.
But the host of the party, Abraham Soefer, also said the theme was not his responsibility, and referred other questions to Mr Giuliani's campaign team, the Associated Press reports.
The event is one of several Giuliani house party fundraisers across the US on Wednesday.
Mr Giuliani is seen as one of the frontrunners in the race for the Republican nomination.
But the BBC's Justin Webb, in Washington, says that Mr Giuliani's appeal as the man who led New York through the terrorist attacks is occasionally over-emphasised in his campaign.
This fundraiser looks like a big blunder, our correspondent adds.
He's pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-gun control, yet the media claims he is ahead in almost all the GOP preference polls. That either shows how low the Republican Party has sank, or how ignorant the media is- I personally think it's a combination of both. How anyone can look at his record and his positions and even consider voting for him is beyond reason.
I wonder why this hasn't been hammered a lot in the American press as of yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the BBC:
Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani has been criticised over a fundraising party at which participants are being urged to donate $9.11.
The International Association of Fire Fighters accuses him of exploiting the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks.
Mr Giuliani rose to national prominence as New York's mayor on 9/11.
The Giuliani campaign says it did not plan the event, which is due to take place on Wednesday evening in California at the home of a supporter.
Nevertheless, the firefighters association said the stated theme of the fundraiser - "$9.11 for Rudy" was in poor taste.
"It is nothing short of disrespectful to the legacy of the thousands of civilians and 343 brave firefighters who died at Ground Zero," said Harold Schaitberger, IAFF president.
Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd described the fundraiser's theme as "unconscionable, shameless and sickening."
Responsibility
A Giuliani campaign spokesman said the idea was selected without the campaign's knowledge.
But the host of the party, Abraham Soefer, also said the theme was not his responsibility, and referred other questions to Mr Giuliani's campaign team, the Associated Press reports.
The event is one of several Giuliani house party fundraisers across the US on Wednesday.
Mr Giuliani is seen as one of the frontrunners in the race for the Republican nomination.
But the BBC's Justin Webb, in Washington, says that Mr Giuliani's appeal as the man who led New York through the terrorist attacks is occasionally over-emphasised in his campaign.
This fundraiser looks like a big blunder, our correspondent adds.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
More Indictments for Vick
I'll get to the story momentarily, but first I am compelled to comment on the disgusting behavior I observed this evening when I stumbled upon the "Michael Vick Town Hall" meeting on ESPN. What struck me was, first, how ignorant some of the audience was- it seemed about half the audience was comprised of people who stopped in on their way home from demonstrating in Jena. They seemed convinced that Vick is being persecuted solely for the reason that he is a famous black man. Any time a member of the panel mentioned that Vick broke Federal laws, they were shouted down (wisely, ESPN placed the mics where you couldn't here what invectives were being hurled).
They really moronic thing was the attempt to compare the heinous actions of Vick to those of Bill Bellichek, the coach of the New England Patriots. Don't get me wrong- my favorite NFL team is whoever happens to be playing the Patriots at the time, and I cannot stand the hoodie-wearing Bellichek. He was basically caught cheating, and assessed what amounts to a symbolic fine by the League. Do I think the action taken by the NFL was sufficient? No way! I would have suspended his sorry butt for a couple of games at least. But to compare the two incident is the height of idiocy. In the Patriots case, no laws were broken- only the rules of a sports league. In Vick's case, Federal laws were broken. The Jets losing to the Patriots doesn't compare to Vick torturing and mutilating dogs. I have a dog, and if anyone tried to harm my animal, I'd be the one facing charges.
All in all, it was a despicable, disturbing spectacle.
Now on to the story. Vick is now facing additional State charges in Virginia connected to his subhuman dog fighting enterprise. If convicted, Vick can add some State prison time to the anticipated Federal time he's going to receive. It'll be a happy day for me and other dog lovers when they throw his sorry butt in a cell and slam the door behind him. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Vick Hit With Local Indictments
Published 09/25/2007 - 11:31 p.m.
(AP) By HANK KURZ Jr.
AP Sports Writer
Michael Vick, already looking at a federal prison term for bankrolling a dogfighting operation in rural Virginia, now faces two state charges that could get him more prison time if he's convicted.
After a Surry County grand jury indicted the Atlanta Falcons quarterback and three co-defendants Tuesday, Vick's lawyers indicated they will fight the state charges on the grounds that he can't be convicted twice of the same crime.
The NFL star, scheduled for sentencing Dec. 10 after pleading guilty to federal dogfighting conspiracy charges, faces state charges of beating or killing or causing dogs to fight other dogs and engaging in or promoting dogfighting. Each felony is punishable by up to five years in prison. Arraignments are set for Oct. 3.
The grand jury declined to indict the 27-year-old Vick and two co-defendants on eight additional counts of killing or causing to be killed a companion animal, felonies that would have exposed them to as many as 40 years in prison if convicted.
Vick defense attorney Billy Martin said in a statement that the state counts concern 'the same conduct covered by the federal indictment for which Mr. Vick has already accepted full responsibility.'
Martin said he will 'aggressively protect his rights to ensure that he is not held accountable for the same conduct twice.'
Vick was convicted of a federal conspiracy count while the state indictment deals with the act of dog fighting, said Steven Benjamin, a Richmond defense lawyer who is not involved in the case. The prosecution will argue that's enough of a difference to allow the charges to proceed, he said.
Surry County Commonwealth's Attorney Gerald G. Poindexter had told The Associated Press on Monday night that he would seek indictments on different crimes than the ones Vick admitted to in federal court. He did not elaborate to reporters outside court Tuesday.
The charges are the first leveled against Vick in the county where he built a home that became the base of the dogfighting operation, where local investigators first uncovered evidence of the enterprise.
None of the defendants nor their lawyers were at the Sussex County courthouse, where the grand jury met because the courthouse in neighboring Surry County is closed for renovations.
Poindexter told reporters he was not disappointed the grand jury passed on the eight additional dog killing counts.
'I'm just glad to get this to the position where it is now and, one day in the not too distant future, we will be rid of these cases,' he said.
In a written statement, Poindexter and Sheriff Harold Brown attempted to diffuse in advance any suggestion that race influenced the grand jury. Brown, Poindexter and the four defendants are black, as are four of the six grand jurors.
'These are serious charges, and we can assure you that this grand jury was not driven by racial prejudice, their affection or lack of affection for professional athletes, or the influence of animal rights activists and the attendant publicity,' the statement said.
In pleading guilty to the federal charges last month, Vick admitted helping kill six to eight dogs, among other things. He faces up to five years in prison.
Vick's co-defendants had pleaded guilty earlier and detailed Vick's role in the grisly enterprise.
In the state case, co-defendant Purnell Peace was indicted on one count of beating or killing or causing dogs to fight other dogs and one count of engaging in or promoting dogfighting. Quanis Phillips was indicted on one count of engaging in or promoting dogfighting.
Tony Taylor, who left the enterprise several years ago and was the first to plead guilty, faces the most serious state charges _ three counts of beating or killing or causing dogs to fight other dogs and one count of engaging in or promoting dogfighting.
Falcons spokesman Reggie Roberts said the team had no comments on the new charges.
The case began in late April when authorities conducting a drug investigation of Vick's cousin raided the former Virginia Tech star's property and seized dozens of dogs, most of them pit bulls, and equipment commonly associated with dogfighting.
Six weeks later, with the local investigation perceived to be dragging and a local search warrant allowed to expire, federal agents arrived with their own search warrants and started digging up dog carcasses buried days before the first raid.
Poindexter, widely criticized for the pace of the investigation, reacted angrily when the feds moved in, suggesting that Vick's celebrity was a draw, or that their pursuit of the case could have racial overtones. He later eased off those comments, saying the sides would simply be pursuing parallel investigations.
Vick has been indefinitely suspended without pay by the NFL and been dropped by all his major sponsors, including Nike.
From USADaily.com.
They really moronic thing was the attempt to compare the heinous actions of Vick to those of Bill Bellichek, the coach of the New England Patriots. Don't get me wrong- my favorite NFL team is whoever happens to be playing the Patriots at the time, and I cannot stand the hoodie-wearing Bellichek. He was basically caught cheating, and assessed what amounts to a symbolic fine by the League. Do I think the action taken by the NFL was sufficient? No way! I would have suspended his sorry butt for a couple of games at least. But to compare the two incident is the height of idiocy. In the Patriots case, no laws were broken- only the rules of a sports league. In Vick's case, Federal laws were broken. The Jets losing to the Patriots doesn't compare to Vick torturing and mutilating dogs. I have a dog, and if anyone tried to harm my animal, I'd be the one facing charges.
All in all, it was a despicable, disturbing spectacle.
Now on to the story. Vick is now facing additional State charges in Virginia connected to his subhuman dog fighting enterprise. If convicted, Vick can add some State prison time to the anticipated Federal time he's going to receive. It'll be a happy day for me and other dog lovers when they throw his sorry butt in a cell and slam the door behind him. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Vick Hit With Local Indictments
Published 09/25/2007 - 11:31 p.m.
(AP) By HANK KURZ Jr.
AP Sports Writer
Michael Vick, already looking at a federal prison term for bankrolling a dogfighting operation in rural Virginia, now faces two state charges that could get him more prison time if he's convicted.
After a Surry County grand jury indicted the Atlanta Falcons quarterback and three co-defendants Tuesday, Vick's lawyers indicated they will fight the state charges on the grounds that he can't be convicted twice of the same crime.
The NFL star, scheduled for sentencing Dec. 10 after pleading guilty to federal dogfighting conspiracy charges, faces state charges of beating or killing or causing dogs to fight other dogs and engaging in or promoting dogfighting. Each felony is punishable by up to five years in prison. Arraignments are set for Oct. 3.
The grand jury declined to indict the 27-year-old Vick and two co-defendants on eight additional counts of killing or causing to be killed a companion animal, felonies that would have exposed them to as many as 40 years in prison if convicted.
Vick defense attorney Billy Martin said in a statement that the state counts concern 'the same conduct covered by the federal indictment for which Mr. Vick has already accepted full responsibility.'
Martin said he will 'aggressively protect his rights to ensure that he is not held accountable for the same conduct twice.'
Vick was convicted of a federal conspiracy count while the state indictment deals with the act of dog fighting, said Steven Benjamin, a Richmond defense lawyer who is not involved in the case. The prosecution will argue that's enough of a difference to allow the charges to proceed, he said.
Surry County Commonwealth's Attorney Gerald G. Poindexter had told The Associated Press on Monday night that he would seek indictments on different crimes than the ones Vick admitted to in federal court. He did not elaborate to reporters outside court Tuesday.
The charges are the first leveled against Vick in the county where he built a home that became the base of the dogfighting operation, where local investigators first uncovered evidence of the enterprise.
None of the defendants nor their lawyers were at the Sussex County courthouse, where the grand jury met because the courthouse in neighboring Surry County is closed for renovations.
Poindexter told reporters he was not disappointed the grand jury passed on the eight additional dog killing counts.
'I'm just glad to get this to the position where it is now and, one day in the not too distant future, we will be rid of these cases,' he said.
In a written statement, Poindexter and Sheriff Harold Brown attempted to diffuse in advance any suggestion that race influenced the grand jury. Brown, Poindexter and the four defendants are black, as are four of the six grand jurors.
'These are serious charges, and we can assure you that this grand jury was not driven by racial prejudice, their affection or lack of affection for professional athletes, or the influence of animal rights activists and the attendant publicity,' the statement said.
In pleading guilty to the federal charges last month, Vick admitted helping kill six to eight dogs, among other things. He faces up to five years in prison.
Vick's co-defendants had pleaded guilty earlier and detailed Vick's role in the grisly enterprise.
In the state case, co-defendant Purnell Peace was indicted on one count of beating or killing or causing dogs to fight other dogs and one count of engaging in or promoting dogfighting. Quanis Phillips was indicted on one count of engaging in or promoting dogfighting.
Tony Taylor, who left the enterprise several years ago and was the first to plead guilty, faces the most serious state charges _ three counts of beating or killing or causing dogs to fight other dogs and one count of engaging in or promoting dogfighting.
Falcons spokesman Reggie Roberts said the team had no comments on the new charges.
The case began in late April when authorities conducting a drug investigation of Vick's cousin raided the former Virginia Tech star's property and seized dozens of dogs, most of them pit bulls, and equipment commonly associated with dogfighting.
Six weeks later, with the local investigation perceived to be dragging and a local search warrant allowed to expire, federal agents arrived with their own search warrants and started digging up dog carcasses buried days before the first raid.
Poindexter, widely criticized for the pace of the investigation, reacted angrily when the feds moved in, suggesting that Vick's celebrity was a draw, or that their pursuit of the case could have racial overtones. He later eased off those comments, saying the sides would simply be pursuing parallel investigations.
Vick has been indefinitely suspended without pay by the NFL and been dropped by all his major sponsors, including Nike.
From USADaily.com.
The Jena Dodge
by Heather McDonald
Source: Suppressed News
The Jena Dodge
Demonstrators and the media avoid the stubborn truths of black social breakdown.
24 September 2007
Let’s assume the worst about Jena, Louisiana, and the charges of attempted murder brought against five black youths for beating a white student unconscious last December: that the district attorney’s indictments were motivated by rank racism, and that the racial tensions in this town of 3,000 are exclusively the product of white animus against blacks. Does it follow that this latest object of frenzy on the media’s racism beat is emblematic of America’s judicial system or the state of race relations today?
That is certainly what the ever-expanding army of racial victimologists and their media enablers would have you believe. Since the Jena story became international news last week, the media, the advocates, and pandering politicians have erupted in an outpouring of seeming joy at the alleged proof—after so much diligent trolling for evidence—that America remains a racist country. Senator Hillary Clinton told the NAACP: “This case reminds us that the scales of justice are seriously out of balance when it comes to charging, sentencing, and punishing African Americans.” Senator Christopher Dodd declared that Jena reveals that “de facto segregation”—in the spirit of Jim Crow—“is still very real” in many parts of America. Britain’s Observer announced that Jena shows “how lightly sleep the demons of racial prejudice in America’s deep south.” The New York Times has designated Jena “a high profile arena in the debate on racial bias in the judicial system”—a debate that perhaps not everyone was aware that we were having. J. Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, said: “I think a lot of people recognize that the criminal justice system grinds down people of color every day. Oftentimes, it’s nameless, it’s faceless. . . . People see Jena as the tip of the iceberg and ask: What lies beneath?” Needless to say, the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have vowed with Biblical thunder to avenge the Jena innocents and force America to own up to its mistreatment of blacks.
Unquestionably, the attempted murder charges (which were later dropped for four of the defendants, while a sixth assailant was booked as a juvenile) merit scrutiny. If the indictment in fact resulted from discrimination, then the prosecutor would deserve the strongest punishment—debarment at the very least and harsh federal penalties for civil rights violations. And the incident that seems to have led to the group assault on the white student—three students’ hanging of nooses from a school tree where white teens congregated—was a despicable provocation. If adults in Jena condoned such incendiary behavior, then these grown-up enablers truly are throwbacks to a vicious American past, and all citizens should revile them. There is evidence, however, that such adolescent cruelty is not official policy. The school principal told a black student who had inquired about the segregated tree that he could sit there or anywhere else he pleased.
But even if the worst possible interpretation of these events is merited, the massive international attention to this tiny town would seem vastly disproportionate to the cause, unless Jena stands for a more widespread problem. The idea behind the protests and the politicians’ exploitation of them is that just as these five youths were overcharged, the hundreds of thousands of blacks in prison are also the victims of systemic abuse. But for institutional racism, the black prison population would be much smaller.
This is an old complaint, for which no proof has ever been offered, Hillary Clinton’s irresponsible statement notwithstanding. The usual evidence in support of the charge that the criminal laws discriminate against blacks is the far stiffer sentences for selling and possessing crack cocaine compared with powdered cocaine. But that colorblind sentencing regimen, which dates from 1986, was a heartfelt effort to protect the overwhelmingly black victims of crack, not to penalize them. Black liberals such as Congressman Charles Rangel were loudest in sounding the alarm about the effects of crack in the black ghetto. Not even the most deluded racial apologists have ever explicitly suggested that racial bias motivated Congress’s efforts to combat a drug that results in much higher rates of violence among dealers and users, quicker and more onerous addiction, and more emergency room visits than its powdered cousin.
The reason that the black incarceration rate is the highest in the country is that blacks have the highest crime rate—by a long shot. Don’t trust the police, prosecutors, or judges to give a fair picture of black crime? Then go where the bodies are. Los Angeles is representative. In the first seven months of 2007, blacks in Los Angeles were murdered at a rate ten times that of whites and Asians. Who’s killing them? It’s not whites and Asians. While a minor proportion of the assailants of blacks are Hispanic, the vast majority are black themselves. Nationally, blacks commit murder at about eight times the frequency of whites. In New York, any given violent crime is 13 times more likely to have been committed by a black person than by a white person, according to the reports of victims and witnesses. Though they are only 24 percent of the city’s population, blacks committed 68.5 percent of all murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults in New York last year. Whites, who make up 34.5 percent of New Yorkers, committed only 5.3 percent of violent crimes. These ratios are similar across the country. In Los Angeles, blacks committed 41 percent of all robberies in 2001, according to victims’ descriptions, though they constitute only 11 percent of the city’s population. Robbery victims identified whites, who make up 30 percent of the Los Angeles population, just 4 percent of the time.
When attacking the justice system, racial agitators work mightily to change the subject from violence to drugs, using their flimsy argument that crack cocaine penalties are too high. But the vast preponderance of prisoners are in the pen for violence and property crime. In 2003, 52 percent of inmates in state prisons were serving time for violent offenses, 21 percent for property offenses, and only 20 percent for drug offenses. To be sure, black incarceration rates are off the charts. Black men were 41 percent of the more than 2 million men in federal, state, and local prisons at midyear 2006. At the end of 2005, there were 3,145 prison inmates per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared with 1,244 inmates per 100,000 Hispanic males and 471 inmates per 100,000 white males. Is that because violent and property crime is overpenalized, as race advocates sometimes argue? No. Despite the advocates’ constant complaints about three-strikes laws, the criminal justice system actually underpenalizes crime because of inadequate prison space. Prosecutors cut deals to lessen sentences; sheriffs overseeing local jails regularly devise new schemes for dumping offenders back on the street to make room for the next batch. And in any case, even if penalties for particular offenses were too draconian, the punishments affect all offenders the same.
No one in the Jena stampede dares whisper a word about black crime, because it undercuts the portrait of a victimized race. You can listen to every protest across the country glorifying the “Jena Six” and you will never hear an acknowledgement of the massive social breakdown that is the black crime rate: no mention of the violence in inner-city schools that black students commit overwhelmingly; no mention of the rising homicides in midsize cities that young black males commit when they feel “disrespected.” It is not racism that is putting black men in jail; it’s their own behavior.
What about the broader significance of Jena? Again, assuming for the sake of argument that this minuscule Louisiana town seethes with the crudest bigotry, held uniquely by whites against integration-seeking blacks, is Jena’s supposed state of affairs a microcosm of America? To the contrary: there is not a single elite institution in the country that is not twisting itself into knots in favor of African-Americans. Every minimally selective college is desperately seeking to enroll more black students. Boosting black enrollment requires drastically lowering a college’s admissions criteria to overcome the intractable 200-point SAT gap between black and white high school students, but every college institutes such double standards for the sake of “diversity.” Any black student who graduates from high school with decent grades and respectable SATs will leapfrog over thousands of more qualified white and Asian students right into the Ivy League. Blacks are also the hottest commodity for exclusive private schools that serve as training grounds for the Ivies. Andover, Exeter, Choate, and every other fancy prep and day school practice the same double standards in their eagerness to admit African-American students. After college, law schools, business schools, medical schools, engineering schools, and others accept black students whose test scores would disqualify them if they were white or Asian.
The preferences continue into the professions. Wall Street law firms annually flagellate themselves over their lack of proportional representation of black associates and partners, even though the number of blacks who graduate from law school with grades and bar-exam scores comparable with the firms’ white hires is negligible. The lack of comparably qualified black candidates does not stop the law partnerships from hiring black associates, though. Corporations have saddled themselves with massive “diversity” bureaucracies whose only function is to justify hiring and promoting less qualified African-Americans and Hispanics. Newspapers, TV stations, and advertisers put enormous pressure on themselves to have blacks on their staffs and to show black faces to the world.
In short, the opportunities for blacks to roar ahead in the economy if they stay out of trouble, study, and apply themselves are legion, but the numbers taking advantage of these opportunities are not. California’s state superintendent of public instruction broke a longstanding taboo this August by pointing out that middle-class black students in the state score worse on math and English than poor white and Asian students—a disparity that applies across the country. The usual poverty excuse for black underachievement does not hold up.
The Jena protesters will go home in denial of these truths. In fact, the purpose of such mass celebrations—and that is indeed what they are—is to make sure that attention stays far away from the actual problems holding blacks back. Astronomical rates of black criminality are not the only topic that the Jena rallies have obscured. No one wallowing in Jena promotion has had the courage to speak about an even more important crisis, the breakdown of marriage. The nearly 70 percent national illegitimacy rate for blacks—a number that can approach 90 percent in inner cities—is a cataclysm. Its consequences go far beyond the harm to individual black children—especially boys—who grow up without fathers. The real poison of the marriage crisis is the message it sends to young men about personal responsibility. The first duty in civil society is toward one’s own children; everything else is built around it. But when boys are raised without any expectations that they will have to support their children and marry the mother of those children, they fail to learn the most basic lesson about responsibility. They also are freed from the civilizing force of the marriage requirement, which pressures young men to become attractive mates. With enough support, individuals can overcome the moral perils of the illegitimacy culture, but given the prevalence of black crime and disaffiliation from the working world, it’s clear that not enough young men are finding ways to do so.
The race industry will try to keep Jena in the media and political spotlight for as long as possible, and to reinforce the notion that this episode exemplifies blacks’ situation in America. But if there were many other instances of (arguable) overcharging for black crime, we would have heard about them by now. The orgy of Jena coverage will not just fail to improve the lagging performance of blacks; it will impede such improvement by strengthening the victim mentality. Both whites and blacks are complicit in this sabotage. These ecstatic festivals of racism-bashing are a crippling ritual in the codependency between absolution-seeking whites and angry blacks, a phenomenon that Shelby Steele has powerfully analyzed. The demonstrators exhibit a palpable desire for the moral clarity of the civil rights era, as do the reporters, who have covered their every utterance. “This is the first time something like this has happened for our generation,” one student told the New York Times. “You always heard about it from history books and relatives. This is a chance to experience it for ourselves.”
He’s right; there has been nothing like Selma or Montgomery for the current generation, because much of America has accomplished almost an about-face on race since the 1950s. The current martyrs to American bigotry are a far cry from Rosa Parks. Like the “Jena Six,” they tend to have committed acts of violence or other crimes for which they are allegedly being excessively punished. Think of the six high school hooligans from Decatur, Illinois, whom Jesse Jackson tried to beatify in 1999 when their schools expelled them for a violent stadium fight; their backgrounds included robbery, trespassing, truancy, and failing whole school years. We are only belatedly learning that Mychal Bell, the sole member of the “Jena Six” to have been prosecuted for knocking out and kicking Justin Barker, has a previous arrest record that includes battery and property damage. Barker’s injuries led to $14,000 in medical bills, according to a lawyer.
The Jena situation is undoubtedly a bit more complex than the tale that the press has woven of hate-filled whites and peace-loving blacks. But even if it were not, the catharsis that this morality play has offered to its participants is spurious. The real tragedy is the dysfunctional culture that holds back too many blacks from seizing the many opportunities open to them.
Source: Suppressed News
The Jena Dodge
Demonstrators and the media avoid the stubborn truths of black social breakdown.
24 September 2007
Let’s assume the worst about Jena, Louisiana, and the charges of attempted murder brought against five black youths for beating a white student unconscious last December: that the district attorney’s indictments were motivated by rank racism, and that the racial tensions in this town of 3,000 are exclusively the product of white animus against blacks. Does it follow that this latest object of frenzy on the media’s racism beat is emblematic of America’s judicial system or the state of race relations today?
That is certainly what the ever-expanding army of racial victimologists and their media enablers would have you believe. Since the Jena story became international news last week, the media, the advocates, and pandering politicians have erupted in an outpouring of seeming joy at the alleged proof—after so much diligent trolling for evidence—that America remains a racist country. Senator Hillary Clinton told the NAACP: “This case reminds us that the scales of justice are seriously out of balance when it comes to charging, sentencing, and punishing African Americans.” Senator Christopher Dodd declared that Jena reveals that “de facto segregation”—in the spirit of Jim Crow—“is still very real” in many parts of America. Britain’s Observer announced that Jena shows “how lightly sleep the demons of racial prejudice in America’s deep south.” The New York Times has designated Jena “a high profile arena in the debate on racial bias in the judicial system”—a debate that perhaps not everyone was aware that we were having. J. Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, said: “I think a lot of people recognize that the criminal justice system grinds down people of color every day. Oftentimes, it’s nameless, it’s faceless. . . . People see Jena as the tip of the iceberg and ask: What lies beneath?” Needless to say, the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have vowed with Biblical thunder to avenge the Jena innocents and force America to own up to its mistreatment of blacks.
Unquestionably, the attempted murder charges (which were later dropped for four of the defendants, while a sixth assailant was booked as a juvenile) merit scrutiny. If the indictment in fact resulted from discrimination, then the prosecutor would deserve the strongest punishment—debarment at the very least and harsh federal penalties for civil rights violations. And the incident that seems to have led to the group assault on the white student—three students’ hanging of nooses from a school tree where white teens congregated—was a despicable provocation. If adults in Jena condoned such incendiary behavior, then these grown-up enablers truly are throwbacks to a vicious American past, and all citizens should revile them. There is evidence, however, that such adolescent cruelty is not official policy. The school principal told a black student who had inquired about the segregated tree that he could sit there or anywhere else he pleased.
But even if the worst possible interpretation of these events is merited, the massive international attention to this tiny town would seem vastly disproportionate to the cause, unless Jena stands for a more widespread problem. The idea behind the protests and the politicians’ exploitation of them is that just as these five youths were overcharged, the hundreds of thousands of blacks in prison are also the victims of systemic abuse. But for institutional racism, the black prison population would be much smaller.
This is an old complaint, for which no proof has ever been offered, Hillary Clinton’s irresponsible statement notwithstanding. The usual evidence in support of the charge that the criminal laws discriminate against blacks is the far stiffer sentences for selling and possessing crack cocaine compared with powdered cocaine. But that colorblind sentencing regimen, which dates from 1986, was a heartfelt effort to protect the overwhelmingly black victims of crack, not to penalize them. Black liberals such as Congressman Charles Rangel were loudest in sounding the alarm about the effects of crack in the black ghetto. Not even the most deluded racial apologists have ever explicitly suggested that racial bias motivated Congress’s efforts to combat a drug that results in much higher rates of violence among dealers and users, quicker and more onerous addiction, and more emergency room visits than its powdered cousin.
The reason that the black incarceration rate is the highest in the country is that blacks have the highest crime rate—by a long shot. Don’t trust the police, prosecutors, or judges to give a fair picture of black crime? Then go where the bodies are. Los Angeles is representative. In the first seven months of 2007, blacks in Los Angeles were murdered at a rate ten times that of whites and Asians. Who’s killing them? It’s not whites and Asians. While a minor proportion of the assailants of blacks are Hispanic, the vast majority are black themselves. Nationally, blacks commit murder at about eight times the frequency of whites. In New York, any given violent crime is 13 times more likely to have been committed by a black person than by a white person, according to the reports of victims and witnesses. Though they are only 24 percent of the city’s population, blacks committed 68.5 percent of all murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults in New York last year. Whites, who make up 34.5 percent of New Yorkers, committed only 5.3 percent of violent crimes. These ratios are similar across the country. In Los Angeles, blacks committed 41 percent of all robberies in 2001, according to victims’ descriptions, though they constitute only 11 percent of the city’s population. Robbery victims identified whites, who make up 30 percent of the Los Angeles population, just 4 percent of the time.
When attacking the justice system, racial agitators work mightily to change the subject from violence to drugs, using their flimsy argument that crack cocaine penalties are too high. But the vast preponderance of prisoners are in the pen for violence and property crime. In 2003, 52 percent of inmates in state prisons were serving time for violent offenses, 21 percent for property offenses, and only 20 percent for drug offenses. To be sure, black incarceration rates are off the charts. Black men were 41 percent of the more than 2 million men in federal, state, and local prisons at midyear 2006. At the end of 2005, there were 3,145 prison inmates per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared with 1,244 inmates per 100,000 Hispanic males and 471 inmates per 100,000 white males. Is that because violent and property crime is overpenalized, as race advocates sometimes argue? No. Despite the advocates’ constant complaints about three-strikes laws, the criminal justice system actually underpenalizes crime because of inadequate prison space. Prosecutors cut deals to lessen sentences; sheriffs overseeing local jails regularly devise new schemes for dumping offenders back on the street to make room for the next batch. And in any case, even if penalties for particular offenses were too draconian, the punishments affect all offenders the same.
No one in the Jena stampede dares whisper a word about black crime, because it undercuts the portrait of a victimized race. You can listen to every protest across the country glorifying the “Jena Six” and you will never hear an acknowledgement of the massive social breakdown that is the black crime rate: no mention of the violence in inner-city schools that black students commit overwhelmingly; no mention of the rising homicides in midsize cities that young black males commit when they feel “disrespected.” It is not racism that is putting black men in jail; it’s their own behavior.
What about the broader significance of Jena? Again, assuming for the sake of argument that this minuscule Louisiana town seethes with the crudest bigotry, held uniquely by whites against integration-seeking blacks, is Jena’s supposed state of affairs a microcosm of America? To the contrary: there is not a single elite institution in the country that is not twisting itself into knots in favor of African-Americans. Every minimally selective college is desperately seeking to enroll more black students. Boosting black enrollment requires drastically lowering a college’s admissions criteria to overcome the intractable 200-point SAT gap between black and white high school students, but every college institutes such double standards for the sake of “diversity.” Any black student who graduates from high school with decent grades and respectable SATs will leapfrog over thousands of more qualified white and Asian students right into the Ivy League. Blacks are also the hottest commodity for exclusive private schools that serve as training grounds for the Ivies. Andover, Exeter, Choate, and every other fancy prep and day school practice the same double standards in their eagerness to admit African-American students. After college, law schools, business schools, medical schools, engineering schools, and others accept black students whose test scores would disqualify them if they were white or Asian.
The preferences continue into the professions. Wall Street law firms annually flagellate themselves over their lack of proportional representation of black associates and partners, even though the number of blacks who graduate from law school with grades and bar-exam scores comparable with the firms’ white hires is negligible. The lack of comparably qualified black candidates does not stop the law partnerships from hiring black associates, though. Corporations have saddled themselves with massive “diversity” bureaucracies whose only function is to justify hiring and promoting less qualified African-Americans and Hispanics. Newspapers, TV stations, and advertisers put enormous pressure on themselves to have blacks on their staffs and to show black faces to the world.
In short, the opportunities for blacks to roar ahead in the economy if they stay out of trouble, study, and apply themselves are legion, but the numbers taking advantage of these opportunities are not. California’s state superintendent of public instruction broke a longstanding taboo this August by pointing out that middle-class black students in the state score worse on math and English than poor white and Asian students—a disparity that applies across the country. The usual poverty excuse for black underachievement does not hold up.
The Jena protesters will go home in denial of these truths. In fact, the purpose of such mass celebrations—and that is indeed what they are—is to make sure that attention stays far away from the actual problems holding blacks back. Astronomical rates of black criminality are not the only topic that the Jena rallies have obscured. No one wallowing in Jena promotion has had the courage to speak about an even more important crisis, the breakdown of marriage. The nearly 70 percent national illegitimacy rate for blacks—a number that can approach 90 percent in inner cities—is a cataclysm. Its consequences go far beyond the harm to individual black children—especially boys—who grow up without fathers. The real poison of the marriage crisis is the message it sends to young men about personal responsibility. The first duty in civil society is toward one’s own children; everything else is built around it. But when boys are raised without any expectations that they will have to support their children and marry the mother of those children, they fail to learn the most basic lesson about responsibility. They also are freed from the civilizing force of the marriage requirement, which pressures young men to become attractive mates. With enough support, individuals can overcome the moral perils of the illegitimacy culture, but given the prevalence of black crime and disaffiliation from the working world, it’s clear that not enough young men are finding ways to do so.
The race industry will try to keep Jena in the media and political spotlight for as long as possible, and to reinforce the notion that this episode exemplifies blacks’ situation in America. But if there were many other instances of (arguable) overcharging for black crime, we would have heard about them by now. The orgy of Jena coverage will not just fail to improve the lagging performance of blacks; it will impede such improvement by strengthening the victim mentality. Both whites and blacks are complicit in this sabotage. These ecstatic festivals of racism-bashing are a crippling ritual in the codependency between absolution-seeking whites and angry blacks, a phenomenon that Shelby Steele has powerfully analyzed. The demonstrators exhibit a palpable desire for the moral clarity of the civil rights era, as do the reporters, who have covered their every utterance. “This is the first time something like this has happened for our generation,” one student told the New York Times. “You always heard about it from history books and relatives. This is a chance to experience it for ourselves.”
He’s right; there has been nothing like Selma or Montgomery for the current generation, because much of America has accomplished almost an about-face on race since the 1950s. The current martyrs to American bigotry are a far cry from Rosa Parks. Like the “Jena Six,” they tend to have committed acts of violence or other crimes for which they are allegedly being excessively punished. Think of the six high school hooligans from Decatur, Illinois, whom Jesse Jackson tried to beatify in 1999 when their schools expelled them for a violent stadium fight; their backgrounds included robbery, trespassing, truancy, and failing whole school years. We are only belatedly learning that Mychal Bell, the sole member of the “Jena Six” to have been prosecuted for knocking out and kicking Justin Barker, has a previous arrest record that includes battery and property damage. Barker’s injuries led to $14,000 in medical bills, according to a lawyer.
The Jena situation is undoubtedly a bit more complex than the tale that the press has woven of hate-filled whites and peace-loving blacks. But even if it were not, the catharsis that this morality play has offered to its participants is spurious. The real tragedy is the dysfunctional culture that holds back too many blacks from seizing the many opportunities open to them.
Sean Hannity
I don't often watch Fox News- or CNN, MSNBC, or any of the rest of the cesspool that is the mainstream media polluting my TV set. They're all lackeys of special interest and shrills for either the Dems (MSNBC) or the Bush Administration (FOX). The two worst excuses for commentators, in my humble opinion, are Keith Olbermann at MSNBC and Fox's Sean Hannity. I'll post some thoughts on KO, but I ran across the following on the National Expositor website, and it pretty much sums up my feelings for Hannity:
Smug, dishonest, sellout, scum... just a few words that come to mind when I think of Sean Hannity. If anyone watched the NH debate the other day and the ass kissing spin fest that followed, they know what I'm talking about. The coolade drinkers at Fox and Freaks were up to their old antics. Hannity proved once again that there are no lengths to which he will not go to hide the truth from America.
Does anybody really believe that Sean is unaware of how the phone text polling works? Why is it beyond Sean's comprehension that 33% of the callers would prefer a candidate that answers a direct question with a direct answer, who wants to end the phoney war, and who wants to restore constitutionally protected freedoms? Does he really believe that given a choice between an America with lower taxes, less government, more privacy, and a nation that protects its own sovereignty rather than agressive wars and nation building - that people would voluntarily choose an America with eroding freedoms, rising inflation, a promise of more debt, unending war, and a police state with national ID cards and more gun restrictions??? Does he really think so little of people? No. It isn't possible.
Hannity is a phoney who is trying desperately to become one of the elite by hanging on to the coat tails of the power machine and being a good little lackey. He has lost all credibility by backing the wrong horse. He backed slavery instead of freedom. "Let freedom ring?" you bet. Old Sean has dug himself a hole and after the regime change, he'll be lucky if he can get a job selling newspapers. Won't that be sweet justice?
Smug, dishonest, sellout, scum... just a few words that come to mind when I think of Sean Hannity. If anyone watched the NH debate the other day and the ass kissing spin fest that followed, they know what I'm talking about. The coolade drinkers at Fox and Freaks were up to their old antics. Hannity proved once again that there are no lengths to which he will not go to hide the truth from America.
Does anybody really believe that Sean is unaware of how the phone text polling works? Why is it beyond Sean's comprehension that 33% of the callers would prefer a candidate that answers a direct question with a direct answer, who wants to end the phoney war, and who wants to restore constitutionally protected freedoms? Does he really believe that given a choice between an America with lower taxes, less government, more privacy, and a nation that protects its own sovereignty rather than agressive wars and nation building - that people would voluntarily choose an America with eroding freedoms, rising inflation, a promise of more debt, unending war, and a police state with national ID cards and more gun restrictions??? Does he really think so little of people? No. It isn't possible.
Hannity is a phoney who is trying desperately to become one of the elite by hanging on to the coat tails of the power machine and being a good little lackey. He has lost all credibility by backing the wrong horse. He backed slavery instead of freedom. "Let freedom ring?" you bet. Old Sean has dug himself a hole and after the regime change, he'll be lucky if he can get a job selling newspapers. Won't that be sweet justice?
The Cost of Illegal Immigration in Florida
2005 estimates placed the number of illegal aliens in Florida at 630,000. No doubt this number is higher in 2007, but the older figures will serve well enough to demonstrate how much educating, treating, and incarcerating costs Florida taxpayers.
-----------------------------------------------
From the Federation for American Immigration Reform website:
Analysis of the latest Census data indicates Florida’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers nearly more than $1.7 billion dollars per year for education, medical care and incarceration. Even if the estimated taxes collected from illegal immigrant workers are subtracted, net outlays still amount to nearly one billion dollars per year. The annual fiscal burden amounts to about $300 per Florida household headed by a native-born resident.
This analysis looks specifically at the costs to the state for education, health care and incarceration resulting from illegal immigration. These three are the largest cost areas, and they are the same three areas analyzed in a 1994 study conducted by the Urban Institute, which provides a useful baseline for comparison a decade later. Other studies have been conducted in the interim, showing trends that support the conclusions of this report.
There are other significant costs associated with illegal immigration, and federal and state officials should take these into account as well. Even without accounting for all of the numerous areas in which costs associated with illegal immigration are being incurred by Florida taxpayers, the program areas analyzed in this study indicate that the burden is substantial and that the costs are rapidly increasing.
The nearly two billion dollars in costs incurred by Florida taxpayers annually result from outlays in the following areas:
Education. Based on estimates of the illegal immigrant population in Florida and documented costs of K-12 schooling, Floridians spend more than $1.5 billion annually on education for illegal immigrant children and for their U.S.-born siblings. About 8.7 percent of the K-12 public school students in Florida are children of illegal aliens.
Health Care. Taxpayer-funded, unreimbursed medical outlays for health care provided to the state’s illegal alien population amount to about $165 million a year.
Incarceration. The uncompensated cost of incarcerating illegal aliens in Florida’s state and county prisons amounts to about $60 million a year (not including local jail detention costs or related law enforcement and judicial expenditures or the monetary costs of the crimes that led to their incarceration).
State and local taxes paid by the unauthorized immigrant population go toward offsetting these costs, but they do not come near to matching the expenses. The total of such payments can generously be estimated at about $910 million per year.
The fiscal costs of illegal immigration do not end with these three major cost areas. The total costs of illegal immigration to the state’s taxpayers would be considerably higher if other cost areas such as special English instruction, welfare programs used by the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, or welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal alien workers were also calculated.
-----------------------------------------------
From the Federation for American Immigration Reform website:
Analysis of the latest Census data indicates Florida’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers nearly more than $1.7 billion dollars per year for education, medical care and incarceration. Even if the estimated taxes collected from illegal immigrant workers are subtracted, net outlays still amount to nearly one billion dollars per year. The annual fiscal burden amounts to about $300 per Florida household headed by a native-born resident.
This analysis looks specifically at the costs to the state for education, health care and incarceration resulting from illegal immigration. These three are the largest cost areas, and they are the same three areas analyzed in a 1994 study conducted by the Urban Institute, which provides a useful baseline for comparison a decade later. Other studies have been conducted in the interim, showing trends that support the conclusions of this report.
There are other significant costs associated with illegal immigration, and federal and state officials should take these into account as well. Even without accounting for all of the numerous areas in which costs associated with illegal immigration are being incurred by Florida taxpayers, the program areas analyzed in this study indicate that the burden is substantial and that the costs are rapidly increasing.
The nearly two billion dollars in costs incurred by Florida taxpayers annually result from outlays in the following areas:
Education. Based on estimates of the illegal immigrant population in Florida and documented costs of K-12 schooling, Floridians spend more than $1.5 billion annually on education for illegal immigrant children and for their U.S.-born siblings. About 8.7 percent of the K-12 public school students in Florida are children of illegal aliens.
Health Care. Taxpayer-funded, unreimbursed medical outlays for health care provided to the state’s illegal alien population amount to about $165 million a year.
Incarceration. The uncompensated cost of incarcerating illegal aliens in Florida’s state and county prisons amounts to about $60 million a year (not including local jail detention costs or related law enforcement and judicial expenditures or the monetary costs of the crimes that led to their incarceration).
State and local taxes paid by the unauthorized immigrant population go toward offsetting these costs, but they do not come near to matching the expenses. The total of such payments can generously be estimated at about $910 million per year.
The fiscal costs of illegal immigration do not end with these three major cost areas. The total costs of illegal immigration to the state’s taxpayers would be considerably higher if other cost areas such as special English instruction, welfare programs used by the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, or welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal alien workers were also calculated.
Ron Paul- the Right Man at the Right Time for America
If you're currently a registered Republican and are concerned at all about the disastrous direction in which the Neocons in the GOP are leading this Country- and you should be- your concerns certainly won't be addressed by any of the so-called "top tier" GOP candidates:
- Giuliani- Pro-Gun, Pro-Abortion on Demand, Pro- Amnesty;
- Thompson- A Neocon through and through;
- McCain- Architect of the Shamnesty Bill which would have rewarded illegal aliens for invading America;
- Romney- a waffler in the mold of another Massachusetts liberal, John Kerry.
None of these four are a friend to traditional conservatives- Giuliani is an unabashed social progressive- and so was Romney until he decided to run for President. No one really knows where Thompson is coming from (we only certain that he "is not a churchgoer"), and McCain wanted to open the flood gates and allow tens of millions more across the border from Mexico.
No, none of these men are true friends of conservatism or, more importantly, the Constitution. If you truly believe in the principles you purport to, you need to take a look at a man who truly believes as you do- you need to take a serious look at Ron Paul.
See if you agree with the following statements:
"The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty."
"You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property."
"We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters."
"No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws."
"We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches."
"We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future — and yours."
Well, do you agree with those positions? Then you agree with Ron Paul. For Congressman Paul, constitutional, conservative and traditional values aren't something he merely plays lip service to- like you and I, he truly believes those things. With the corrupt behavior of so-called "values" candidates, isn't it past time that we elect a candidate who honestly believes the same way we do?
Do yourself a favor, and take the time to go to Ron Paul 2008 and look over his bio and positions on the issues that are facing America. Don't vote for a candidate you can't stomach just because you think he can beat the Democrat or that he's the lesser of the multitudinous evils- vote your principles, and get behind the Right man at the Right time for America- Congressman Ron Paul.
If you've read my previous posts, you'll know the Party affiliation shown on my Voter Registration card reads "CPF" (Constitution Party of Florida). In supporting Congressman Paul's efforts to secure the GOP nomination, I am of the same mind as the National Constitution Party concerning his candidacy:
The Constitution Party presidential candidate will be selected at its convention in the spring of 2008. We can’t say for sure what will be decided by the convention delegates, but as the party who puts principle above party loyalty, it seems that in the unlikely event that Doctor No is able to capture the Republican nomination, we would stand behind him 100%.
The dilemma we have is that we cannot sit around and wait to see what the Republicans are going to do but must build the ark that true Constitutionalists can find refuge on when it dawns on them that the Republican and Democrat parties will let them drown. To that end we must work to secure ballot access in all 50 states NOW and find a candidate who can carry our principles into a presidential campaign which will more than likely find a left-of-center candidate carrying the Republican mantle.
If the Grand Old Party does choose to return to its conservative ideals by supporting Congressman Paul, then there will be ample opportunity to throw our support behind him should our delegates so decide. If he does not win the GOP nomination we will have done much of the work to gain the ballot lines necessary to field a candidate who shares our values and who will govern constitutionally. That candidate could be Ron Paul should he decide to continue his race by seeking the Constitution Party nomination.
At this critical juncture in our history it is with firm hope we work toward the election of a true statesman who will seek to maintain the Founder’s vision in adherence to our great Constitution.
Columbia Got Played
Once again, the intellectual elite in America got played like an out-of-tune Stradavarius. In extending an invitation to the Iranian President, Columbia University found itself in the unique position of playing right into the hand of the Neocons in the White House and the radical moslems in Tehran and throughout the world.
Nobody seemed to pay much attention to how little the Bush Administration objected to Ahmadinejad's appearance. Sure, they made enough noise to make it look good, but in the warped world of the Neocons, they couldn't have asked for anything better. Knowing full well that Ahmadinejad was going to make comments sure to enflame, anger, and scare most of the American public, there was no way the White House was going to work to shut down this very public event. Letting Ahmadinejad have his say will make it a lot easier to sell gullible Americans on the coming military action against Iran. Best of all, there's no political fallout for the Neocons on this at all. Columbia is taking the brunt of the criticism for inviting him in the first place.
As far as Ahmadinejad is concerned, he has to be ecstatic. Bollinger did exactly what the Iranian President figured he would do- he went after the devoutly-held religious beliefs of radical moslems all over the planet. Using words like "illiterate and ignorant" to describe those who follow Ahmadinejad, and calling him a "petty and cruel dictator" really wasn't a very bright thing for the President of an Ivy League University to do. Ahmadinejad can now return to Iran and point out how rudely he was treated in the land of free speech, and how intolerant the Americans are to the religious beliefs on moslems- which he began to do as soon as he opened his mouth on the platform, calling Bollinger's remarks "insulting" and unfriendly. Bollinger, in trying to play tough in front of the cameras, played the perfect fool in Ahmadinejad's scheme.
Bush got what he wanted, Ahmadinejad got what he wanted, and Columbia ended up looking ridiculous. One of the most prestigious institutes in the Country- a bastion of the intellectual elite- got played by arguably the worst President in American history and a "cruel and petty dictator."
Nobody seemed to pay much attention to how little the Bush Administration objected to Ahmadinejad's appearance. Sure, they made enough noise to make it look good, but in the warped world of the Neocons, they couldn't have asked for anything better. Knowing full well that Ahmadinejad was going to make comments sure to enflame, anger, and scare most of the American public, there was no way the White House was going to work to shut down this very public event. Letting Ahmadinejad have his say will make it a lot easier to sell gullible Americans on the coming military action against Iran. Best of all, there's no political fallout for the Neocons on this at all. Columbia is taking the brunt of the criticism for inviting him in the first place.
As far as Ahmadinejad is concerned, he has to be ecstatic. Bollinger did exactly what the Iranian President figured he would do- he went after the devoutly-held religious beliefs of radical moslems all over the planet. Using words like "illiterate and ignorant" to describe those who follow Ahmadinejad, and calling him a "petty and cruel dictator" really wasn't a very bright thing for the President of an Ivy League University to do. Ahmadinejad can now return to Iran and point out how rudely he was treated in the land of free speech, and how intolerant the Americans are to the religious beliefs on moslems- which he began to do as soon as he opened his mouth on the platform, calling Bollinger's remarks "insulting" and unfriendly. Bollinger, in trying to play tough in front of the cameras, played the perfect fool in Ahmadinejad's scheme.
Bush got what he wanted, Ahmadinejad got what he wanted, and Columbia ended up looking ridiculous. One of the most prestigious institutes in the Country- a bastion of the intellectual elite- got played by arguably the worst President in American history and a "cruel and petty dictator."
I Changed Parties
It's been a long time coming- I switched my party affiliation to the Constitution Party. The Republicans simply don't represent me, and God knows the Democrats certainly don't. Both parties are globalists, kissing up to multinational conglomerates and selling the American soul for campaign contributions. Though they may loudly proclaim otherwise, they do not share my values, or the values on which this Country was founded. Their only concerns are power and money- either getting it, keeping it, or keeping the other from it.
The Constitution Party reflects my vision of what America once was, and can be again- a Constitutional Republic which emphasizes both individual rights AND individual responsibilities. In upcoming posts, I'll be sharing that vision and the issues which are hindering that vision from being manifest, along with relating the pertinent principles from the Constitution Party Platform. If you don't want to wait that long, you can go to the official Constitution Party Platform page and check it out for yourself.
I switched parties based on principle- maybe you should think about doing the same.
The Constitution Party reflects my vision of what America once was, and can be again- a Constitutional Republic which emphasizes both individual rights AND individual responsibilities. In upcoming posts, I'll be sharing that vision and the issues which are hindering that vision from being manifest, along with relating the pertinent principles from the Constitution Party Platform. If you don't want to wait that long, you can go to the official Constitution Party Platform page and check it out for yourself.
I switched parties based on principle- maybe you should think about doing the same.
It's Midnight in America- Do You Know Where Your Country Is?
Howdy, ya'll, and welcome to Midnight in America.
It took me a while to decide on a name for the blog. I wanted something catchy- something that would at least make you go "hmmmm," piquing your curiosity enough to at least surf over and scope things out. If you're reading this, it must have worked.
So why did I decide on "Midnight in America?" Two reasons- one negative, one positive.
First, the negative. "Midnight" is usually associated with bad things. It's "the witching hour," when the dark forces gather to summon and worship the forces of evil. In America, these forces are gathering, whether it's in the form of Neocons, Progressives, Globalists, Elitists, radical Islamists, or international business cabals. For Americans like me who view events and activities from a "traditional" perspective, things in America don't look so good right now. The Neocons are decimating the Constitution, involving us in wars we have no business fighting, and spending money like they were Democrats. Progressives are trying to push us to accept their godless agenda of gay marriage, unfettered abortion, and political correctness. Globalists and big business want to send our jobs overseas and allow our porous border with Mexico to remain open to illegals for cheap labor. The mainstream media is cozy with the political parties, controlled by big business and other interests (which may not be in our best interest), and is far more concerned with getting us to think a particular way about a story than with reporting it accurately. I could go on and on about NAFTA, CAFTA, the invading hordes of illegal immigrants, Hollywood leftists, political correctness on college campuses, racism is rap music, abuse of power, "hate" crimes, and a host of other ills and evils (which I will do in other postings), but I think I've said enough to get the point across- things aren't so good on our home front.
It's Midnight in America for a lot of us- but there is cause for hope. "Midnight" may be portrayed in most books and movies as a negative and evil thing, but there is one Book in which "midnight" is a good thing- the Bible. It may be the "witching hour" in popular culture, but in the Scripture it is the "hour of deliverance" for God's people. It was at midnight the firstborn of Egypt was killed, leading Pharaoh to free the sons and daughter of Abraham; it was at midnight Paul and Silas were freed from prison at Philippi; and at midnight, "there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him."
So there you have it- the thought process in arriving at the name I eventually chose. It conveys the vast darkness of evil and immorality which surrounds us, but also gives us hope for turning things around. In future postings, I'll share with you news and perspectives (some original, some from other writers) you won't get from the mainstream media, as well as thoughts on how to turn the Country back to where She should be. Hopefully you will be challenged to action in the process, and we can make America a great and godly Country once again.
That's all for now. God bless you, and God bless America.
It took me a while to decide on a name for the blog. I wanted something catchy- something that would at least make you go "hmmmm," piquing your curiosity enough to at least surf over and scope things out. If you're reading this, it must have worked.
So why did I decide on "Midnight in America?" Two reasons- one negative, one positive.
First, the negative. "Midnight" is usually associated with bad things. It's "the witching hour," when the dark forces gather to summon and worship the forces of evil. In America, these forces are gathering, whether it's in the form of Neocons, Progressives, Globalists, Elitists, radical Islamists, or international business cabals. For Americans like me who view events and activities from a "traditional" perspective, things in America don't look so good right now. The Neocons are decimating the Constitution, involving us in wars we have no business fighting, and spending money like they were Democrats. Progressives are trying to push us to accept their godless agenda of gay marriage, unfettered abortion, and political correctness. Globalists and big business want to send our jobs overseas and allow our porous border with Mexico to remain open to illegals for cheap labor. The mainstream media is cozy with the political parties, controlled by big business and other interests (which may not be in our best interest), and is far more concerned with getting us to think a particular way about a story than with reporting it accurately. I could go on and on about NAFTA, CAFTA, the invading hordes of illegal immigrants, Hollywood leftists, political correctness on college campuses, racism is rap music, abuse of power, "hate" crimes, and a host of other ills and evils (which I will do in other postings), but I think I've said enough to get the point across- things aren't so good on our home front.
It's Midnight in America for a lot of us- but there is cause for hope. "Midnight" may be portrayed in most books and movies as a negative and evil thing, but there is one Book in which "midnight" is a good thing- the Bible. It may be the "witching hour" in popular culture, but in the Scripture it is the "hour of deliverance" for God's people. It was at midnight the firstborn of Egypt was killed, leading Pharaoh to free the sons and daughter of Abraham; it was at midnight Paul and Silas were freed from prison at Philippi; and at midnight, "there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him."
So there you have it- the thought process in arriving at the name I eventually chose. It conveys the vast darkness of evil and immorality which surrounds us, but also gives us hope for turning things around. In future postings, I'll share with you news and perspectives (some original, some from other writers) you won't get from the mainstream media, as well as thoughts on how to turn the Country back to where She should be. Hopefully you will be challenged to action in the process, and we can make America a great and godly Country once again.
That's all for now. God bless you, and God bless America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)