Midnight in America

Pat Robertson Could Learn a Thing or Two from Chuck Baldwin

2007-11-08T12:49:00.000-05:00

In light of Pat Robertson's indefensible endorsement of Rudy Giuliani yesterday, I'm posting a column by Pastor Chuck Baldwin regarding the candidacy of Ron Paul. Pastor Baldwin pleads with his fellow ministers not to lend their support to phony conservatives (not to make deals with the devil, so to speak), but to take a long, hard look at supporting Ron Paul.

____________________________

AN APPEAL TO MY FELLOW PASTORS
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
November 6, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

Recently, Iowa pastors gathered to hear my presentation in Des Moines on behalf of Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul. After listening to me, they then heard ten-term Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul himself.

Consider how Congressman Paul's message impacted Pastor Jim Hartman of the Assembly of God church in Conrad, Iowa. "I've been supporting Mike Huckabee, but I would say I'm leaning real strong toward Ron Paul." Hartman supported President Bush four years ago and explained, "Up until the last six months I had not allowed myself to imagine that we'd been let down by Bush." As for Iraq, he said, "I don't think we were prepared to understand that culture and to work with that culture." He said he now feels "humble and I feel kind of bad that I haven't done a better job of being faithful to Ron Paul's kind of integrity." [Source: MSNBC, Oct. 30, 2007]

Integrity: that is the issue drawing millions to Ron Paul, including young people. The night before I spoke, nearly 700 students gathered at Iowa State University in Ames to hear Dr. Paul. One of those students wrote me recently. His name is Nathan Rockman. He wrote, "As a columnist for the Iowa State Daily here on campus, I have seen first hand what can be described as Ron Paul fever. Since Dr. Paul visited this past Friday, his message of freedom and liberty has been spreading through campus like wildfire . . ."

Ron Paul doesn't recruit artisan spin writers and bloggers to wear down those who might question his past dealings. He doesn't need to. There are no missing hard-drives, ethics violations, and taxpayer funds used for personal use that need to be spun away. He still refuses to participate in the lucrative Congressional pension fund and returns a portion of his Congressional office budget back to the U.S. Treasury each year.

This kind of integrity moved Pastor Hartman, the students at Iowa State University, and many more like them.

Ron Paul has been fighting for the right to life from the beginning of his public career. Dr. Paul is rock-solid on pro-life. After all, he has helped over 4,000 women deliver their babies into the world in his obstetrics practice in Lake Jackson, Texas. He proposed the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005" (and 2007), which would require that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency." Has he recently discovered these pro-life convictions? Not at all. Congressman Paul introduced the Human Life Amendment in Congress in his very first term of Congress, a couple of years after Roe v. Wade was first handed down.

Is Ron Paul a libertarian, as some use in a throw-away line, often intended to move the listener to discard him without thought? Yes, on areas of fiscal, economic and judicial liberty, he is. But, he is also a social conservative and a Constitutionalist.

Ron Paul's priorities are right with marriage. He and his wife, Carol, have been married for more than fifty years. He believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and defends that principle with his vote, where and when he has the Constitutional authority to do so. For example, Dr. Paul strongly supports the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Candidly, though, Ron Paul does not believe (and neither do I) that the U.S. Government needs to be defining that which God has already defined in His Word.

Where pastors often become confused about Ron Paul is that when he is resisting the unconstitutional centralization of our federal government, he is often perceived as being anti-family. Many in these pro-family movements themselves have been co-opted into believing that the solutions to our family problems come in the form of more unconstitutional federal legislation and programs. And when one does not agree with these unconstitutional remedies, they conclude that he or she is "anti-family." Such people mean well but are confused.

America would be much better off if we Christian pastors taught the need for Christ-honoring resistance--at the local level--to anti-family federal intrusions. We should call on our congregations to vote out of office any judge who passes rulings designed to pervert the Biblical family. That doesn't take a Constitutional amendment. It just takes courageous pastors and people who understand that judges, too, must respect the Constitution and our Christian heritage.

In fact, adherence to the Constitution protects our freedom of speech and assembly; our freedom of worship; our right to keep and bear arms; our right to a trial by jury; the right to be secure in our own homes against police overreach; our right to witness for Christ in public, as a Christian; the right to own property; the right to not be deprived of life or property without due process of law; the right to face our accusers, and the right to keep government local and limited.

Keeping government local and limited is the cornerstone doctrine of American government. Ron Paul understands this more than any other candidate running today.

Most of the problems that we are now dealing with socially, culturally, financially, etc., stem from America abandoning the basic founding principle that "the government that governs least governs best."

Accordingly, America's commitment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has been (and is being) systematically stripped from us--not by State legislatures, but mostly by agencies of the federal government.

Consider how it has been federal courts that have banned prayer in school, and legalized abortion and homosexual marriage. Even in the liberal State of Massachusetts it was the courts (along with a compliant liberal governor, Mitt Romney), that forced acceptance of homosexual marriage upon the people.

The solutions to these problems do not reside in more federal legislation. All that does is strengthen the scope and power of the federal judiciary.

The only ones who have anything to fear from Ron Paul are those who believe in Big Government.

You see, Ron Paul is actually calling on us pastors and Christians to stop seeing the federal government as one "in whom we live and move and have our being." Jesus Christ is our Savior and Lord, not the federal government. Have we not, in a material way, set up the federal government as our functional Lord and Savior? When we look to the federal government to solve our moral and spiritual problems, that is exactly what we are doing.

When it comes to the war in Iraq, I firmly believe that Christian conservatives have been duped by the neocons. Dr. Paul--an Air Force veteran and proponent of a strong national defense--opposed the unprovoked and pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, and rightly so. Time has certainly vindicated Dr. Paul's principled position. There was a much better way to deal with al-Qaeda.

Soon after 9/11, Congressman Paul introduced H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. According to Paul, "A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage war against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation."

This is precisely what President Thomas Jefferson did when America's ships were confronted with Barbary pirates on the high seas.

If the United States government had listened to Ron Paul, we would not have lost nearly 4,000 American soldiers and Marines, spent over $1 trillion, and gotten bogged down in an endless civil war from which there is no equitable extraction. Furthermore, had we listened to Dr. Paul, Osama bin Laden would no doubt be dead, as would most of his al-Qaeda operatives, and we would be less vulnerable to future terrorist attacks, instead of being more vulnerable, which is the case today.

One thing that Pastor Hartman brought up in our meeting in Iowa was the sentiment of many Christians and pastors to defend Israel. Dr. Paul stated that he did not believe that we do Israel any favors and we actually weaken Israel by our constant meddling and intervention. I agree.

Ron Paul is not Israel's enemy. And neither is he the enemy to Christian liberty and constitutional government.

Ron Paul's non-interventionist and constitutional foreign policy approach would help, not hurt, Israel to resolve tensions with their neighbors. Remember, Israel has more nuclear missiles to defend themselves than all of the Middle East nations combined. Believe me, Israel knows how to defend itself. And know this: America's constant meddling curses Israel more than it blesses.

Also consider this: according to published reports such as this one in the Houston Chronicle, Ron Paul is receiving more donations from military personnel than any other Presidential candidate in either party. Think seriously about this. Our active duty and retired military personnel clearly endorse with their own contributions Ron Paul's non-interventionist position above all others.

In the end, if the candidate is a sincere Christian, he will all the more readily obey his or her oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. After all, does not our Lord tell us that our yea is to be yea and our nay is to be nay? In other words, genuine believers are to be true to their word. How, then, could a true Christian make a promise before God and the American people to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution and then turn around and ignore that promise?

Ron Paul lives his Christian faith and takes his oath to the Constitution seriously. What more could we ask for in a Presidential candidate? Every Christian pastor should seriously consider Congressman Ron Paul. Here is his website:

© 2007 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

Source: NewsWithViews.com

Robertson Endorses Giuliani

2007-11-07T13:05:00.000-05:00

Pat Robertson has announced he will be backing RINO Rudy Giuliani. That's right, the self-anointed mouthpiece of what remains of the once powerful Religious Right has endorsed an pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-gun control, pro-illegal immigration social progressive.

Robertson was willing to overlook the liberal positions of the 3-times divorced lapsed Catholic from New York because of Rudy's "ability" to lead the Nation in the "War on Terror." Again, I must ask the question- exactly what is it in Giuliani's past that makes one think he would be effective in fighting terrorism? His horrible decision to move the Emergency Command Center into the World Trade Center after the first bombing? or was it his refusal to supply emergency personnel with communications gear that actually worked like it was supposed to? or maybe it was his backing of a corrupt womanizing Police Commissioner to head the Department of Homeland Security- whose kids of whom Rudy just happened to be their godfather?

These morons all seem to think that somehow, being mayor of a city during a terrorist attack qualifies Giuliani to lead the "War on Terror" and make America "safe." (Note: I'm not taking a position here as to whether 9/11 was an actual terrorist attack or not- I am simply putting the conventional view out there, since that view is central to Giuliani's campaign)

Robertson invoked the Reagan doctrine- my 80% friend is not my 20% enemy. If Rudy is only Pat's "20%" enemy, then Pat isn't much of a conservative- or a Christian, for that matter. But then again, we already knew this about Pat.

In the grand scheme of things, this endorsement means very little. Robertson's influence has been fading for years, and may give Giuliani a 1 or 2 point bump- but I doubt it will have even that effect.

The Top 100 Conservatives?

2007-11-01T20:56:00.000-04:00

It's pretty obvious the word "conservative" means something different to the editors at the London Telegraph than it does to me. As I read through the list, it was readily apparent that they recognize no distinction between real conservatives and neocons- and, as evidenced by their choice as the most influential "conservative" in the United States, they don't know the difference between a liberal and a conservative, either.

Their choice as the most influential conservative? Rudy Giuliani. That's right, a pro-gay, pro-abortion, and pro-gun control liberal is the most influential American conservative.

The failure to distinguish notwithstanding, the ratings themselves are laughable. I don't like Bill O'Reilly, but having him at #82 and Glenn Beck at #18 is patently absurd. Ron Paul made the list at #96, with Chuck Norris checking in 25 spots ahead of the Congressman.

The liberal list is a little more feasible, but George Soros at 15 is insane. Through his MoveOn.org and other progressive/socialist organizations, Soros basically controls the Democratic Party. At least they put Ah-nold on this list- although I'm not sure why Lieberman is listed among the Conservatives.

For a good laugh, you can see both lists in full here.

Higher Education or Brainwashing?

2007-10-31T08:02:00.000-04:00

According to the University of Delaware, I'm a racist. If you're white, so are you. Don't bother trying to argue otherwise, you're a racist. We're so racist that we invented racism, and no one but us can be racist.

All dorm students are required to attend the brainwashing sessions, and "treatment" is available for those wishing to be further brainwashed, so that they may hate the white race as much as the multiculturalists do.

Apparently Sistah Souljah rides again.

-------------------------------------
University to students: 'All whites are racist'
Mandatory program 'treats' politically incorrect attitudes
Posted: October 30, 2007
9:35 p.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
©2007 WorldNetDaily.com

A mandatory University of Delaware program requires residence hall students to acknowledge that "all whites are racist" and offers them "treatment" for any incorrect attitudes regarding class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality they might hold upon entering the school, according to a civil rights group.

"Somehow, the University of Delaware seems terrifyingly unaware that a state-sponsored institution of higher education in the United States does not have the legal right to engage in a program of systematic thought reform. The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of conscience – the right to keep our innermost thoughts free from governmental intrusion. It also protects the right to be free from compelled speech," said a letter from Samantha Harris, director of legal and public advocacy for The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education to university President Patrick Harker.

The organization cited excerpts from the university's Office of Residence Life Diversity Education Training documents, including the statement:

"A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination….'"

The education program also notes that "reverse racism" is "a term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege." And "a non-racist" is called "a non-term," because, the program explains, "The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift the responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called 'blaming the victim')."

The "education" regarding racism is just one of the subjects that students are required to adopt as part of their University of Delaware experience, too, FIRE noted.

The "shocking program of ideological reeducation," which the school itself defines as a "treatment" for students' incorrect attitudes and beliefs, is nothing less than "Orwellian," FIRE said.

The school requires its approximately 7,000 residence hall students "to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy and environmentalism."

"FIRE is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students' rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech," the organization said.

On a foundation blog, a student noted that one residence assistant told students, "Not to scare anyone or anything, but these are MANDATORY!!" And the training program for those who indoctrinate students includes the order: "A researcher must document that the treatment/intervention was faithfully applied (ex: specific lesson plans were delivered to every student, etc.)."

Further, the school requires "a systemic change" as a result of the program, FIRE noted. As one RA told students: "Like it or not, you all are the future Leaders, and the world is Diverse, so learning to Embrace and Appreciate that diversity is ESSENTIAL."

"The University of Delaware's residence life education program is a grave intrusion into students' private beliefs," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. "The university has decided that it is not enough to expose its students to the values it considers important; instead, it must coerce its students into accepting those values as their own. At a public university like Delaware, this is both unconscionable and unconstitutional."

According to university materials, RAs are instructed to ask students during one-on-one sessions questions such as: "When did you discover your sexual identity?" "When were you first made aware of your race?" and "Who taught you a lesson in regard to some sort of diversity awarness? What was the lesson?"

"Students who express discomfort with this type of questioning often meet with disapproval from their RAs, who write reports on these one-on-one sessions and deliver these reports to their superiors. One student identified in a write-up as an RA's 'worst' one-on-one session was a young woman who stated that she was tired of having 'diversity shoved down her throat,'" FIRE said.

This particular student responded to the question, "When did you discover your sexual identity?" with the terse: "That is none of your damn business," FIRE said.

Requirements for students include: "Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society," "Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression," and "Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality," FIRE said.

The foundation said students even are "pressured or even required" to make social statements that meet with the school's approval.

"The fact that the university views its students as patients in need of treatment for some sort of moral sickness betrays a total lack of respect not only for students' basic rights, but for students themselves," Lukianoff said. "The University of Delaware has both a legal and a moral obligation to immediately dismantle this program, and FIRE will not rest until it has."

A spokesman for the school, contacted by WND, said he was not ready to make a statement about the situation right away.

But the foundation's letter to Harker noted, "we have never encountered a more systematic assault upon the individual liberty, dignity, privacy, and autonomy of university students than this program," which "requires students to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues."

"Such utter contempt for the autonomy and free agency of others is the hallmark of totalitarianism and has no place in any free society, let alone at a public university in the state of Delaware," the letter said.

Especially alarming, Harris told WND, is that the school defines learning specifically as "attitudinal or behavioral changes," not acquiring any sort of knowledge and ability.

Such thinking "represents a distorted idea of 'education' that one would more easily associate with a Soviet prison camp than with an American institution of higher education," FIRE said. "As another example, after an investigation showed that males demonstrated 'a higher degree of resistance to educational efforts,' the Rodney complex chose to hire 'strong male RAs.' Each such RA 'combats male residents' concepts of traditional male identity,' in order to 'ensure the delivery of the curriculum at the same level as in the female floors.' This language is disturbingly reminiscent of a pivotal scene from George Orwell's '1984,' in which the protagonist's captors tell him that 'The Party is not interested in the overt act: the thought is all we care about. We do not merely destroy our enemies, we change them.'"

No small danger, FIRE noted, is being presented to the university through such apparent constitutional violations. "Simply put, the residence life education program is a legal minefield," the group said.

One student reacted to the indoctrination with rebellion. On the FIRE blog, he wrote:

"Take the issue of homosexuality, and the rights that should or should not be associated with it. As a Christian, I believe that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, and is a sin against God. As such, I cannot accept it as a legitimate lifestyle. While I accept homosexuals as people, I do not accept their choice as right, and subsequently I do not think that homosexual couples should be given marital rights. I accept that others do not hold the same views as me. But it is wrong that under the Residence Life curriculum and school mandated curriculum that I should made to feel guilty for my views. … It is not the school's right to try to convince me to embrace the values that Residence Life has chosen. Essentially, if I do not change my views, I will be labeled by my RA as not embracing diversity, and not accepting of certain groups, and thus my RA will try all the harder to change me. This is not the school's job, or right."

Source: WorldNetDaily.com

Neocons, Progressives, and Globalists, Oh My

2007-10-27T11:54:00.000-04:00

When the neocons in the Bush Administration need foreign policy advice, to whom do they turn? Why Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, of course.

In advance of her Middle East peace conference, Secretary of the Reichstag (oops, I mean State) Rice is seeking advice from globalists like Clinton and Kissinger, UN wonks Carter and Albright, and a host of other career dips- oops, I meant diplomats.

You can bet anything Condi says to Bubba goes right to Hillary... Bush has to keep her in the loop, since he's counting on the continuation of the Bush/Clinton monarchy after the 2008 elections.

This all makes perfect sense- whether Neocon or Progressive, the goal is the same- the elimination of national sovereignty, replaced by global government under the control of the elite.

The NWO of Bush I is alive and well.

You can read the story at Yahoo News.

Sudden Saints

2007-10-27T09:49:00.000-04:00

People- especially Americans- want things quick. We drink instant coffee, we eat instant rice, we take our film to one-hour processing centers. Now the Vatican II Catholic Church is offering us instant saints.

The road to canonization used to be a long and arduous one. It also used to be a very selective process. Now, not so much- on either count.

Case in point- "Mother" Theresa. Long celebrated as a great human being and all around good egg, she was "fast tracked" to sainthood by John Paul II, who apparently never met a person who wasn't a saint. The universalist JP II canonized more saints (470+) than his predecessors combined.

The problem is, Mother Theresa was a fraud. That's right- she was not the "saint" she portrayed herself to be in public, and she had no business rising to the level of "Saint." As the following articles illustrate, she fudged (lied about) the number of people she was helping, adopted many hindu traditions into her catholicism, and lived high off the hog while surrounded by those suffering in the worst poverty and squalor. All that's needed now are allegations of sexual misconduct and she would be a perfect candidate for being a Bishop in the post-Vatican II new age cult masquerading as a Church.

I'm posting two articles here- the first, by Michael Parenti (this may well be the only issue we are in substantive agreement on), and the second by the Fathers at Traditio, a traditional Roman Catholic site which (rightly) denounces everything associated with the 2nd Vatican Council.
___________________________

From Global Research:

Mother Teresa, John Paul II, and the Fast-Track Saints
by Michael Parenti
Global Research, October 24, 2007

During his 26-year papacy, John Paul II elevated 483 individuals to sainthood, more saints than all previous popes combined, it is reported. One personage he beatified but did not live long enough to canonize was Mother Teresa, the Roman Catholic nun of Albanian origin who had been wined and dined by the world’s rich and famous while hailed as a champion of the poor. The darling of the corporate media and western officialdom, and an object of celebrity adoration, Teresa was for many years the most revered woman on earth, showered with kudos and awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 for her “humanitarian work” and “spiritual inspiration.”

What usually went unreported were the vast sums she received from wealthy contributors, including a million dollars from convicted savings & loan swindler Charles Keating, on whose behalf she sent a personal plea for clemency to the presiding judge. She was asked by the prosecutor in that case to return Keating’s gift because it was money he had stolen. She never did. She also accepted substantial sums given by the brutal Duvalier dictatorship that regularly stole from the Haitian public treasury.

Mother Teresa’s “hospitals” for the indigent in India and elsewhere turned out to be hardly more than human warehouses in which seriously ill persons lay on mats, sometimes fifty to sixty in a room without benefit of adequate medical attention. Their ailments usually went undiagnosed. The food was nutritionally lacking and sanitary conditions were deplorable. There were few medical personnel on the premises, mostly untrained nuns and brothers.

When tending to her own ailments, however, Teresa checked into some of the costliest hospitals and recovery care units in the world for state-of-the-art treatment.

Teresa journeyed the globe to wage campaigns against divorce, abortion, and birth control. At her Nobel award ceremony, she announced that “the greatest destroyer of peace is abortion.” And she once suggested that AIDS might be a just retribution for improper sexual conduct.

Teresa emitted a continual flow of promotional misinformation about herself. She claimed that her mission in Calcutta fed over a thousand people daily. On other occasions she jumped the number to 4000, 7000, and 9000. Actually her soup kitchens fed not more than 150 people (six days a week), and this included her retinue of nuns, novices, and brothers. She claimed that her school in the Calcutta slum contained five thousand children when it actually enrolled less than one hundred.

Teresa claimed to have 102 family assistance centers in Calcutta, but longtime Calcutta resident, Aroup Chatterjee, who did an extensive on-the-scene investigation of her mission, could not find a single such center.

As one of her devotees explained, “Mother Teresa is among those who least worry about statistics. She has repeatedly expressed that what matters is not how much work is accomplished but how much love is put into the work.” Was Teresa really unconcerned about statistics? Quite the contrary, her numerical inaccuracies went consistently and self-servingly in only one direction, greatly exaggerating her accomplishments.

Over the many years that her mission was in Calcutta, there were about a dozen floods and numerous cholera epidemics in or near the city, with thousands perishing. Various relief agencies responded to each disaster, but Teresa and her crew were nowhere in sight, except briefly on one occasion.

When someone asked Teresa how people without money or power can make the world a better place, she replied, “They should smile more,” a response that charmed some listeners. During a press conference in Washington DC, when asked “Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?” she said “I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.”

But she herself lived lavishly well, enjoying luxurious accommodations in her travels abroad. It seems to have gone unnoticed that as a world celebrity she spent most of her time away from Calcutta, with protracted stays at opulent residences in Europe and the United States, jetting from Rome to London to New York in private planes.

Mother Teresa is a paramount example of the kind of acceptably conservative icon propagated by an elite-dominated culture, a “saint” who uttered not a critical word against social injustice, and maintained cozy relations with the rich, corrupt, and powerful.

She claimed to be above politics when in fact she was pronouncedly hostile toward any kind of progressive reform. Teresa was a friend of Ronald Reagan, and a close friend of rightwing British media tycoon Malcolm Muggerridge. She was an admiring guest of the Haitian dictator “Baby Doc” Duvalier, and had the support and admiration of a number of Central and South American dictators.

Teresa was Pope John Paul II’s kind of saint. After her death in 1997, he waved the five-year waiting period usually observed before beginning the beatification process that leads to sainthood. In 2003, in record time Mother Teresa was beatified, the final step before canonization.

But in 2007 her canonization confronted a bump in the road, it having been disclosed that along with her various other contradictions Teresa was not a citadel of spiritual joy and unswerving faith. Her diaries, investigated by Catholic authorities in Calcutta, revealed that she had been racked with doubts: “I feel that God does not want me, that God is not God and that he does not really exist.” People think “my faith, my hope and my love are overflowing and that my intimacy with God and union with his will fill my heart. If only they knew,” she wrote, “Heaven means nothing.”

Through many tormented sleepless nights she shed thoughts like this: “I am told God loves me-and yet the reality of darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul.” Il Messeggero, Rome’s popular daily newspaper, commented: “The real Mother Teresa was one who for one year had visions and who for the next 50 had doubts—up until her death.”

Another example of fast-track sainthood, pushed by Pope John Paul II, occurred in 1992 when he swiftly beatified the reactionary Msgr. José María Escrivá de Balaguer, supporter of fascist regimes in Spain and elsewhere, and founder of Opus Dei, a powerful secretive ultra-conservative movement “feared by many as a sinister sect within the Catholic Church.” Escrivá’s beatification came only seventeen years after his death, a record run until Mother Teresa came along.

In accordance with his own political agenda, John Paul used a church institution, sainthood, to bestow special sanctity upon ultra-conservatives such as Escrivá and Teresa—and implicitly on all that they represented. Another of the ultra-conservatives whom John Paul made into a saint, bizarrely enough, was the last of the Hapsburg rulers of the Austro-Hungarian empire, Emperor Karl, who reigned during World War I.

John Paul also beatified Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac, the leading Croatian cleric who welcomed the Nazi and fascist Ustashi takeover of Croatia during World War II. Stepinac sat in the Ustashi parliament, appeared at numerous public events with top ranking Nazis and Ustashi, and openly supported the Croatian fascist regime.

In John Paul’s celestial pantheon, reactionaries had a better chance at canonization than reformers. Consider his treatment of Archbishop Oscar Romero who spoke against the injustices and oppressions suffered by the impoverished populace of El Salvador and for this was assassinated by a right-wing death squad. John Paul never denounced the killing or its perpetrators, calling it only “tragic.” In fact, just weeks before Romero was murdered, high-ranking officials of the Arena party, the legal arm of the death squads, sent a well-received delegation to the Vatican to complain of Romero’s public statements on behalf of the poor.

Romero was thought by many poor Salvadorans to be something of a saint, but John Paul attempted to ban any discussion of his beatification for fifty years. Popular pressure from El Salvador caused the Vatican to cut the delay to twenty-five years. In either case, Romero was consigned to the slow track.

John Paul’s successor, Benedict XVI, waved the five-year waiting period in order to put John Paul II himself instantly on a super-fast track to canonization, running neck and neck with Teresa. As of 2005 there already were reports of possible miracles attributed to the recently departed Polish pontiff.

One such account was offered by Cardinal Francesco Marchisano. When lunching with John Paul, the cardinal indicated that because of an ailment he could not use his voice. The pope “caressed my throat, like a brother, like the father that he was. After that I did seven months of therapy, and I was able to speak again.” Marchisano thinks that the pontiff might have had a hand in his cure: “It could be,” he said. Un miracolo! Viva il papa!

© Copyright Michael Parenti, commondreams.org, 2007
-------------------------------------------
From Traditio:

A New Book Reveals that Teresa of Calcutta Had a Crisis of Faith for Over Fifty Years
Her Troubling Correspondence with a Traditional Priest
Arguing against the Catholic and Apostolic Church Has Also Been Revealed
The Canonization Process Has Been Corrupted in Newchurch into Conanization

According to a report in the August 24, 2007, Daily Telegraph, Newvatican is rushing to destruction in the Newchurch "conanization" of Teresa of Calcutta later this year. So much troubling information about this woman is already surfacing, within just ten years after her death in 1997, that any thought of conanization should be postponed indefinitely while a complete and honest investigation is conducted over a period of centuries. Just some of the troubling information that has come to light in just the last ten years:

Teresa injected Hindu "inculturation" into her teaching of supposedly Roman Catholic Faith

Teresa's "miracle" is denied by the subject's own doctors, who were barred by Newvatican from testifying that the supposed "cure" was a completely ordinary remission of cancer produced by anticarcinogenic drugs

Teresa had a crisis of faith for over fifty years

A new publication of her letters over 66 years, entitled Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light, has revealed that for the last fifty years of her life, she had a deep crisis of faith in God. It is not yet clear whether this collection of letters includes her revealing correspondence with the late Fr. Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy. In this correspondence, Teresa takes the traditional priest to task for insisting on celebrating only the true Mass and confirms that Teresa, far from being traditional, was a rapid defender of the Novus Ordo.

Such serious doubts cannot morally be rushed through by Newchurch to create a phony papier-mache "saint" to make the post-Vatican II crowd happy. Newchurch will simply end up with more egg on its face that it has now. The traditional process of canonization, steeped in caution and careful investigation over centuries, was trashed in 1983 by JPII, himself under suspicion for rushed conanization, who vitiated practically every one of the traditional checks and balances put in place by the Church.

As a result of the corruption of the traditional canonization process and the now-rampant factual errors being made, all Newchurch conanizations must be rejected until a traditional pope or council can sort each case out at some point in the future, when the Church is returned to Tradition. St. Thomas Aquinas, the Universal Doctor of the Church, a most wise and foresightful theologian, indicates that in such cases of gross factual errors, one can doubt the authenticity of canonizations. And Teresa of Calcutta is certainly a case in point.

FEMA Fakes Press Conference

2007-10-26T19:31:00.000-04:00

A shadow of things to come, perhaps? The government has created fake news in the past, and now they're faking press conferences.

Of course, FEMA is claiming it was simply a lapse in judgment- but they had ample time to stage the conference and brief the "reporters" as to what to ask, and how to ask it.

Not only can we not believe anything this government tells us, we can't believe anything it shows us, either. And of course, now that the story has broke, the media is screaming about it. But it was covered on the major news channels- and none of them noticed that they didn't know any of the reporters at the press conference?

Suspicious? Of course. Surprising? Hardly. Disturbing? Very.
______________________________________

From Fox News:

FEMA Employees' Role at News Conference on California Fires
Raises Newspeople's Eyebrows
Friday , October 26, 2007

The White House scolded the Federal Emergency Management Agency on Friday for staging a phony news conference about assistance to victims of wildfires in southern California.

The agency — much maligned for its sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina over two years ago — arranged to have FEMA employees play the part of independent reporters Tuesday and ask questions of Vice Adm. Harvey E. Johnson, the agency's deputy director.

The questions were predictably soft and gratuitous.

"I'm very happy with FEMA's response," Johnson said in reply to one query from an agency employee.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said it was not appropriate that the questions were posed by agency staffers instead of reporters. FEMA was responsible for the "error in judgment," she said, adding that the White House did not know about it beforehand and did not condone it.

"FEMA has issued an apology, saying that they had an error in judgment when they were attempting to get out a lot of information to reporters, who were asking for answers to a variety of questions in regard to the wildfires in California," Perino said. "It's not something I would have condoned. And they — I'm sure — will not do it again."

She said the agency was just trying to provide information to the public, through the press, because there were so many questions.

"I don't think that there was any mal-intent," Perino said "It was just a bad way to handle it, and they know that."

FEMA gave real reporters only 15 minutes notice about Tuesday's news conference . But because there was so little advance notice, the agency made available an 800 number so reporters could call in. And many did, although it was a listen-only arrangement.

On Tuesday, FEMA employees had played the part of reporters. Johnson issued a statement Friday, saying that FEMA's goal was "to get information out as soon as possible, and in trying to do so we made an error in judgment."

"Our intent was to provide useful information and be responsive to the many questions we have received," he said. "We can and must do better."

Officials at the Homeland Security Department, which includes FEMA, expressed their concern.

"This is simply inexcusable and offensive to the secretary that such a mistake could be made," Homeland Security spokeswoman Laura Keehner said Friday, referring to DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff. "Stunts such as this will not be tolerated or repeated."

Keehner said senior leadership is considering whether a punishment is necessary.

Faithful Catholics in SF Want Their Church Back

2007-10-26T16:24:00.000-04:00

Spin as he might, Bill O'Reilly will never convince congregants at Most Holy Redeemer parish in San Francisco that Archbishop Neiderauer simply "made a mistake" when he gave communion to two transsexuals from the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

As I've said- and many others as well- Bill has granted absolution to the Archbishop when absolution was not warranted. The Diocese (and the Archbishop) have been "gay friendly" for quite a while now- something O'Reilly would have known if he had bothered to do even cursory research.

If you're going to fight in the culture war, Bill, you'll need to recognize the wolf in sheep's clothing. Do your homework next time.
_________________________________

From WorldNetDaily:

Catholics want Vatican to clean church
Holy Redeemer members tired of drag queen bingo, sexfests
Posted: October 25, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

The recent highly publicized photos and video of San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer serving Communion to two flamboyantly dressed members of the anti-Catholic "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" was no happenstance.

And soon the shocking images will be on their way to the Vatican for any Catholic leaders who have not yet seen them.

"I am the gentleman responsible for the filming of the whole thing," Anthony Gonzales, chief of the St. Joseph's Men Society, told WND shortly after the first round of publicity over the photos and video. "I sent one of my men to film this."

Gonzales said he knew the archbishop was going to the parish in the heart of the homosexual street fair to "be part of the celebration of their lifestyle, and we were waiting to see what he was going to do and how he was going to do it."

And the reason?

"We can't even take our children to Mass anymore. We can't even go to our churches," he said. "We finally got to the point, and said, 'Hey, look, we can't take this anymore.'

"We want the Roman Catholic faithful to return, and are sick and tired of having to deal with men who are faithless, who are our leaders," Gonzales said. "They come into positions of power because of other homosexuals, or at least are promoting them into positions of power.

"We want to keep the fires burning. This guy has to know he can't continue to get away with his actions. He's played dumb before," he said. "He says, 'I guess I made a mistake.' So he always makes these mistakes!

"He says he didn't recognize two gay men dressed in drag coming up to receive Communion in clown makeup!" Gonzales exclaimed.

The incident was publicized with the men's group video on the Catholic blogsite Quamdiu Domine.

The archbishop, in a diocese newspaper editorial, apologized for serving the two "Sisters," explaining he didn't recognize who they were.

He described the Oct. 7 event as routine.

"The congregation was devout, and the liturgy was celebrated with reverence. I noticed no demonstration, no protest, no disruption of the Eucharist," he wrote.

"At Communion time, toward the end of the line, two strangely dressed persons came to receive Communion. As I recall one of them wore a large flowered hat or garland. I did not recognize either of them as wearing mock religious garb," he said.

"Afterward it was made clear to me that these two people were members of the organization 'Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence,' who have long made a practice of mocking the Catholic Church in general and religious women in particular," he said.

"Although I had often seen photographs of members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, I had never encountered them in person until October 7th. I did not recognize who these people were when they approached me. After the event, I realized that they were members of this particular organization and that giving them Holy Communion had been a mistake. I apologize to the Catholics of the Archdiocese of San Francisco and to Catholics at large for doing so," he said.

But Gonzales and several other activists who contacted WND said such "incidents" long have been occurring at the church, and it's likely that the archbishop knew about them. So now is time for action, they told WND.

"We are going to be submitting all of this information to Rome, getting it into the right hands," Gonzales said. "I believe that he is constantly a proponent of homosexuals."

Archdiocese spokesman Maurice Healy told WND that Niederauer does not know the membership of that particular church.

"There's a lot of people who are upset. I think we're equally upset," he said. But the archbishop has a policy of reaching out to "those people."

Gonzales disagreed.

"They don't reach out to that community to call for repentance and healing and their reconciliation with Christ. They say, 'This is your lifestyle and we are here to give you approbation.'"

Gonzales, a theologian, said a compilation of documentation will be forwarded to Rome within the next few days.

"We're also composing a letter to Neiderauer asking him to excommunicate the group, Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, so that this mistake cannot happen again. And we're asking him to excommunicate (San Francisco Mayor)Gavin Newsom and (U.S. House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi for not adhering to Catholic doctrine on same-sex relationships and abortion."

The incident with the "Sisters" was just the final straw, Gonzales said. He said just last fall the pastor of Holy Redeemer gave the "Sisters" permission to run a bingo operation at the church hall. Healy said the archdiocese wasn't aware of what was going on, and when it found out, it ordered it stopped.

But other activists told WND they have been notifying the church archdiocese of their objections to such issues regularly. One such case was a recent "Drag Queen Calendar Nite" at the church. Those who objected notified the church office of their concerns before the event but apparently were ignored since it was held anyway.

"I had hoped that after the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence's obscene and perverted monthly bingo nights (supplying male sex toys for prizes) had been stopped that this type of activity was no longer going to be a problem there. Obviously not," one wrote in an e-mail to the church.

On the Catholic Blog, participants listed some of the documentation being prepared for Rome's attention.

The information includes a video advertisement for the "Sisters' Revival Bingo," where one winner boasts of getting "more gay porn than most young boys have" and organizers boast of "spanking" participants.

Also assembled was documentation from Americans for Truth about the church's repeated sponsorship of booths and other entries in the various San Francisco "gay" festivals, such as the recent Folsom Street Fair, on which WND reported.

Niederauer also said he's pleased the activists cited his opinion that the "gay"-themed "Brokeback Mountain" is "very powerful" and his endorsement of a plan to have Catholic adoption agencies refer babies for adoption by homosexuals.

The activists also cite X-rated YouTube videos that feature the same "Sisters" who organized the drag queen event. One of the less offensive has one of the bingo organizers, named "Heklina," singing about "taking a young handsome boy out for luncheon…"

One activist who requested anonymity wrote: "The [archbishop] issued an apology, but, if he's sincere about it, he'll issue a press release to publicly excommunicate the organization and the members, so that no priest or pastor in his diocese has any trouble deciding what to do."

Allyson Smith, an analyst for Americans for Truth, noted the Catholic Church believes Communion involves the actual "body and blood of Jesus Christ," and such participation by the "twisted 'sisters'" is offensive to many.

Her opinions were echoed abundantly on a response section to the California Catholic News story about the situation:

"May God have mercy on his soul."

"We need to bulldoze to the ground every Catholic Church in S.F. and send these left handed Catholics to the Masonic lodge where they truly belong. Let Satan put up with them."

"Blasphemy."

"You could say the Archbishop has a 'wide stance' toward perversion-enthusiasts in the church."

Ben Stone knows better than Arthur Branch

2007-10-26T16:02:00.000-04:00

For you out there who aren't familiar with the NBC hit show Law and Order, Ben Stone was an ADA long before Arthur Branch appeared on his first episode.

But this post has little to do with the show, save to say that the actor who portrayed ADA Stone- Michael Moriarty- has a lot more political insight than does Arthur Branch, aka the GOP Presidential wannabe Fred Thompson.

Moriarty has authored a very insightful piece concerning the direction of the United States, including indictments of the Bush/Clinton dynasty, George Soros, Putin, and others. It's a great read and quite informative.

To read the article, go to NewsWithViews.com.

Paul "Top Tier" in New Hampshire

2007-10-25T13:01:00.000-04:00

Ron Paul is polling at 7%- ahead of Thompson and Huckabee- good enough for 4th place in New Hampshire, according to a St. Anslem College poll released today.

______________________________

The New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College Issues Poll: Romney, Clinton Leading Among Likely Voters

Contact: nhiop@anselm.edu
October 25, 2007

If the New Hampshire Primary were held today, Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton would win. That is the finding of a poll being presented today by the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College. Sponsored by the Institute, the poll surveyed 1,514 likely primary voters in New Hampshire.

The poll shows Romney with a nearly 11-point lead over the second place candidate, Rudy Giuliani, among Republicans. Fred Thompson showed only 5 percent support.

Hillary Clinton commanded a 21-point lead over her nearest rival, Barack Obama, who polled at 22 percent. The third-place candidate was John Edwards, with 14 percent.

Clinton polled strongly across genders, religions and age groups. She made a greater showing among 18-to-29-year-olds than Obama, who has been portrayed as the candidate of young people.

Romney also polled well across religious groups, indicating that in New Hampshire the former Massachusetts governor’s Mormon religion is not an issue. Romney showed strong support among women, with 37 percent saying they would vote for him, compared to 29 percent of men.

While Romney and Clinton pulled a majority among voters of their respective parties, the picture is mixed among undeclared voters. More than 40 percent of voters who identify themselves as undeclared said they were still not sure if they would vote in the Democratic or Republican primary. At the same time, 41 percent of undeclared voters said they would vote in the Democratic primary and 19 percent in the Republican contest.

“While the patterns remain consistent, the data suggests there is still indecisiveness among likely voters in New Hampshire,” said Dr. Michael Dupre, senior fellow at Saint Anselm’s Institute of Politics.

Dupre designed and coordinated the poll, which was executed by SRBI Research in New York City.

Source: St. Anselm College, New Hampshire Institute of Politics

Jena Myths Exploded

2007-10-25T08:27:00.000-04:00

The Jena 6 boat is sinking fast. The flood of facts is swamping the ship of lies, and it's heading to the bottom to join Tawana Brawley and the Duke Rape Case in the Davey Jones Locker of false accusations, racial fraud, and outright lies against Whites.

The truth makes a powerful torpedo.
____________________________________

Christian Science Monitor

October 24, 2007 edition

Media myths about the Jena 6
A local journalist tells the story you haven't heard.
By Craig Franklin

Jena, La.
By now, almost everyone in America has heard of Jena, La., because they've all heard the story of the "Jena 6." White students hanging nooses barely punished, a schoolyard fight, excessive punishment for the six black attackers, racist local officials, public outrage and protests – the outside media made sure everyone knew the basics.

There's just one problem: The media got most of the basics wrong. In fact, I have never before witnessed such a disgrace in professional journalism. Myths replaced facts, and journalists abdicated their solemn duty to investigate every claim because they were seduced by a powerfully appealing but false narrative of racial injustice.

I should know. I live in Jena. My wife has taught at Jena High School for many years. And most important, I am probably the only reporter who has covered these events from the very beginning.

The reason the Jena cases have been propelled into the world spotlight is two-fold: First, because local officials did not speak publicly early on about the true events of the past year, the media simply formed their stories based on one-side's statements – the Jena 6. Second, the media were downright lazy in their efforts to find the truth. Often, they simply reported what they'd read on blogs, which expressed only one side of the issue.

The real story of Jena and the Jena 6 is quite different from what the national media presented.

It's time to set the record straight.

Myth 1: The Whites-Only Tree. There has never been a "whites-only" tree at Jena High School. Students of all races sat underneath this tree. When a student asked during an assembly at the start of school last year if anyone could sit under the tree, it evoked laughter from everyone present – blacks and whites. As reported by students in the assembly, the question was asked to make a joke and to drag out the assembly and avoid class.

Myth 2: Nooses a Signal to Black Students. An investigation by school officials, police, and an FBI agent revealed the true motivation behind the placing of two nooses in the tree the day after the assembly. According to the expulsion committee, the crudely constructed nooses were not aimed at black students. Instead, they were understood to be a prank by three white students aimed at their fellow white friends, members of the school rodeo team. (The students apparently got the idea from watching episodes of "Lonesome Dove.") The committee further concluded that the three young teens had no knowledge that nooses symbolize the terrible legacy of the lynchings of countless blacks in American history. When informed of this history by school officials, they became visibly remorseful because they had many black friends. Another myth concerns their punishment, which was not a three-day suspension, but rather nine days at an alternative facility followed by two weeks of in-school suspension, Saturday detentions, attendance at Discipline Court, and evaluation by licensed mental-health professionals. The students who hung the nooses have not publicly come forward to give their version of events.

Myth 3: Nooses Were a Hate Crime. Although many believe the three white students should have been prosecuted for a hate crime for hanging the nooses, the incident did not meet the legal criteria for a federal hate crime. It also did not meet the standard for Louisiana's hate-crime statute, and though widely condemned by all officials, there was no crime to charge the youths with.

Myth 4: DA's Threat to Black Students. When District Attorney Reed Walters spoke to Jena High students at an assembly in September, he did not tell black students that he could make their life miserable with "the stroke of a pen." Instead, according to Walters, "two or three girls, white girls, were chit-chatting on their cellphones or playing with their cellphones right in the middle of my dissertation. I got a little irritated at them and said, 'Pay attention to me. I am right now having to deal with an aggravated rape case where I've got to decide whether the death penalty applies or not.' I said, 'Look, I can be your best friend or your worst enemy. With the stroke of a pen I can make your life miserable so I want you to call me before you do something stupid.'"

Mr. Walters had been called to the assembly by police, who had been at the school earlier that day dealing with some students who were causing disturbances. Teachers and students have confirmed Walters's version of events.

Myth 5: The Fair Barn Party Incident. On Dec. 1, 2006, a private party – not an all-white party as reported – was held at the local community center called the Fair Barn. Robert Bailey Jr., soon to be one of the Jena 6, came to the party with others seeking admittance.

When they were denied entrance by the renter of the facility, a white male named Justin Sloan (not a Jena High student) at the party attacked Bailey and hit him in the face with his fist. This is reported in witness statements to police, including the victim, Robert Bailey, Jr.

Months later, Bailey contended he was hit in the head with a beer bottle and required stitches.

No medical records show this ever occurred. Mr. Sloan was prosecuted for simple battery, which according to Louisiana law, is the proper charge for hitting someone with a fist.

Myth 6: The "Gotta-Go" Grocery Incident. On Dec. 2, 2006, Bailey and two other black Jena High students were involved in an altercation at this local convenience store, stemming from the incident that occurred the night before. The three were accused by police of jumping a white man as he entered the store and stealing a shotgun from him. The two parties gave conflicting statements to police. However, two unrelated eye witnesses of the event gave statements that corresponded with that of the white male.

Myth 7: The Schoolyard Fight. The event on Dec. 4, 2006 was consistently labeled a "schoolyard fight." But witnesses described something much more horrific. Several black students, including those now known as the Jena 6, barricaded an exit to the school's gym as they lay in wait for Justin Barker to exit. (It remains unclear why Mr. Barker was specifically targeted.)

When Barker tried to leave through another exit, court testimony indicates, he was hit from behind by Mychal Bell. Multiple witnesses confirmed that Barker was immediately knocked unconscious and lay on the floor defenseless as several other black students joined together to kick and stomp him, with most of the blows striking his head. Police speculate that the motivation for the attack was related to the racially charged fights that had occurred during the previous weekend.

Myth 8: The Attack Is Linked to the Nooses. Nowhere in any of the evidence, including statements by witnesses and defendants, is there any reference to the noose incident that occurred three months prior. This was confirmed by the United States attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, Donald Washington, on numerous occasions.

Myth 9: Mychal Bell's All-White Jury. While it is true that Mychal Bell was convicted as an adult by an all-white jury in June (a conviction that was later overturned with his case sent to juvenile court), the jury selection process was completely legal and withstood an investigation by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Court officials insist that several black residents were summoned for jury duty, but did not appear.

Myth 10: Jena 6 as Model Youth. While some members were simply caught up in the moment, others had criminal records. Bell had at least four prior violent-crime arrests before the December attack, and was on probation during most of this year.

Myth 11: Jena Is One of the Most Racist Towns in America. Actually, Jena is a wonderful place to live for both whites and blacks. The media's distortion and outright lies concerning the case have given this rural Louisiana town a label it doesn't deserve.

Myth 12: Two Levels of Justice. Outside protesters were convinced that the prosecution of the Jena 6 was proof of a racially biased system of justice. But the US Justice Department's investigation found no evidence to support such a claim. In fact, the percentage of blacks and whites prosecuted matches the parish's population statistics.

These are just 12 of many myths that are portrayed as fact in the media concerning the Jena cases. (A more thorough review of all events can be found at http://www.thejenatimes.net/ – click on Chronological Order of Events.)

As with the Duke Lacrosse case, the truth about Jena will eventually be known. But the town of Jena isn't expecting any apologies from the media. They will probably never admit their error and have already moved on to the next "big" story. Meanwhile in Jena, residents are getting back to their regular routines, where friends are friends regardless of race. Just as it has been all along.

Craig Franklin is assistant editor of The Jena Times.

Dream Act Goes Down in Flames

2007-10-24T13:35:00.000-04:00

Falling short of the 60 votes needed to force cloture, the disatrous "Dream Act" thankfully went down to defeat. When are the Neocons in the White House and the Progressives in Congress going to get it through their heads that WE THE PEOPLE aren't going to stand for them giving special perks and privileges to aliens who are not in this Country legally?

Anyone who is not here legally needs to get out of the United States, and those who are trying to force the American people to swallow their shamnesty plans need to either be impeached or tried for treason.

Readers, be vigilant. Those wishing to sell our sovereignty and security for a burrito aren't going to give up- this bill (or some form of it) will rear it's ugly head again and again and again.

Gutless Republicans voting for Cloture:
Brownback (thank God this idiot dropped out of the Presidential race)
Coleman
Collins
Craig (Guess he wasn't in the bathroom when the vote was taken)
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson (not surprised a neocon from Bush's home state voted for Cloture)
Martinez (don't blame me, I didn't vote for this idiot)
Snowe

Hat's Off to the following Democrats for siding with the American people:
Baucus
Byrd
Conrad
Dorgan
Landrieu
McCaskille
Tester

And of course the gutless Presidential wannabe from Arizona- John MCain- did not vote, nor did Tequila Ted Kennedy.

And of course, now all the pro-illegal Senators are on TV whining about how mean-spirited we are. But I say, score another one for the good guys.

I'm sure there's great sadness in the campaigns of the GOP's pro-shamnesty Presidential candidates- McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee. Ain't that a shame.

There's a Lot I Like About Tancredo

2007-10-23T22:22:00.000-04:00

I may not agree with him on everything, but Tom's right on the money on the illegal immigration issue. There aren't many in Congress who have been out front on the issue as long as he has, and there's not a louder voice out there for stopping the invasion of America from our porous southern border.

Congressman Tancredo, my hat's off to you.

________________________

Tancredo Asks Immigration Authorities to Detain Illegal Aliens
Attending Durbin Event in U.S. Capitol

( WASHINGTON, D.C. ) – Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Littleton) today released a statement regarding an event Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) reportedly plans to hold in conjunction with discussion of the DREAM ACT – an event that will be attended by several illegal aliens.

“I call on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency to detain any illegal aliens at this press conference. Just because these illegal aliens are being used for political gain doesn’t mean they get immunity from the law.”

“If we can’t enforce our laws inside the building where American laws are made, where can we enforce them?”

Tancredo alerted the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency earlier today regarding Durbin’s 3:00 PM meeting.

Congressman Tom Tancredo

Bye Bye Brownback

2007-10-20T09:05:00.000-04:00

Shamnesty Sam Brownback has dropped out of the race for the GOP nomination. As I posted on Wednesday (Brownback's Last Gasp), the final nail in his coffin was proposing the US "apologize" for slavery and segregation... I guess he was trying to garner the endorsement of Jackson, Sharpton, and Calypso Louie Farrakhan... I guess it didn't work.

Try to Kill A White Kid...

2007-10-19T10:21:00.000-04:00

and get on TV!

That's right, Black Entertainment Television (BET) rewarded two of the infamous Jena 6 for the beatdown they administered to a white teenager by bringing them onstage at the BET Hip Hop Awards last night. How did the audience respond? With a standing ovation, of course!

This would never happen on White Entertainment Television... oh wait, there is no White Entertainment Television. That would be racist to have a network aimed at one particular ethnicity- of couse, that only applies to White folks.
___________________________

Two of 'Jena Six' defendants present BET award
By Abbey Brown
abrown@thetowntalk.com
(318) 487-6387

Two of the teens enmeshed in the nationally known "Jena Six" case helped present the most anticipated award during Black Entertainment Television's Hip Hop Awards show broadcast Thursday night.

Carwin Jones and Bryant Purvis were introduced by Katt Williams, a comedian and the awards show's host, as two of the students involved in a case of "systematic racism."

"By no means are we condoning a six-on-one beat-down," Williams said during his introduction of the teens, one of whom is still facing attempted murder charges in connection with the attack on white student Justin Barker. "... But the injustice perpetrated on these young men is straight criminal."

As Jones and Purvis walked onto the stage at the Atlanta Civic Center, where the awards show was filmed on Saturday, they were greeted by a standing ovation.
"They don't look so tough, do they?" Williams joked as the teens stepped up to the podium.

Both Jones and Purvis thanked a number of people, including family, friends, the "Hip-Hop Nation" and the thousands who came to their small hometown to rally behind their case.

Purvis said the Sept. 20 rally proved "our generation can unite and rally around a cause."

The teens assisted Williams in presenting the Video of the Year honor to Kanye West for "Stronger." Purvis handed the award to West, who in turn shook hands with both teens.

The rest of the article can be read at TheTownTalk.com.

The First Chinese President?

2007-10-19T09:33:00.000-04:00

They called Bull Clinton the first "black" president, so I guess Hillary would be the first Chinese president.

The royal house of the Bush-Clinton dynasty is corrupt. If this were any other candidate, RICO proceedings would have commenced decades ago.

Also, in keeping with the celebrity tradition of combining names (Brangelina, Bennifer... those two examples will have to suffice, otherwise I'd hurl), Hillary and Bill Clinton will hereafter be known as "HillBilly."
______________________

An unlikely treasure-trove of donors for Clinton
The candidate's unparalleled fundraising success relies largely on the least-affluent residents of New York's Chinatown -- some of whom can't be tracked down.
By Peter Nicholas and Tom Hamburger
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

October 19, 2007

NEW YORK — Something remarkable happened at 44 Henry St., a grimy Chinatown tenement with peeling walls. It also happened nearby at a dimly lighted apartment building with trash bins clustered by the front door.

And again not too far away, at 88 E. Broadway beneath the Manhattan bridge, where vendors chatter in Mandarin and Fujianese as they hawk rubber sandals and bargain-basement clothes.

All three locations, along with scores of others scattered throughout some of the poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx, have been swept by an extraordinary impulse to shower money on one particular presidential candidate -- Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown.

At this point in the presidential campaign cycle, Clinton has raised more money than any candidate in history. Those dishwashers, waiters and street stall hawkers are part of the reason. And Clinton's success in gathering money from Chinatown's least-affluent residents stems from a two-pronged strategy: mutually beneficial alliances with powerful groups, and appeals to the hopes and dreams of people now consigned to the margins.

Clinton has enlisted the aid of Chinese neighborhood associations, especially those representing recent immigrants from Fujian province. The organizations, at least one of which is a descendant of Chinatown criminal enterprises that engaged in gambling and human trafficking, exert enormous influence over immigrants. The associations help them with everything from protection against crime to obtaining green cards.

Many of Clinton's Chinatown donors said they had contributed because leaders in neighborhood associations told them to. In some cases, donors said they felt pressure to give.

The rest of the article can be read at the
Los Angeles Times.

Think Hard Before You Fly

2007-10-18T11:53:00.000-04:00

You might want to think again. A headline from today's USA Today reads, Most fake bombs missed by screeners . I can't say that I was surprised when I read it, and the fact is that our planes are no less susceptible to hijacking and/or bombings than they were on the morning of September 11, 2001.

I've been harping on the issue of screener competency since December of 2002. You see, I was part of the logistics team that worked on the government takeover of screening and security at the Nation's airports. I worked at several airports over a 7-month period, and one of the things I did was track how the perspective screeners did on their training and testing. When the project first started, if you failed the screening test once, you were gone. It didn't take long to discover that, if they kept that as the standard, they'd never hire enough screeners, so they started letting them take the test over. Lowering the standards didn't help, so they lowered it to 3 times- to no avail. They kept lowering and lowering it, until they finally decided it would be up to the airports onsite Federal Security Director. I know for a fact that some ended up with screener positions who failed the test at least 10 times. That's right- 10 times.

How hard was the test? Well, let me put it this way. They let some of us logistics people take the same test the screeners had to pass, and despite the fact that I had no screener training or experience with an x-ray machine, I passed it the first time- as did many others of my colleagues.

When the project ended in December of 2002, I flew back home to Florida- and haven't flown since.

I'll stop there, since I could go on for hours on this topic. Sometime in the near future, I'll explain why I believe this situation hasn't been resolved.

Following is the above-referenced (and linked) article...
_______________________

Most fake bombs missed by screeners
75% not detected at LAX; 60% at O'Hare
By Thomas Frank
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Security screeners at two of the nation's busiest airports failed to find fake bombs hidden on undercover agents posing as passengers in more than 60% of tests last year, according to a classified report obtained by USA TODAY.

Screeners at Los Angeles International Airport missed about 75% of simulated explosives and bomb parts that Transportation Security Administration testers hid under their clothes or in carry-on bags at checkpoints, the TSA report shows.

At Chicago O'Hare International Airport, screeners missed about 60% of hidden bomb materials that were packed in everyday carry-ons — including toiletry kits, briefcases and CD players. San Francisco International Airport screeners, who work for a private company instead of the TSA, missed about 20% of the bombs, the report shows. The TSA ran about 70 tests at Los Angeles, 75 at Chicago and 145 at San Francisco.

The report looks only at those three airports, using them as case studies to understand how well the rest of the U.S. screening system is working to stop terrorists from carrying bombs through checkpoints.

The failure rates at Los Angeles and Chicago stunned security experts.

"That's a huge cause for concern," said Clark Kent Ervin, the Homeland Security Department's former inspector general. Screeners' inability to find bombs could encourage terrorists to try to bring them on airplanes, Ervin said, and points to the need for more screener training and more powerful checkpoint scanning machines.

In the past year, the TSA has adopted a more aggressive approach in its attempt to keep screeners attentive — the agency runs covert tests every day at every U.S. airport, TSA spokeswoman Ellen Howe said. Screeners who miss detonators, timers, batteries and blocks that resemble plastic explosives get remedial training.

The failure rates at Los Angeles and Chicago are "somewhat misleading" because they don't reflect screeners' improved ability to find bombs, Howe said.

TSA chief Kip Hawley, responding to previous reports about screeners missing hidden weapons, told a House hearing Tuesday that high failure rates stem from increasingly difficult covert tests that require screeners to find bomb parts the size of a pen cap. "We moved from testing of completely assembled bombs … to the small component parts," he said.

Terrorists bringing a homemade bomb on an airplane, or bringing on bomb parts and assembling them in the cabin, is the top threat against aviation. "Their focus is on using items easily available off grocery and hardware store shelves," Hawley said.

A report on covert tests in 2002 found screeners failed to find fake bombs, dynamite and guns 24% of the time. The TSA ran those tests shortly after it took over checkpoint screening from security companies.

Tests earlier in 2002 showed screeners missing 60% of fake bombs. In the late 1990s, tests showed that screeners missed about 40% of fake bombs, according to a separate report by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

The recent TSA report says San Francisco screeners face constant covert tests and are "more suspicious."

An Act Of War

2007-10-17T16:53:00.000-04:00

Mexican troops on US soil, apparently in support of drug smugglers... and what's the point of asking Chertoff or anyone in the Bush Administration to investigate anything dealing with illegal aliens or border security?

From WorldNetDaily.com:

INVASION USA
Mexican military in U.S. border standoff
Police say they aided drug smugglers with Humvees, machine guns
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 17, 2007
3:47 p.m. Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Mexican soldiers and civilian smugglers engaged in an armed standoff with nearly 30 American law enforcement officials on the southern U.S. border, according to Texas police and the FBI.

At a spot more than 200 yards inside the U.S., Mexican Army troops set up several mounted machine guns when U.S. Border Patrol agents called for backup Monday, the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin of Ontario, Calif., reported.

The paper said Mexican military Humvees were towing what appeared to be thousands of pounds of marijuana across the border into the U.S., according to Chief Deputy Mike Doyal of the Hudspeth County Sheriff's Department.

The incident took place on the Rio Grande near Neely's Crossing, about 50 miles east of El Paso.

"It's been so bred into everyone not to start an international incident with Mexico that it's been going on for years," Doyal told the Daily Bulletin. "When you're up against mounted machine guns, what can you do? Who wants to pull the trigger first? Certainly not us."

Confirming the afternoon encounter, FBI spokeswoman Andrea Simmons told the paper, "Bad guys in three vehicles ended up on the border. People with Humvees, who appeared to be with the Mexican Army, were involved with the three vehicles in getting them back across."

Deputies captured one vehicle and found 1,477 pounds of marijuana inside, according to Doyal, who added Mexican soldiers set fire to one of the Humvees stuck in the river.

Such incidents are common, Doyal told the Daily Bulletin. Last November, his deputies were called on to back up agents from the Fort Hancock border patrol station in Texas after confronting more than six fully armed men dressed in Mexican military uniforms.

Armed with machine guns, the men were trying to bring more than three tons of marijuana across the border in military vehicles.

Doyal insisted the federal government must do something about the incursions, pointing out the deputies and border agents are not equipped for combat.

But Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff today played down the reports of Mexican military incursions, suggesting many could have been mistakes or criminals dressed in military garb. Last week, Mexican officials denied their military made any incursions.

The Daily Bulletin reported, however, border agents interviewed over the past year believe the confrontations were with Mexican military personnel.

A story by the paper last year highlighted a Department of Homeland Security document reporting 216 incursions by Mexican soldiers during the previous 10 years.

Chertoff downplayed the reports at that time, as well, calling them "overblown."

But border agents contend otherwise.

"We're sitting ducks," said one who spoke to the Daily Bulletin on condition of anonymity. "The government has our hands tied."

As WND reported in February 2006, an American law enforcement officer and news crew in Hudspeth County, Texas, witnessed an armed incursion into the U.S. by men dressed in Mexican army attire, the second such incident in two weeks.

Mexican officials have said their military is forbidden from traveling within three miles of the border, though U.S. border residents repeatedly have spotted mobile patrols of Mexican military units traversing roads that run directly parallel to the international boundary. Mexico says the armed men crossing into the U.S. are paramilitary forces loyal to drug-smuggling cartels.

Republican Reps. Duncan Hunter and David Drier of California last week asked Chertoff, the House Judiciary Committee, the House Homeland Security Committee and the House International Relations Committee to investigate the incursions.

Catholic Professor Says Archbishop was Right

2007-10-17T08:58:00.000-04:00

A Jesuit Professor defended the actions of Archbishop Niederauer by stating that he behaved properly in serving the Eucharist to two transvestites dressed as nuns. In other words, I was right- it was no accident. So to all of you who sent me nasty emails, and you all and O'Reilly can spin things any way you want, but that won't change the facts. The pro-gay Archbishop knew exactly what he was doing.

I've italicized the pertinent portions below, but posted the entire article because it shows that many in the Catholic laity have drank the poison of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church. Apparently, they don't know their Archbishop very well, do they?
________________________________
From this morning's San Francisco Chronicle:

Archbishop apologizes for giving Communion to gays dressed as nuns
Julian Guthrie, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 17, 2007

(10-16) 21:58 PDT San Francisco -- It was a typical Sunday Mass until two men in heavy makeup and nuns' habits received Holy Communion from San Francisco's top Catholic official.

On Oct. 7, Archbishop George Niederauer delivered the Eucharist to members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence - an activist group whose motto is "go forth and sin some more" - prompting cries of outrage from conservatives across the country and Catholics in San Francisco.

In response to a request for comment, Niederauer released a letter of apology addressed to "Catholics of the Archdiocese of San Francisco and to Catholics at large" in which he said he did not realize his mistake until after the Mass at Most Holy Redeemer Church in the Castro district.

"At Communion time, toward the end of the line, two strangely dressed persons came to receive Communion," Niederauer wrote. "As I recall, one of them wore a large flowered hat or garland."

Niederauer said that although he was familiar with the group because its actions had been condemned by his predecessors, he had never encountered any of the group's members until that Sunday.

"These two people have long made a practice of mocking the Catholic Church in general and religious women in particular. Someone who dresses in a mock religious habit to attend Mass does so to make a point (that) was intended as a provocative gesture," he said in the letter, which will be published in this Friday's issue of Catholic San Francisco, a diocesan newspaper.

The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, founded in San Francisco in 1979, are known for their white face paint, outrageous costumes, theatrics and support of the gay community. They adopt names such as Sister Chastity Boner and Sister Constance Craving of the Holey Desire and have mottos such as, "It is not wise to say no to free drinks, cheap jewelry, discount cosmetics or pretty boys."

Sister Barbi Mitzvah, who serves as "Board Chairnun" and "Sexytary," said Tuesday that the group is "not offering a comment.

"These people are always after us," Sister Mitzvah said, referring to conservative pundits and Catholic leaders.

The group did not identify the two members who took the wafers. One of the men, however, sent an e-mail to the church after the Mass and gave the name "Sister Delta Goodhand."

Conservative Fox news commentator Bill O'Reilly, who has disparaged "San Francisco values," called the latest flap another example of how the city is run by "far-left secular progressives who despise the military, traditional values and religion."

On his Friday news show, O'Reilly called San Francisco "a disgrace on every level."

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom dismissed O'Reilly's comments.

"This debate really is about San Francisco values. The Bill O'Reillys of the world are threatened by San Francisco because we value diversity, universal health care and civil rights for all. They will exploit any controversy to attack our values."

Some local Catholics, however, said they were hurt by what they said was a mockery of their most holy ritual.

"It's been all the news in Catholic circles," said Bill May, chairman of the San Francisco-based Catholics for the Common Good. "Catholics are hurt, frustrated and a bit angry because nobody is standing up and saying this is not right. This is a desecration of the Eucharist. They were there to make a statement and embarrass the archbishop and, in doing so, they desecrated what is most sacred and dear to every Catholic in the world."

Holy Communion is a centuries-old tradition in which the celebrant receives from a priest the consecrated bread and wine representing the "Body of Christ" and the "Blood of Christ." It is to be taken reverentially, as it is considered the source of Christian life.

"The general sacramental principle is that you don't deny the sacrament to someone who requests it," said the Rev. Jim Bretzke, professor of moral theology at University of San Francisco, a Jesuit Catholic university. "The second principle is that you cannot give communion to someone who has been excommunicated."

He said such people are designated "manifest public sinners" in canon law.

"This is someone who violates in a serious way one of the Ten Commandments or one of the important laws of the Church," he said. "While I can see Bill O'Reilly and others might be offended, the sisters do not meet the criteria the church has for denying Communion. Over-accessorizing and poor taste in makeup is not an excommunicable offense."

Bretzke added, "Even if these people were bizarrely dressed, the archbishop was following clear pastoral and canonical principles in giving them Communion. The default is, you give Holy Communion to one who presents himself."

Matt Dorsey, who works in the city attorney's office and is a parishioner at Most Holy Redeemer, attended the Oct. 7 Mass. He said the service was held on the day of the Castro Street Fair, so many parishioners were casually dressed.

"The Sisters have done a lot of great work for social justice," Dorsey said. "I think it's deeply offensive to see this incident politicized this way. It's not about religion. It's about the culture war."

On a lighter note, he said he couldn't help but notice the Sisters as soon as they entered the sanctuary.

"I was there in jeans and T-shirt," he said. "I have to give the Sisters credit for taking far more time getting ready than I did."

Dorsey said he was impressed by an e-mail sent to the general mailbox of Most Holy Redeemer after the Mass.

Sister Delta Goodhand, one of the two who received communion from Niederauer, wrote: "Just a quick note to recognize the wonderful mass yesterday at your Church. Your entire congregation was so welcoming and it was great to be able to participate. You are a wonderfully inclusive Church."

Brownback's Last Gasp

2007-10-16T08:59:00.000-04:00

What does a Presidential candidate do when his campaign in languishing due to lack of funds, interest, and support? Why, play the race card of course... in this case, in the form of "white guilt."

Shamnesty proponent and floundering GOP Presidential wanna-be Sam Brownback is trotting out dead horse- he and an "unnamed" Democrat will be offering a resolution in the Senate this week calling for the United States to apologize for slavery and segregation.

Brownback was never going to generate any interest with the base because of his support for the Kennedy/McCain immigration travesty, so now he's pandering to another racial minority group and those suffering from "white guilt." This is nothing but the death rattle of a comatose campaign, a pathetic attempt to jump start a campaign that was dead before it ever started.

Thanks for playing, Sam. Now get yourself ready for life after politics, when the good voters of Kansas toss your butt out of office for pandering to special interest and trying to cede our Country to illegal invaders from south of the border.
_____________________________
From The Boston Globe:

Brownback to pitch proposal apologizing for slavery
Says he expects a fight, won't call for reparations
By Jenn Abelson, Globe Staff | October 16, 2007

Senator Sam Brownback, a Republican trying to inject new life into his beleaguered presidential campaign, plans to offer a resolution this week for Congress to apologize for slavery and segregation.

Brownback, of Kansas, told The Boston Globe's editorial board yesterday he will join an unnamed Democrat in sponsoring the proposal. He said he expects a tough fight on the resolution, even though it will not include any call for reparations.

"They were federal policies," he said. "They were wrong. The only way for us to move forward . . . is at the end of day acknowledging those, taking ownership for it, and asking for forgiveness."

Brownback, in a wide-ranging interview yesterday, conceded that his campaign has languished since finishing a disappointing third in August in the Ames straw poll in Iowa. The 51-year-old Kansas senator remains in the trailing group of Republicans in the polls and in fund-raising, and says he will drop out of the race unless he places in the top four in the first-in-the-nation caucuses in Iowa.

"We're trying some different plays," Brownback said.

He divulged his plan for a bipartisan slavery apology just days after reaching across the political aisle to join a Democratic presidential hopeful, Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, in pushing a proposal for a federal system in Iraq - with strong Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia regional governments - as a way to end the bloodshed and allow US troops to withdraw from combat patrols.

"This is a system that can work," Brownback said. "You devolve power out in order to keep the country together. I fundamentally believe this will be the final status politically of Iraq."

Brownback, an outspoken opponent of abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, and same-sex marriage, has tried to court the social conservative base of the Republican Party. But conservatives have yet to unite behind a candidate, and some evangelical leaders have suggested supporting a third-party candidate.

Brownback's bipartisan gambit may be a way to attract some Democrats and independents, said Blease Graham, a political science professor at the University of South Carolina.

"This softer approach may make a Republican candidate more attractive," Graham said. "But in a partisan political world, I'm not sure how much resonance these issues are going to have among a Republican constituency."

In Iowa, people can register as a member of the party whose caucus they plan to vote in on the day of the vote. In New Hampshire, independents can vote in the first-in-the-nation Republican primary.

Mychal Massie, chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21, a think tank in Washington D.C., criticized Brownback's plans for a slavery apology resolution as "absurd and ridiculous." Project 21 does not endorse presidential candidates, but Massie said he personally is backing Republican presidential hopeful Duncan Hunter.

"Brownback finds himself in a failing campaign with no hope under the sun of being elected and he is reaching out and exploiting blacks and using them to try and get a few votes," Massie said. "It's not going to work."

Brownback's visit to Boston included a speech Sunday to members of the Catholic Lawyers Guild on abortion and the need for a more expansive view of life. Last night, he addressed Boston University students on US-Africa relations and its effect on America's security interests. The United States needs to do more to stop the spread of Islamic governments friendly to Al Qaeda that could provide havens for terrorists, he said.

Brownback also praised Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, for helping lead the push for the immigration bill.

"It's been very hard," he said. "I have never been beat on so much in my entire life as during this immigration debate."

Jenn Abelson can be reached at abelson@globe.com.
© Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

The Spin Continues

2007-10-16T08:31:00.000-04:00

Last night on the O'Reilly Factor, Bill continued to spin the San Francisco Transvestite Communion story. He and Ralph Reed both talked about how this was an attack on Christianity and Catholicism by radicals homosexuals, and that the Catholic Church wasn't complicit in the blasphemy. Neither O'Reilly nor Reed could understand why the Archdiocese has been basically silent since the event. The answer is simple, gentlemen. This is a pro-gay Archbishop in a pro-gay diocese in what is becoming a pro-gay American Catholic Church. They not going to condemn that which they have been helping to orchestrate.

You can watch the dialogue between O'Reilly and the former head of the Christian Coalition at Christian Crisis on the Fox News website.

O'Reilly Defends San Fran Archbishop

2007-10-15T11:11:00.000-04:00

Before proceeding, let me tell you all that I am not a Catholic, and please forgive the length of this post, but the spin job provided by Bill "no spin zone" O'Reilly in defending a pro-gay bishop requires this lengthy rebuttal.

That disclosure being out of the way, Bill O'Reilly's defense of Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco is one of the most ridiculous spin jobs I have ever come across. The apparently blind Archbishop served the Eucharist to two outlandishly attired transvestites, and Pope Bill granted him absolution, placing all the blame for the communion fiasco on the crossdressers.

I'm going to insert O'Reilly's "Talking Points" memo from Friday, October 12th, here- in it's entirety, so that I can't be accused of taking anything out of context. More of my diatribe will continue afterwards.
__________________________________
From Fox News:

Another Unbelievable Outrage in San Francisco
Monday , October 15, 2007

By Bill O'Reilly

Another outrage in San Francisco and this one is very hard to believe. As you may know, San Francisco is run by far left secular-progressives who despise the military, traditional values and religion. Not everybody in San Francisco feels that way, but certainly the power structure does. Time and again, we have brought you stories of outrageous behavior on the part of militant people living in that city.

Now, things have reached critical mass, no pun intended. Last Sunday, at the Catholic Church of the Most Holy Redeemer, Archbishop George Niederauer was celebrating mass. As part of that ritual, holy communion is given to Catholics by the celebrants. Two gay militants in bizarre dress took communion from the archbishop in an attempt to mock the mass and the man. — The people who did this are members of a militant homosexual group that runs around San Francisco dressed as nuns.

All city officials are aware of the group because in the past they have publicly demeaned Christianity. The Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, has refused to comment.

The District Attorney, Kamala Harris, says she is waiting for a complaint to be filed.

The Catholic Church says it will do its own investigation and doesn't want the police involved at this point. The archbishop has apologized, saying he's embarrassed and sorry he gave communion to people committing sacrilege.

But it really is not the archbishop's fault. — He is an elderly man who was taken by surprise. The fault here lies with the leadership of San Francisco. Mayor Newsom has consistently avoided criticizing behavior that is harmful. He hides under his desk and attacks messengers like me:

VOICE OF GAVIN NEWSOM (D), MAYOR, SAN FRANCISCO: Guys like Bill O'Reilly attack this city and use it as a way to attack Nancy Pelosi and "San Francisco values", it makes me sick to my stomach. How dare you attack this city because of a few exceptions, not the rule, in terms of where our elected officials are with relationship to the military.

Now that comment came after I criticized Newsom for refusing to allow the Marines to film a commercial on city streets. By the way, the comment had nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi.

Again, we've invited Mayor Newsom on the program, we've asked for a statement about the Catholic situation but the mayor is consistent. He condones terrible behavior by refusing to confront it.

Incredibly, the San Francisco media has blacked out the story, refused to report it; with the exception of KNEW Radio. If a mosque had been attacked like this, if a synagogue had been defiled, this would have been page one not only in the San Francisco Chronicle but in every liberal newspaper in the country. Instead, there is no reporting on a violation of a church service by those militants.

"Talking Points" believes all Americans should take a very hard look at what is happening in San Francisco. Certainly the 65 million American Catholics should be deeply offended by the city's behavior.

Enough is enough. Desecrating a Catholic Mass or any other religious service is unacceptable in the United States of America.

And that's "The Memo."
_____________________________________
Ok, back to me again. There you have O'Reilly's insane defense- it's all the fault of the gays and secular progressives in San Francisco... the poor Archbishop was hoodwinked- Bill flat-out states it was "not the Archbishop's fault."

What the Archbishop did was no accident, and O'Reilly should certainly have done his homework before opening his mouth to defend him. For proof I offer the following article which clearly demonstrates Niederauer tolerance and acceptance of gays- even gays in the clergy.

O'Reilly, if you're going to masquerade as a "culture warrior," you better realize that the Catholic leadership in San Francisco is every bit as "socially progressive" as Newsom and the other political leaders.

___________________________________
From The San Francisco Chronicle, December 16, 2005:

A NEW ARCHBISHOP FOR S.F.: VIEWS
Tolerant statements toward gays
Homosexuals can minister as priests, Niederauer says
Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, December 16, 2005

San Francisco's incoming Catholic archbishop, George Niederauer, has spoken boldly in support of gay priests and has praised gay parishioners, leaders of gay Catholic organizations said Thursday.

Many in the church hierarchy have blamed the international clergy sex abuse scandal on gay priests, and the Vatican's recent instruction on gays in the priesthood stated new rules on gay clergy were "made more urgent by the current situation."

Niederauer disputed those ideas in an interview with his diocesan newspaper in Utah.

"Some who are seriously mistaken have named sexual orientation as the cause of the recent scandal regarding the sexual abuse of minors by priests," Niederauer said in the interview with the Intermountain Catholic News, which was published Monday.

His reference to "sexual orientation" stands in contrast to the Vatican instruction's description of "persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies."

Niederauer said gay men committed to Christ and the church can effectively minister as priests, and he said sexual orientation was "a structure of human personality." In contrast, the Vatican instruction states that men "who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture' " are unfit for priesthood.

"I don't think there are any ifs, ands or buts that the Vatican is trying to blame the sex abuse crisis on gay priests, and this man says that is 'seriously mistaken,' " said Sam Sinnett, national president of DignityUSA, an organization in Washington, D.C., of gay and lesbian Catholics.

"Very few bishops have come out and said clearly that this is not about sexual orientation," Sinnett said. He added that, if the statements reflected the bishop's thinking, his appointment in San Francisco would be "more than a small step forward for gay and lesbian Catholics."

As archbishop, Niederauer will have a central role in determining who is ordained in San Francisco, Marin and San Mateo, the counties included in the San Francisco diocese.

In 10 years as bishop of the Diocese of Salt Lake City, Niederauer rarely had to address gay and lesbian issues in the church. DignityUSA, which has chapters in 24 states, isn't active in Utah.

In 2004, however, Niederauer publicly opposed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage that appeared on the Utah state ballot, even though he opposed same-sex marriage.

Many Protestant leaders and the powerful Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supported the ban. But Niederauer said he was troubled that the amendment banned any union beside marriage. He also saw the ban as unnecessary because same-sex marriages already were prohibited by Utah law.

Niederauer also helped form the "Coalition of Concerned Religious Leaders," a group of Utah clergy who urged tolerance for gays and lesbians after the state legislature in 1996 banned gay student clubs when students at one school expressed interest in starting such a club.

Before he was assigned to Utah, Niederauer spent his career in Southern California, including a stint at a parish in West Hollywood, which has a large gay population. In a 2003 interview with the (Salt Lake City) Deseret News about his work in West Hollywood, he was enthusiastic.

"I don't have to take a back seat to anyone in the church in my admiration for the people I met," Niederauer said. He added, "They were as wonderful and gifted and generous and compassionate as any you meet."

Francis DeBernardo, who leads New Ways Ministry, a national advocacy group for gay and lesbian Catholics, and met with Niederauer in Salt Lake City, said the bishop was genuinely interested in reaching out to the gay and lesbian community.

"With his pastoral experience in an overwhelmingly gay Catholic parish in West Hollywood, and his political experience dealing with extremism from anti-gay forces in Utah, I think that Bishop Niederauer is one of the best candidates to lead the heavily gay-populated Catholic community of San Francisco," DeBernardo said.

Niederauer's predecessor, Archbishop William Levada, received mixed reviews from gay and lesbian Catholics. Levada spoke several times at the Most Holy Redeemer Church, a largely gay parish in San Francisco's Castro neighborhood, and appointed gays and lesbians to important positions in the diocese.

But on Levada's watch, the diocese stopped its ministry specifically for gay and lesbian Catholics and left that work to local parishes, said the Rev. Jim Schexnayder, who founded the Berkeley-based National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries. Schexnayder said he hoped Niederauer would revive that ministry.

"There's a great need obviously in San Francisco, with so many gay and lesbian Catholics who would greatly benefit from a public pastoral outreach," Schexnayder said.
__________________________
There you have it. The gay community in SF was thrilled when Niederauer was appointed to replace Levada, and now you know why.

So much for the "no spin" zone, eh, Bill? Guess the spin started with you- but the spin stops here.

Mind Control in California

2007-10-13T08:58:00.000-04:00

For the last couple years, GOP-types have been talking about amending the Constitution to allow Schwarzenegger to run for President. After reading the following article, if you're a Republican and would even consider voting for this guy to be President, you're dumber than a fence post.

This is political correctness gone to seed. Like the article says, if you're a parent in California, the State doesn't care what your values are. If this was happening anywhere else in the world, it would be called brainwashing (or at least forced indoctrination). Progressives are trying to convince you that the State is God, and knows far better what's good for your kids than you do.

_____________________________________________________________

From WorldNetDaily.com:

'Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California
Schwarzenegger signs law banning anything perceived as negative to 'gays'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 13, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.

"We are shocked and appalled that the governor has blatantly attacked traditional family values in California," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

"With this decision, Gov. Schwarzenegger has told parents that their values are irrelevant. Many parents will have no choice but to pull their children out of the public schools that have now become sexualized indoctrination centers."

"Arnold Schwarzenegger has delivered young children into the hands of those who will introduce them to alternative sexual lifestyles," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, which worked to defeat the plans. "This means children as young as five years old will be mentally molested in school classrooms.

"Shame on Schwarzenegger and the Democrat politicians for ensuring that every California school becomes a homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination center," he said.

Analysts have warned that schools across the nation will be impacted by the decision, since textbook publishers must cater to their largest purchaser, which often is California, and they will be unlikely to go to the expense of having a separate edition for other states.

The bills signed by Schwarzenegger include SB777, which bans anything in public schools that could be interpreted as negative toward homosexuality, bisexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices.

There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however.

"SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values," said Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. "These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision. The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured.

"Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic – not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation," she said.

Also signed was AB394, which targets parents and teachers for such indoctrination through "anti-harassment" training, CCF said.

Schwarzenegger had vetoed almost identical provisions a year ago, saying existing state law already provided for penalties for discrimination.

"We had hoped that the governor would once again veto this outrageous legislation but he obviously decided to side with the out-of-touch extremists that control the legislature. This law does not reflect the true values of the average Californian," said England. "True leadership means standing up for what is true and right."

Thomasson said SB777 prohibits any "instruction" or school-sponsored "activity" that "promotes a discriminatory bias" against "gender" – the bill's definition includes cross-dressing and sex changes – as well as "sexual orientation."

"Because no textbook or instruction in California public schools currently disparages transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality, the practical effect of SB777 will be to require positive portrayals of these sexual lifestyles at every government-operated school," CCF noted.

Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.

CCF noted that now on a banned list will be any text, reference or teaching aid that portrays marriage as only between a man and woman, materials that say people are born male or female (and not in between), sources that fail to include a variety of transsexual, bisexual and homosexual historical figures, and sex education materials that fail to offer the option of sex changes.

Further, homecoming kings now can be either male or female – as can homecoming queens, and students, whether male or female, must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room corresponding to the sex with which they choose to identify.

AB394 promotes the same issues through state-funded publications, postings, curricula and handouts to students, parents and teachers.

It also creates the circumstances where a parent who says marriage is only for a man and a woman in the presence of a lesbian teacher could be convicted of "harassment," and a student who believes people are born either male or female could be reported as a "harasser" by a male teacher who wears women's clothes, CCF said.

Thomasson said Schwarzenegger also signed AB14, which prohibits state funding for any program that does not support a range of alternative sexual practices, including state-funded social services run by churches.

Affected will be day cares, preschool or after-school programs, food and housing programs, senior services, anti-gang efforts, jobs programs and others.

Thomasson said it also forces every hospital in California – even private, religious hospitals – to adopt policies in support of transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality and opens up nonprofit organizations to lawsuits if they exclude members that engage in homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual conduct.

"It's the height of intolerance to punish individuals, organizations, businesses, and churches that have moral standards on sexual conduct and sexual lifestyles," said Thomasson, in response to the signing of AB14. "This is another insensitive law that violates people's moral boundaries."

The vitriol over the issue rose to new levels in its latest campaign.

As WND reported, a board member for the homosexual advocacy group Equality California verbally attacked and threatened CRI for its opposition to the bill earlier.

The board member sent an e-mail and video to CRI threatening the group would be buried if it continued efforts opposing the homosexual advocacy.

"The shocking hate mail we received shows that those behind this legislation do not promote true tolerance," said England. "Only politically correct speech will be tolerated. Those with religious or traditional moral beliefs will not be allowed to express their opinions in public schools."

She also cited an informational document published by the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center that already is lobbying for special treatment in the school system.

"If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity … you should be allowed to do so," it advises. "Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible."

Further, the groups advise, "If you change your name to one that better matches your gender identity, a school needs to use that name to refer to you." The advocacy group also warns schools against bringing parents into any such discussion with students.

WND has documented a number of earlier cases in which educators, including leaders in California, have taken it upon themselves to promote a homosexual lifestyle to children under their charge.

WND reported California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, under whose supervision hundreds of thousands of children are being educated, has used his state position and taxpayer-funded stationery to praise a "gay" pride event used in the past to expose children to sexually explicit activities.

That drew vehement objections from several educators, including Priscilla Schreiber, the president of the Grossmont Unified High School District governing board.

"I am outraged that a person in this high-ranking elected position would advocate an event where diversity is not just being celebrated but where pornography and indecent exposure is being perpetrated on the young and innocent children of our communities," she said.

The Ron Paul Campaign Slur Article

2007-10-12T23:31:00.001-04:00

Below, in it's entirety, is the article referenced in my previous post about the Paul campaign.

The source- news.com.au- is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox News- for whom Neocon lackey and ardent Ron Paul basher Sean Hannity works. I suggest they change the name of the Fox News Channel to something more appropriate- the Neocon News Network, perhaps.

Apparently, the author of the piece is a moron, since he makes the same error repeatedly throughout the article- Ron Paul is a Congressman, you idiot, not a Senator. If you're going to comment on American politics, at least get your basic facts straight.

Small wonder that people hate the press these days. See how many errors, lies, and distortions you can find in the article.
____________________________

Senator in 'fake online campaign'
Article from: Mercury- the Voice of Tasmania
By Mark Schliebs
October 12, 2007 12:49pm

A CANDIDATE for the US presidency is being buoyed by a huge online campaign that may be a fake a grassroots movement organised by party staff. YouTube footage of Texan Republican Senator Ron Paul, whose candidacy has been overshadowed in the media by competitors Rudi Giuliani, Fred Thompson and John McCain, has been viewed by tens of thousands of people in the last week.

As of 11am AEST today, a compilation of different clips of Senator Paul was the top rated video of the past 24 hours.

The clip had been viewed nearly 60,000 times since it was uploaded yesterday.

But it was not the only clip of the senator receiving kudos from YouTube users, with another 10 videos appearing in today’s list of the site’s 100 top rated recordings.

Of the 11 featured clips of Senator Paul, only one user uploaded more than one of them in the last 24 hours.

Head of Flinders University’s Department of American Studies Don De Bots told NEWS.com.au that it “sounded like” an astroturfing campaign.

Astroturfing is the term used to describe a fake grassroots campaign, in which members of an organisation create the illusion that “ordinary people” are behind the movement. Professor De Bots said that for a relatively unknown candidate like Senator Paul to have so much prominence online was suspicious.

“I would not put any credibility on those results,” Prof De Bots said.

“I find it terrifically surprising and unlikely (that Senator Paul would attract that level of response).”

Earlier this week, the senator’s campaign team issued a press release that said: “Dr Paul's video channel has been viewed 4.5 million times by supporters who embrace his message of freedom and limited government, making him one of the most-watched presidential candidates in internet history.”

Those figures were based only on clips uploaded by one user, RonPaul2008dotcom, who didn’t have any clips in today’s 100 top rated list.

The Media Can't Allow It

2007-10-12T20:37:00.000-04:00

Ron Paul can't possibly be doing as well as he is. His volunteers can't be working that hard, and his message can't be resonating with voters as much as it appears. People would never support someone outside of the mythical mainstream- someone like Ron Paul could never garner any mass support.

So says the mainstream media, who we all know knows far better what's good for us than we do. In fact, they've come up with an explanation for all of it- it's a fraud.

That's right, folks. All of you who have voted in the online polls, all of you who have waved signs and attended rallies, all you who have called talk radio and written letters to the editor, don't really exist. You really didn't do any of those things- they were figments of the imagination, a massive fraud perpetrated by Ron Paul's campaign staff, part of a grand conspiracy rivalling that of the Kennedy assassination.

That's what the mainstream media thinks of you and your efforts. Think I'm kidding? Read the blow article and you'll see I'm dead serious- as well as boiling mad. We're not only being marginalized, we're being dismissed. The media can't stand the fact that the Paul campaign is expanding despite their best efforts to sabotage his campaign. He gets far less face time in the debates than the establishment candidates, and virtually every story on Ron Paul and those of us who support his run for the White House is slanted in such a way as to make Congressman Paul and us look like fringe lunatics. Well, if wanting smaller government, lower taxes, and a government that actually follows the constitution makes us fringe lunatics, we're in good company- the Founding Fathers believed as we do. I guess Fox, NBC, and the rest of the "mainstream" media would call Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams fringe lunatics, too.

____________________________________________

From Infowars.net:

Smear Campaign Against Ron Paul Goes Into Overdrive
Corporate media peddles ridiculous conspiracy theories that Ron Paul's meteoric popularity is entirely fake
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, Oct 12, 2007

The smear campaign against Presidential candidate Ron Paul has hit an all time high with the corporate media today ludicrously declaring that the Congressman's immense worldwide popularity is all a huge con emanating from Dr Paul's own office.
Rupert Murdoch owned Australian outlet News.com.au has today disseminated the most insidious and farcical report concerning Ron Paul to date.

Headlined Republican Ron Paul in possible 'fake online campaign', the article attempts to convince the reader that every aspect of Ron Paul's popularity, from his you tube website, to his dominance of online polls and debate polls has been totally faked by his own staff!

The astounding accusation reads:

A CANDIDATE for the US presidency is being buoyed by a massive online campaign that may be a fake grassroots movement organised by party staff.

Head of Flinders University’s Department of American Studies Don De Bats told NEWS.com.au that it “sounded like” an astroturfing campaign.

Astroturfing is the term used to describe a fake grassroots campaign, where members of an organisation create the illusion that “ordinary people” are behind the movement.

Note how the author of the article uses words such as "possible" and "may" and sounded like" to cover the fact that its content is total baloney from start to finish and could even be considered libelous.

From what I can make out (please correct me if I'm wrong because this trash is almost incoherent) the author, Mark Schliebs, then makes a pathetic rambling attempt to sell the notion that because popular youtube videos of Ron Paul were uploaded by the same person with the username RonPaul2008dotcom this means it is some sort of massive fake conspiracy???!

As blogger Darryl Mason points out in this excellent rebuttal, "The RonPaul2008 channel is an election channel, which every presidential wannabe who is seriously pursuing an online audience also has, including Billary, Giuliani and Barack Obama. It's an online campaign, so of course Ron Paul supporters or Ron Paul's own office is going to post clips, just as the teams behind Giuliani, Billary and Obama are now also doing."

Ron Paul's most popular clips on youtube have received tens of thousands of views, where as figures for Rudy Giuliani's most popular clips are in the low hundreds or even in the 90's. Ron Paul's youtube channel has been viewed 4.5 million times by supporters, is youtube in on this mass conspiracy too? Is youtube fixing its viewing figures for Ron Paul?

To add insult to injury Schliebs then throws in the "expert analysis" of an American studies professor. Not a technological expert or an experienced internet campaigner or someone within another successful grassroots organisation, but a guy who lectures about Abe Lincoln to 17 year olds:

Professor De Bats said that for a relatively unknown candidate like Dr Paul to have so much prominence online was suspicious.

“I would not put any credibility on those results,” Prof De Bats said.

“I find it terrifically surprising and unlikely (that Dr Paul would attract that level of response).”

I find it terrifically surprising that such awful journalism can make it into umpteen nationally syndicated newspapers, but it still has.

The piece reads like Schliebs has been ordered to attack Ron Paul and has just taken a wild stab in the dark with no foundation of evidence or substance and then had the gall to find some unwitting person with the letters "PhD" after their name to agree with him.

Similar claims denying reality have been made about Ron Paul's dominance in polls after Republican debates. Despite the fact that most major media organisations only allow one vote from each IP address or mobile phone, for text messaging polls, corporate media outlets keep suggesting that their own polls are being rigged and hijacked by Ron Paul spammers.

In a familiar move CNBC even removed its own poll on Tuesday night just hours after the debate had ended when they realized Ron Paul was winning by such a wide margin.

Today CNBC Managing Editor, Allen Wastler, responded to demands for an explanation by clearly stating that CNBC pulled the poll because Ron Paul was winning. Wastler then also spouted the conspiracy theory that every poll is being rigged for Ron Paul to win:

Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.

The next day, our email basked was flooded with Ron Paul support messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can't help but admire that.

Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the poll down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again.

What kind of twisted logic is this? Ron Paul has more fans and is attracting more committed and organised supporters than any other candidate, so it's not fair? We are talking about the lead up to a democratic election for crying out loud, THAT'S THE POINT OF AN ELECTION, TO DETERMINE WHO IS THE MOST POPULAR!!

Dear Mr Wastler, some Ron Paul detractors take issue with the fact Ron Paul is trouncing the opposition. Fine. But when a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried.

If a huge mass of people vote for Ron Paul and don't vote for Giuliani, too bad for Rudy, that does not mean the poll has been "hacked"! If you don't show up to vote, your vote doesn't get counted my friend.

If a football teams scores more points than their rivals because their players come out more committed and stronger, does it mean the game was rigged?

Many Neo-Con blog sites now do not even include Ron Paul in their polls anymore, pretending that he doesn't exist because too many people are voting for him!

How ridiculous is this going to get? If Ron Paul won the primaries and won the election would he then be stripped of the presidency because too many people want him to be president?

And I guess every other facet of Ron Paul's campaign has been rigged too. I guess the 5.1 million dollars he has raised is totally fake. I guess the fact that Ron Paul is the only Republican who is gaining in campaign funds is also fake. Ron Paul has won more straw polls than any other Republican candidate, that's fake naturally. The sun that came up this morning, that's fake too.

Corporate media outlets and interests are clearly frightened to death that the Congressman and his campaign of freedom and limited government has quickly become a huge phenomenon and that there is now a very serious chance for a Ron Paul candidacy.

Copyright © Infowars.net All rights reserved.

Bush's Jihad Against American Sovereignty Continues

2007-10-12T13:27:00.000-04:00

In the following article, Pat Buchanan shows King W for the globalist that he is.

The question is, when W's leaves his throne after the 2008 elections, will one ascend who is even worse, say Queen Hillary or Prince Rudy? or perhaps Barack the Rock Obama (can you smell what he's cookin'?), the Jester, Arthur Branch (oops, I mean Fred Thompson), Mitt the Missing Osmond Brother, or maybe even John the Barber Edwards or Mike Huckleberry Hound Huckabee? None of these would be one iota better than W, and in reality, they would be worse, since Bush/Clinton/Bush has already done the dirty work of strengthening and expanding the globalist foundation for them to build on.
______________________________________________

From WorldNetDaily:

George W. Bush, globalist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Pat Buchanan
Posted: October 12, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Have the Bush Republicans ceased to be reliable custodians of American sovereignty? So it would seem.

President George W. Bush began well. He rejected the Kyoto Protocol on global warming negotiated by Vice President Al Gore as both injurious to the economy and rooted in questionable science. He refused to allow the armed forces and diplomats of the United States to be brought under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

But now President Bush is about to take his country by the hand and make a great leap forward into world government. He has signed on to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which transfers jurisdiction over the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian and Arctic oceans and all the oil and mineral resources they contain to an International Seabed Authority. This second United Nations would be ceded eternal hegemony over two-thirds of the Earth. It is the greatest U.N. power grab in history and, thanks to George Bush, is about to succeed.

Within the Authority, consisting of 155 nations, America would have one vote and no veto. However, we would pay the principal share of the operating costs, as we do today of the United Nations.

In 1978, Ronald Reagan declared, "No national interest of the United States can justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth's surface over to the Third World."

Rejecting the New International Economic Order that sought to effect a historic transfer of wealth and power from the First World to the Third, President Reagan in 1982 refused to sign the Law of the Sea Treaty or send it to the Senate. Now, Bush, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., have resurrected this monstrosity and are about to ram it through the U.S. Senate with, if you can believe it, the support of the U.S. Navy.

The rot of globalism runs deep in this capital city.

What is the matter with Bush? What is the matter with the U.S. Navy? For the sea treaty grants us no rights we do not already have in international law and tradition – it only codifies them. It siphons off national rights, national sovereignty and national wealth, however, and empowers global bureaucrats and Third World kleptocrats whose common trait is jealousy of and hostility toward the United States.

Under LOST, if the United States wishes to mine the ocean or scoop up minerals from its floor, we would have to pay a fee and get permission from the Authority, then provide a subsidiary of the Authority called the Enterprise with a comparable site for its own exploitation with our technology. Eventually, the Authority would collect 7 percent of the revenue from the U.S. mining site, giving this institution of world government what the United Nations has hungered for for decades: the power to tax nations.

While the treaty assures the right of peaceful passage on the high seas and through narrows that are territorial waters, we already have that right under international law. And for the past two centuries, we have had as guarantor of the right of free passage the U.S. Navy. Now, we will have it courtesy of the International Seabed Authority.

"It is inconceivable to this naval officer," writes Adm. James Lyons, former commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, "why the Senate would willingly want to forfeit its responsibility for America's freedom of the seas to the unelected and unaccountable international agency that would be created by the ratification of LOST.

"The power of the U.S. Navy, not some anonymous bureaucracy, has been the nation's guarantee to our access to and freedom of the seas. I can cite many maritime operations – from the blockade of Cuba in 1962, to the reflagging of ships in the Persian Gulf, to our submarine intelligence-gathering programs – that have been critical to maintaining our freedom of the seas and protecting our waters from encroachment. All those examples would likely have to be submitted to an international tribunal for approval if we become a signatory to this treaty. ... This is incomprehensible."

U.S. warships today inspect vessels suspected of carrying nuclear contraband. In the Cold War, U.S. submarines entered harbors to tap into communications cables to protect our national security. Our subs routinely transit straits submerged. To do this, post-LOST, the Navy would have to get permission from an Authority composed of states most of which have an almost unbroken record of voting against us in the United Nations.

Why are we doing this? Do we think we will win the approbation of the international community if we show ourselves to be good global citizens by surrendering our rights and our wealth?

The Law of the Sea Treaty is an utterly unnecessary transfer of authority from the United States and of the wealth of its citizens to global bureaucrats who have never had our interests at heart, and to Third World regimes that have never been reliable friends. That Republicans senators think this is a good idea speaks volumes about what has become of the party of T.R., Bob Taft, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

And they call themselves conservatives.

Firefighters for Giuliani?

2007-10-12T09:58:00.000-04:00

Not in New York they're not. Members of the FDNY know firsthand that Rudy is a fraud when it comes to his "leadership" in the aftermath of 9/11. If you are at all thinking of voting for Giuliani, you need to visit rudy-urbanlegend.com and listen to the firefighters and law enforcement officers attest to Rudy's "leadership."

Resegregating the Public Schools- An Idea Whose Time Has Come?

2007-10-12T08:54:00.000-04:00

I was amazed to read the following in the ultra-left St. Pete Times, and you might be amazed that the editorial was written by a black man.
_______________________

School integration is not the answer
By BILL MAXWELL
Published October 11, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several years ago, I ran into then-Pinellas School superintendent Howard Hinesley at the concession stand during a local high school football game. We had a moment of small talk but soon got around to the potential "resegregation impact" of the district's ambitious school choice plan.

As we walked back to our seats, I asked the superintendent to tell me what he saw in the bleachers. He quickly saw what I was getting at: The overwhelming majority of the hundreds of students in the stands, along with their parents, were segregated along racial and ethnic lines.

Whites sat together in groups, and blacks sat together in groups. It was a virtual Balkans in the bleachers.

My point to the superintendent was that he and his teachers and administrators could not do what society at large does not do: force people, in their natural state, to associate with people with whom they prefer not to associate.

In other words, people in those bleachers had naturally chosen to be with others with whom they had a lot in common - with whom they felt most comfortable. The self-segregation that Hinesley and I witnessed was the most natural thing people do. Yet, we mandate that our public schools re-engineer the very self-segregation we practice in our daily lives away from our schoolhouses.

Look around. Our housing is mostly segregated along racial lines. Eleven o'clock, in church, on Sunday morning remains the most segregated hour of the week. Black kids hang out primarily with other black kids at our malls. White kids hang out with white kids. Interracial marriages still raise eyebrows. And, yes, even in our public schools, you almost always will see white and black kids sitting at separate tables in the lunchrooms.

Still, we have placed the unfair burden of societal change on our public schools. I understand the inclination. In theory, we view the classroom - the academy - as a place of enlightenment.

It is where intelligent and ethical scholars teach and demonstrate the core principles, such as justice and equality, that make our democracy special in the world. It is the place where civility is praised as a virtue and is not mocked as a character flaw. It is a place where future scholars, practitioners and public servants are born.

For these and other admirable reasons, we invest untold amounts of tangible and intangible resources into efforts to prevent our public schools from resegregating. We continue to implement magnet programs, choice plans, majority-minority transfer schemes and other well-intentioned strategies to stop "white flight" and black saturation.

As a democracy, we instinctively, albeit uncomfortably, believe in racial integration in our schools. And for a long time, many of us believed that busing was the way to integrate and that integration was the panacea for a just, peaceful and educated America.

Now, four decades later, we should acknowledge that when court orders requiring desegregation are lifted and we are left to our own devices, we naturally resegregate.

In Pinellas, many blacks, especially NAACP members, reject the proposed student assignment plan that permits students to attend neighborhood schools. A real fear is that whites naturally will attend schools nearest to their homes, and blacks will do the same, making some schools majority white and others majority black.

Black opponents of the new plan believe that majority black schools will lose out on resources across the board, including teacher and staff quality. Their fear may be well-founded. I suspect, however, that a fundamental, more troublesome fear is at work: Too many blacks believe that for their children to learn effectively, they must be in class with white children. To them, racial integration is the only way for their children to learn, never realizing that they are indicting themselves as failed, nonessential players in their children's intellectual lives. In other words, integration has become the surrogate parent for some.

White liberals who see integration as a moral obligation argue that school integration gives white children the opportunity to be in the presence of black children, a relationship that gives the races a chance to learn about each other. The end result, such whites believe, should be that black children will become smart, and white children will become smart and U.S. society will become better for everyone.

Perhaps they are right. I do not know. What I do know is this: School integration has not benefited black children as positively as it has children of other races and ethnicities. When we speak of the achievement gap, we are referring to black children. Integration is not closing the gap and will not close the gap without exceptional effort on the part of blacks.

A school is as good as the students who attend, as good as the parents who send their children to school, as effective as the teachers who teach the children, as efficient as the principal who runs the place. A mostly black or all-black school can be as good as its white counterpart. That said, parents should have the right to send their children to a majority black or a majority white school for the best education.

As the product of an all-black, Jim Crow era school in a small town, I am convinced, however, that racial integration is not necessary for a high-quality public school education. If the school district would sign an agreement guaranteeing equal resources in majority black schools, black parents should have no reason to demand integration.

Evidence tells me that integration, which we have had for nearly a half century, has not rescued most black children from the behaviors and culture that trap them in the cycle of failure. We need to try something different.

Tancredo Tears into Border Mayors

2007-10-11T21:00:00.000-04:00

I'm supporting Ron Paul, but there's a lot I like about Tom Tancredo. He's been out front on the illegal immigration issue, and I respect him for that.

It is a sad commentary on the American electorate that, given all the anger and frustration showed by the American people in stopping the McCain/Kennedy shamnesty bill, the most pro-border security and anti-illegal immigration voices in the entire Presidential field- Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter- have lousy poll numbers. It's pathetic that so many voters rely on the mainstream media, pundits, Hollywood, PACs, and other nefarious entities tell them who to vote for- they are mind-numbed sheep being led to slaughter by elitist wolves.
__________________________________________________________

Presidential candidate blasts “rogue” border mayors
Ryan Holeywell
October 11, 2007 - 9:38AM

McALLEN — Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo labeled some border mayors as “rogue” for refusing to cooperate with the federal government’s efforts to construct the proposed border fence in some parts of Texas.

Tancredo, a congressman from Colorado, also suggested in a news release earlier this week that the fence could be built north of U.S. border cities that don’t go along with it.

Tancredo’s comments came after The Associated Press reported earlier this month that some U.S. border leaders had denied some access to federal workers doing preliminary work on the fence.

“I’m glad he said it, because all it means is he wrote his own obituary,” McAllen Mayor Richard Cortez said. “Nobody like him can possibly be elected to a leadership position in this country.”

Brownsville Mayor Pat Ahumada said Tancredo’s comments were “not constructive” and added those who vehemently support the fence — such as Tancredo — are “being driven by fear or racism.”

“He has no clue how we live, how (the fence) will affect us and how close it is,” Ahumada said.

Tancredo, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, was polling at 1 percent in an NBC/Wall Street Journal conducted in late September. His campaign has raised $4,825 from two donors in the Rio Grande Valley, according to the Federal Election Committee.

Lately, he’s gained attention for his vocal support of the fence, as well as his vehement position on the need to reduce both legal and illegal immigration.

Tancredo told The Monitor his suggestion of building the wall north of some cities was “just for effect,” but he is serious about his support for the fence itself.

While Rio Grande Valley residents and elected officials alike may oppose the fence, Tancredo said, it “is a national security issue and we all have to pay the price and make some sacrifice.”

While Ahumada said he supports a so-called virtual fence created by dredging and expanding the Rio Grande, Tancredo said a physical barrier is the best option to stop “the invasion that is occurring,” referring to the influx of undocumented immigrants to the country.

He also said the fence sends a symbolic message to Mexico.

“It says clearly, ‘Here’s where one country ends and another one begins,’” Tancredo said. “Short of sending someone an atlas, this is the next best thing.”

Cortez said a fence could impede the billions of dollars of trade that comes through the country’s borders. But Tancredo said a fence would not affect legitimate business.

Ahumada said he invites Tancredo to visit the border and see for himself how it would affect the community. Tancredo said he’s visited the border many times and was in Texas last year, but he hopes to visit the state soon.

From: The Monitor

A Scintilla of Hope for Higher Education

2007-10-11T20:29:00.000-04:00

The following, from The Daily at the University of Washington, gives me some hope that all is not completely lost in our system of higher education- there are still at least some students who havent't drank the koolaid of the Left.
_______________________________________________________________

Mexican claims to U.S. soil historically unfounded
October 8, 2007
By James Foxcurran

College campuses most often use the negative terms “imperialism” and “colonialism” to describe European and American history. Meanwhile, in 21st century North America, our southern neighbor is being granted moral legitimacy for the same behavior.

Mexican immigrants are now present in the Southwestern United States with a population percentage they have never enjoyed at any other time in history.

While defendants are saying it’s just the natural process of the Mexicans moving back onto land that really belongs to them and that the Hollywood demonstrations should be a source of conventional wisdom, history is being overlooked.

Mexico had barely colonized most of the Southwestern United States when it became U.S. territory in 1848. Spain, then Mexico, merely held imperial sway over Indian territories.

In 1835, Texas had about 3,500 Spanish-speaking residents, compared with almost 30,000 Anglo-American settlers, according to Ray Allen Billington, in his book The Far Western Frontier: 1830-1860.

In California, there were about 4,000 to 7,000 Spanish-speaking residents in the 1840s. The vast majority of the population was still Indian. Scattered missions, pueblos and presidios represented most of the Mexican presence in the area, which is why it was so easy for the United States to seize the area during the Mexican-American war, according to “History of French America” by Gilles Harvard and Cecile Vidal.

Meanwhile, in 1803, at the time of the Louisiana Purchase, there were 40,000 to 50,000 French-speaking residents west of the Mississippi River between Missouri and Washington state.

This number tripled to quadrupled by 1850. However, there is no modern political constituency for this group, therefore the story is apparently not worth telling.

The only state that has always had a majority Spanish-speaking population is New Mexico, with 44,000 Spanish-speaking residents in 1830. Since the Spanish were the first to explore the Southwest, their geographic terms are on the map every place they stopped to relieve themselves.

These vestiges are often used to justify the massive Mexican colonization currently unfolding, in spite of the fact that it is actually the first wave of Mexican colonization, not the second.

History is often revised to reflect the current situation rather than the facts. This is exactly what is happening with the American Southwest and the inflation of Mexican claims to the land there.

This historical revisionism clearly has a political motivation to justify and legitimize the influx of illegal Mexican immigrants and to discredit efforts to respect our border and immigration laws.

As former Rep. J.D. (R-Ariz.) Hayworth said in the film Border Wars, “The Left sees cheap votes, and the Right sees cheap labor, so you have the perfect storm.”

While one certainly can’t stereotype all persons of Mexican immigrants, there is a distinction between Mexican-American families who have citizenship and roots in the United States, and an illegal alien of a foreign nation who is violating and evading federal laws.

While illegal immigration is unacceptable, it is important to have sympathy for the migrants.

The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, working with the border patrol is serving a heroic function that is saving Mexican and American lives in large quantities. I don’t see any Leftists sweating in the Arizona desert, saving illegal Mexican migrants from dying of dehydration and starvation.

The only people that have decisively responded to this human rights tragedy are the groups that Leftists despise and routinely slander.

Mexicans are gaining considerable political power and forcing politicians of both parties to shy away from defending the border and enforcing immigration laws.

A Zogby’s poll found that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, “The territory of the United States’ Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico.”

This was on display last year with the massive marches of Mexican citizens waving Mexican flags in American cities. If this isn’t blatant colonization, with ulterior imperialist motives, I don’t know what is.

[Reach contributing writer James Foxcurran at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]

Now What Do You Think Could Be Their Reasoning?

2007-10-11T15:43:00.000-04:00

Seems that officials at Columbia University are being less than cooperative with law enforcement officers looking into the hanging of a noose on a black professor's door. One would think this bastion of left-wing lunacy would want to help law enforcement find the perpetrators, since they consider this a "hate crime," and one would also think Jesse and Al would be putting all kinds of pressure on them to turn the tapes over so the white racists could be arrested.

Or perhaps (and I'm of course only speculating here) that's the whole point- maybe the perpetrators aren't white after all. I posted a story on here a few days ago about a black man burning a cross in his own yard and blaming it on whites to stir up the racial pot... perhaps the same thing happened here. Again, I'm just speculating, but maybe this is a "false flag" opeartion, employed by agitators to enrage minority students at Columbia. If this were the case, then it would make perfect sense for the Columbia adminstation to not turn over the security tapes- if it showed a black person hanging the noose, then the whole thing would be shown to be as big a fraud as the uproar in Jena, and their leftist anti-white agenda would once again be exposed.

But of course I'm only speculating. The liberal elite have far too much integrity to pull a scam like this, right?

You can read the story here.

The Political Cesspool Hits Back

2007-10-11T10:18:00.000-04:00

I received the following via email from The Political Cesspool this morning. It's their response to the hatchet-job done on them by Morris Dees and his sheep from the Southern Poverty Law Center. Hat's off to the Cesspool for standing up to Dees and exposing the darkness of the $PLC to the light of truth.
__________________________________________

Montgomery Skunks in Alabama; A Den of Charlatans Remains
(From the Files of Winston Smith / October 2007)

The $outhern Poverty Law Center ($PLC) just can’t get enough of The Political Cesspool, and especially of our main man, James Edwards. The latest edition of that rancid organization’s main publication, the hilariously titled Intelligence Report, did another feature-length hit piece on James. And the report says far more about Morri$ Dee$ and Mark “The Pocket” Potok than it says about James. The piece also says much about the $PLC’s deluded supporters, as they seem to be content with seeing the same old tired buzz-words and worn-out demagogue phrases that the $PLC has deployed against us since March of 2006, when they did us the great service of adding our radio show to their laughable “Hate Watch List.” Back then, $PLC she-reptile Heidi Beirich coronated The Political Cesspool “[t]he radio nexus of the hate movement,” a phrase the $PLC used again this year, saying, “[The Political Cesspool] has become the primary radio nexus of hate in America.” In their so-called coverage of our work over the past couple of years, $PLC writers have treated their supporters to a dazzling display of descriptive desolation by falling back on canned phrases like “raging anti-Semite” twice, ““Who’s Who” of the radical right” at least four times (twice in the same issue of Intelligence Report), five references to Holocaust™ denial, six references to White supremacism, six references to David Duke, ten references to the Ku Klux Klan and Klansmen, eleven references to neo-Nazis, and several other examples of intellectual infertility. It also gives us a valuable clue as to the $PLC’s financial machinations. Follow me on this: Everything the $PLC says, writes, and does is for one purpose only – to get donations and line their own pockets. The $PLC would never mention James Edwards and The Political Cesspool if it didn’t result in an extra dollar in Morri$’s or Mark’s bank accounts. But the fact that James is featured prominently in $PLC publications for Winter, Summer, and Fall of 2007 means that he’s pure money for the $PLC, which in turn means that James and The Political Cesspool have long and bright futures. With all the money Morri$ and Mark apparently make off James, the last thing they would want is for him to go away and The Cesspool to go off the air. Heck, they’d probably hire a security company to make certain nothing happened to James.

Among charitable organizations, the $PLC is well known and widely known as the dregs, carrying the shameful stature of being among the worst of the worst. Throughout the 1990’s and into this century, newspapers, magazines, other charitable organizations, and charity watchdog groups investigating the $PLC have registered assessments like:

“Rather than being legitimate crusaders against alleged right-wing “hate” groups, SPLC and Dees have been shameless exploiters of the misfortunes of people they do almost nothing to help. . .”

“a wealthy civil rights organization essentially controlled by one man: Morris Dees,”

“Morris Dees doesn’t need your financial support” because “the SPLC is already the wealthiest ‘civil rights’ group in America,”

“. . .the SPLC is little more than a direct mail outfit that has raised heaps of money hyping hate crimes—real and imagined—while doing virtually nothing for the victims.”

“the center [has] one of the worst ratings of any group [monitored by the American Institute of Philanthropy], estimating that the SPLC could operate for 4.6 years without making another tax-exempt nickel from its investments or raising another tax-deductible cent from well-meaning ‘people like you’.”

“What is the Southern Poverty Law Center doing…? Mostly making money…In 1999 it spent $2.4 million on litigation and $5.7 million on fundraising, meanwhile taking in more than $44 million–$27 million from fundraising, the rest from investments…On the subject of ‘hate groups’ …No one has been more assiduous in inflating the profile of such groups than the center’s millionaire huckster, Morris Dees, who in 1999 began a begging letter, ‘Dear Friend, The danger presented by the Klan is greater now than at any time in the past ten years.”…With…a salary close to $300,000 putting him among the top 2 percent of Americans. . .”

“[Dees] is a fraud who has milked a lot of very wonderful well-intentioned people. If it’s got headlines, Morris is there. . .”

Secretive as Swiss bankers, the $PLC bristles at the notion of accountability to donors. Recently, the $PLC refused to participate in the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance’s evaluation, a non-partisan process that would have given donors, present and potential, a good idea of how Morri$ and Mark use the money sent them. The Alliance reads the $PLC’s refusal as “a lack of commitment to transparency.” (Look for the Better Business Bureau to be placed on the “Hate Watch List”.) But then, one need only look at the $PLC’s lavish and imposing multi-multi-million dollar donor-financed castle-fortress in Montgomery to get an idea of how welcome the $PLC might welcome donor inquiries.

Very few windows, lots of reinforced concrete, reinforced steel garage doors, one narrow walkway leading to just one entrance. . .it doesn’t sound very inviting, does it? And the good people of Montgomery hate it, because it brutally reflects the sun and blinds them. Good neighbors the SPLC, eh?

(By the way, if you want to know how we at The Political Cesspool use the donations with which you good folks entrust us, I’ll tell you right now: every cent we receive goes directly to projects and to mission statement fulfillment. Not one penny goes for salary, overhead, facilities, or perks. No one on The Political Cesspool staff has an expense account; none of us receive so much as a penny for what we do here. Unlike Morri$ Dee$ and Mark “The Pocket” Potock, we easily retain our honor and dignity, because we’re never at the pay window. And yet, even with a quarterly budget that probably wouldn’t be enough to pay for Morri$’s and Mark’s monthly dinner bills, we still command attention sufficient for the $PLC to devote a considerable amount time and ink to us.)

With its well-established reputation for chicanery, hucksterism, and nefarity, one can’t help but marvel at the $PLC’s hypocrisy in assuming the moral authority to judge anyone. And lest anyone think the $PLC’s depravity is merely organizational and can’t be helped, I invite you to read the divorce decree against Morri$ Dee$. Then you decide if the $PLC’s venality is most likely an extension of his own abominable and congenital perversions. All of this explains why you never hear or read of any politician praising the $PLC. This also explains why the $PLC never hosts meetings, conventions, or conferences – no one who cared for their reputation would accept an invitation to participate in an $PLC event, because they would never want to be associated with Morri$ Dee$ and Mark “The Pocket” Potok. No governor, mayor, senator, representative (with the possible exception of Barney Frank), or any elected official with aspirations to higher office would want to be seen walking through the door of an $PLC-sponsored event, nor would they want the existence of pictures or video tape of themselves standing next to Morri$ and Mark to be the albatross around their neck or the scarlet “$PLC” on their chest. Even today’s bought-and-sold amoral politicians have some standards.

So, for us at the Political Cesspool, being the subject of any criticism by the $PLC is like being sprayed by a skunk. The stench comes from them, and we can easily wash it off and be rid of it that day. But tomorrow, the $PLC will still be skunks, stinking, reeking, and repulsive, able to keep company only with other skunks.

Winston Smith is a staff member of The Political Cesspool Radio Program. He can be e-mailed here: winstonsmith_99@yahoo.com

2 GOP Candidates Show Some Guts

2007-10-10T16:45:00.000-04:00

During the Republican duh-bate yesterday, Representatives Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo showed testicular fortitude in publically stating that they wouldn't support the GOP nominee if they didn't agree with him philosophically. In doing so, both set themselves apart from the other contenders by basically stating what so many of us believe- principles must trump party loyalty.

Giuliani is a social progressive; Romney may as well change his name to Eggo; Thompson has all the charisma of Admiral Stockdale, and we're still not sure where he stands on anything; and McCain, Huckabee and Brownback apparently don't think that having 20% of the Mexican population living in the United States is enough. Paul and Tacredo are right about those guys- I couldn't in good conscience support any of them, either.

To paraphrase Chuck Baldwin, having to choose between Rudy and Romney, or Thompson and McCain, or any combination of those would be roughly akin to having to choose between Nero and Caligula.

Tancredo has been the attack dog against illegal immigration, while Paul has spoken long and loud against the Neocon war in Iraq. They've shown guts in the past, and showed them again yesterday. Good job, guys.
_____________________________________________

From The Hill:

Paul and Tancredo hint at not supporting GOP nominee
By Klaus Marre
October 09, 2007

Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) made it clear Tuesday that they are not inclined to support the GOP nominee for president if that candidate is not in line with their views.

Asked about it during the debate of Republican presidential candidates in Michigan, Paul said right now he would not commit to support the party’s nominee.

“Not unless they’re willing to end the war and bring our troops home,” Paul said, to which Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) answered “You don’t want me then, pal.”

Paul also said he would not support a GOP candidate who is unwilling to curb spending in Washington.

“I’m not going to support them if they continue down the path that has taken our party down the tubes,” Paul said. “I mean, we’ve lost credibility because of all our spending, because we have violated the civil liberties of all the American people, and we have adopted the Democrats’ foreign policy.”

Tancredo, a staunch supporter of tight border security, also did not commit to supporting the GOP candidate.

“I am absolutely tired and sick and tired of being forced to go to the polls and say I’m going to make this choice between the lesser of two evils,” he said. “I really don’t intend to do that again.

I am hoping, of course, that whoever we nominate will be the principled flag carrier for the Republican Party. But if that is not the case, no, then I will not support them.”

Ron Paul Surging in the Polls Among Moderates

2007-10-09T14:31:00.000-04:00

Double-digit support in NH, 8% in Michigan... ahead of Thompson and Huckabee in both, ahead of Romney in Michigan. Large undecideds in both samples, so there's still opportunity to gain on McCain and Romney in NH, and an even better chance to catch Giuliani and McCain in MI.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Thompson is going to crash and burn as much as I think he will in the MSNBC debate this afternoon. I'm not a big fan of Chris Matthews, but I'm hoping he lays into Thompson and the other "top tier" candidates.
_________________________________________________________________
From USAElectionPolls.com

Ron Paul Surging in the Polls Among Moderates

There is more great news for the Ron Paul campaign, not just the money he raised in the third quarter but also that this is starting to translate into real life support. Among moderates in New Hampshire, Ron Paul is in the double digits. The sample size of moderates in this poll is only 203 but is as high as some of the University polls that are reported widely in the media.

John McCain 26%
Mitt Romney 17%
Rudy Giuliani 16%
Ron Paul 10%
Fred Thompson 5%
Mike Huckabee 4%
Unsure 21%
Source

In Michigan, out of a sample size of 307, Ron Paul is sitting at 8% among moderates.

John McCain 20%
Rudy Giuliani 16%
Ron Paul 8%
Mitt Romney 6%
Fred Thompson 5%
Mike Huckabee 5%
Sam Brownback 2%
Duncan Hunter 1%
Unsure 38%
Source

This is very promising news for Ron Paul because the moderates tend to be the most Undecided of all the voters. New Hampshire (21%), Michigan (39%) so as those voters learn of Ron Paul, more gains are expected. The other item to note is that Independents in New Hampshire are allowed to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries if they wish. Thus, Ron Paul will be gaining in the polls shortly.

Ron Paul's Fundraising Success Is Translating Into Surging Poll Numbers Among Moderates

Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate for President that is anti-war -- something that gets him favor among Liberals and Moderates. And according to the latest polls in Michigan and New Hampshire, he is polling at 8% and 10% respectively among moderates in those states.

Moderates tend to be highly Undecided at this stage of the election and USAElectionPolls.com believes that as soon as Paul's name recognition grows coupled with these voters settling on a candidate, Ron Paul should see more signs of improvement.

According to USAElectionPolls.com, leaving out Moderates that would vote in the Primaries happens far too often. "Some pollsters think that it is okay to leave off moderates because they do not fit in line with their label 'Likely Republican Voter' but it does a disservice to candidates that appeal to them like a Ron Paul. We have been making claims that Ron Paul is really higher in the polls since May 2007 and this is just one of those biases."

Are you a Murdering Rapist in the Country Illegally?

2007-10-09T09:06:00.000-04:00

Never fear, George Bush and the Neocons at the White House have got your back. In fact, they'll argue on your behalf before the US Supreme Court!

Apparently, this White House has somewhat of a soft spot for rapists and murderers. Dog Chapman goes to Mexico to apprehend a fugitive rapist and murderer who had fled American justice- and for his troubles, the Justice Department threw the Bounty Hunter in jail and sought to extradite him to Mexico. Now the same Bush Administration will stand before the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court and argue that the convictions of 51 rapists and murderers on Death Row (all of whom are illegal aliens) should be overturned, and those 51 subhumans should be sent back to Mexico to stand trial.

The Neocons are following the marching orders of the World Court on this one. It's interesting to see how they pick and choose which World Court mandates they choose to follow. If it deals with torture, it's ignored; if it deals with illegals, they'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court to enforce it.

Fact is, we should have nothing to do with the World Court. No foreign court must hold sway over our sovereignty, and international "law" cannot trump the US Constitution. Apparently, the GOP and Democrats don't think the same way- but the Constitution Party does.

From the Constitution Party Platform:

The United States is properly a free and sovereign republic which should strive to live in peace with all nations, without interfering in their internal affairs, and without permitting their interference in ours. We are, therefore, unalterably opposed to entangling alliances - via treaties, or any other form of commitment - which compromise our national sovereignty, or commit us to intervention in foreign wars.

To this end, we shall:
steadfastly oppose American participation in any form of world government organization, including any world court under United Nations auspices;

call upon the President, and Congress, to terminate United States membership in the United Nations, and its subsidiary organizations, and terminate U.S. participation in all so-called U.N. peace keeping operations;

bar the United Nations, and its subsidiaries, from further operation, including raising of funds, on United States territory; and

propose that the Constitution be obeyed to prohibit the United States government from entering any treaty, or other agreement, which makes any commitment of American military forces or tax money, compromises the sovereignty of the United States, or accomplishes a purpose properly the subject of domestic law. In this connection we specifically denounce the agreement establishing the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and any other such trade agreements, either bi-lateral or regional in nature. All treaties must be subordinate to the Constitution, since the Constitution is the only instrument which empowers and limits the federal government.

American troops must serve only under American commanders, not those of the United Nations or foreign countries.

It's not just the World Court- it's the entire web of globalist organizations and trade deals that we must get away from- the UN, NAFTA, CAFTA, the North American Union, Law of the Sea Treaty, GATT, WTO, etc., etc., etc. They are all threats to American soveriegnty and enemies of the Constitution.

Ron Paul has said "We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America." I wholeheartedly agree with him, and so would the Founding Fathers. How about you?
___________________________________________
From WorldNetDaily:

THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
Bush backs Mexico, rapist-murderer
International court seeks to block death penalty in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 8, 2007
11:28 a.m. Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case Wednesday in which the Bush administration will seek to overturn the death penalty of a convicted rapist-murderer at the behest of the International Court of Justice.

Jose Medellin confessed in 1993 to participating in the rape and murder of two Houston teenagers. Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena were sodomized and strangled with their shoe laces. Medellin bragged about keeping one girl's Mickey Mouse watch as a souvenir of the crime.

Medellin and four others were convicted of capital murder and sent to Texas' death row. A juvenile court sentenced Medellin's younger brother, who was 14 at the time, to 40 years in prison.

The intervention in the case by the Bush administration comes after the International Court of Justice found Medellin was not informed of his right to contact the Mexican Consulate for legal assistance.

That, according to the Hague, was a violation of a 1963 treaty known as the Vienna Convention.

"We find ourselves in an unusual position," Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz told the Houston Chronicle. "Texas is not regularly litigating against the United States. But sadly enough, the United States will appear alongside Medellin at the argument."

Medellin v. Texas will be argued Wednesday and could determine the fate of Medellin and 50 other Mexican killers on death rows in the United States, including more than a dozen in Texas. All of them say they were not told of their right to contact Mexico for legal help.

The court is expected to produce a ruling clarifying which powers reside with the president, Congress and courts, which powers belong to the federal government versus the states, and what the relationship is between international and domestic law.

The Bush administration became involved in the Medellin case in 2003 when Mexico sued the U.S. over the consular issue in the International Court of Justice at the Hague. The so-called "World Court" is the United Nations' top court for resolving international disputes.

The court ruled in Mexico's favor in late 2004 and ordered the U.S. to reconsider the Mexican inmates' murder convictions and death sentences. In February 2005, Bush announced that while he disagreed with the World Court's decision, the U.S. would comply. He ordered courts in Texas and elsewhere to review the cases.

A few days later, however, the president withdrew the U.S. from the part of the Vienna Convention that gives the World Court final say in international disputes.

The Supreme Court, which had agreed to hear Medellin's case, dismissed it later in 2005 to allow the case to play out in Texas. Last November, the all-Republican Texas Court of Criminal Appeals balked at the president's order, saying Bush had overstepped his authority.

The Texas court said the judicial branch, not the White House, should decide how to resolve the Mexican cases. It also said Medellin wasn't entitled to a new hearing because he failed to complain at his original trial about any violation of his consular rights and had therefore waived them.

Medellin appealed again to the U.S. Supreme Court, which announced last May it would hear his case. His lawyer, Donald Donovan of New York, will argue this week that Bush was correct when he took action to comply with the World Court's decision.

The Bush administration, now siding with Medellin and Mexico, will try to help Donovan's team convince the justices that the Texas court is undermining the president's efforts to conduct foreign policy.

Cruz, who will argue the case for Texas, called Bush's unprecedented attempt to issue orders to the judicial branch – and the state courts in particular – "breathtaking."

"It is emphatically not the province of the president to say what the law is," he told the Houston Chronicle. "If this president's assertion of authority is upheld in this case, it opens the door for enormous mischief from presidents of either party. What might these presidents be inclined to do if they had the power to flick state laws off the books?"

Meanwhile, Randy and Sandra Ertman, the parents of one of Medellin's victims, also have weighed in. In a court brief filed on their behalf by the California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, the Ertmans argue that their 14-year-old daughter's rights, and the rights of other victims, will be given short shrift if the justices further delay the "already long-overdue execution of this well-deserved sentence."

"This case has produced much lofty discussion about international law and the separation of powers. We must not forget, though, that this case is about a real crime against real people," they wrote. "Enough is enough."

Not to Beat a Dead Horse, but...

2007-10-07T14:47:00.000-04:00

I sincerely hope the message will finally get through- Bush and the Neocons are not the friends of conservative Christians.

How much more is it going to take? One GOP Senator cavorting with female prostitutes, another looking to get his jollies in bathroom airports, and a President who who's a Universalist masquerading as a Methodist. Neocons use religion as a tool to get elected. For both neocons and progressives, it is a civil religion, which is why, when pushed, they never take a stand for truth- they are, in fact, theological liberals in the guise of "evangelicals." They are wolves in sheep's clothing.

The GOP takes "values" voters as much for granted (if not more than) as Democrats do the votes of minorities. There are alternatives- that's why I switched to the Constitution Party.
________________________________________

Bush: All religions pray to 'same God'
'That's what I believe. I believe Islam is a great religion that preaches peace'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 7, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

President George Bush has repeated his belief all religions, "whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God" – an assertion that caused outrage among evangelical leaders when he said it in November 2003.

Bush made the statement Friday in an interview with Al Arabiya reporter Elie Nakouzi.

Al Arabiya is Al Jazeerah's top competitor in the Mideast.

As the president and Nakouzi walked from the Oval Office to the Map Room in the White House residence, Nazouki asked, "But I want to tell you – and I hope this doesn't bother you at all – that in the Islamic world they think that President Bush is an enemy of Islam – that he wants to destroy their religion, what they believe in. Is that in any way true, Mr. President?"

"No, it's not," said Bush. "I've heard that, and it just shows [sic] to show a couple of things: One, that the radicals have done a good job of propagandizing. In other words, they've spread the word that this really isn't peaceful people versus radical people or terrorists, this is really about the America not liking Islam.

"Well, first of all, I believe in an Almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace. And I believe people who murder the innocent to achieve political objectives aren't religious people, whether they be a Christian who does that – we had a person blow up our – blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City who professed to be a Christian, but that's not a Christian act to kill innocent people.

"And I just simply don't subscribe to the idea that murdering innocent men, women and children – particularly Muslim men, women and children in the Middle East – is an act of somebody who is a religious person.

Friday's statement echoes one made by Bush in November 2003 during a joint press conference with then-Prime Minister Tony Blair. A reporter noted Bush had frequently expressed the view that freedom is a gift from "the Almighty," but questioned whether Bush believes "Muslims worship the same Almighty" as the president and other Christians do.

"I do say that freedom is the Almighty's gift to every person. I also condition it by saying freedom is not America's gift to the world," Bush replied. "It's much greater than that, of course. And I believe we worship the same god," reported the London Telegraph.

Read the rest of the article at WorldNetDaily.com.

Some Things I Would Change About Elections

2007-10-07T11:30:00.000-04:00

This is by no means either comprehensive or complete, but as I'm sitting here listening to the mainstream media ramble on and on ad nauseum about the upcoming elections, I thought I would pass along a few things I would like to see changed in the way we hold elections in this Country.

I'd do away with electronic voting. Let's go back to punch cards and paper ballots. So what if it takes longer to count- at least it would be instantly apparent to the voter if there was something hanky going on with their ballot. I'm sure the machines could be upgraded to do away with the fearful "pregnant chad."

I'd require a voting test before anyone was allowed to cast a ballot. 15-20 multiple choice questions about exactly what the Constitution says- something along the lines of:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are:

can be changed by Executive Order of the President of the United States
can be granted via decision of the United States Supreme Court
can be given in accorance with opinion polls
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

People may not fully understand what some provisions of the Constitution mean, but they should at least know what it says before they're allowed to vote. I'd even be willing to make it an "open Constitution" quiz for first-time voters.

Next, if you don't live in my town, you should have no influence over who wins in my local elections- nor I in yours. Therefore, I would do away with campaign contributions from outside of the specific area covered by the election. If you don't live in my congressional district, you can't give any money to the candidates running in Florida's 13th Congressional District; if you don't live in Bradenton, you can't give money to any of the mayoral candidates.

That goes for businesses as well, although it would have to be done somewhat differently than for individuals. For example, if your main corporate offices are located in Sarasota, then you can contribute to candidates for Sararasota City and County offices (and Statewide offices, of course), but not in any other city, county, or state. If your main production, manufacturing or logistics facility is in a particular area, you can contribute to candidates in that city, county or state, but not outside of it. What it boils down to is this- I live and vote in Bradenton, Manatee County, Florida, so why should I be able to influence an election in Hickory, NC?

That brings us to PACS. Any PAC setup to benefit any foreign corporation, government or country would be barred from giving any money to any candidate for any office in America. Further, no money would be allowed in the political process which did not come from an American citizen- if you're not an American, you can't give to any candidate for any office, or contribute to any ballot initiatives. I'm not sure exactly what else I would do with PACs, but this I am sure of- American elections are for Americans, period.

Next, whatever maximum contribution level was set would apply across the board- if it's $250 for individuals, then it's $250 for businesses. If it's $2,500 for businesses, then it'd be the same for PACs.

All ballots are to be in English. Braille is acceptable, Spanish or any other language is not. If you're going to vote in an American election, you darn sure should have to do it in English. No translators are to be provided at any polling place, although I would have no objection to deaf interpretors being onsite should the need arise.

No "soft money" should go to any political candidate for any office. Soft money groups would not be allowed to circumvent the system- they would be allowed to run "issue ads" on the War, abortion, or whatever else they wanted, but they would not be allowed to either explicitly endorse a candidate or political party.

Last (for now at least), I would repeal the 17th Amendment. I would go back to the State Legislatures appointing the Senators. This would work perfectly with my plan to eliminate out-of-State campaign contirbutions, as well as provide a remedy for situations like that of the disgraced Senator of Idaho. Had this been in place, the Idaho legislature could simply have recalled Craig and appointed a new Senator, instead of having to either wait for the next election or the Senate to boot him out.

There you have it- changes I would make to the election process. There's more I'll get to at a later date, but those are some of the biggies. Please, save your contention that this somehow violates our Freedom of Speech rights- it actually expands them for actual citizens of the United States. It takes foreign influence out of the equation- your voice and vote would mean more than that of a rich Chinese businessman or Middle East lobbying group. These changes would make "one man, one vote" actually mean something.

You are, of course, free to disagree.

So This is Supporting the Troops?

2007-10-07T10:21:00.000-04:00

National Guard Unit serves 22 months in the Neocon war in Iraq- and won't receive their education benefits. In order to qualify for the education benefit, their original "Go" order had to be for written for 730 days- but the Pentagon only wrote them for 729.

Glad Bush and his neocon cronies are so concerned with taking care of the troops. We can line the pockets of Halliburton and Blackwater, but we can't afford to give to give the troops who have been over there the longest their education benefit.

This wasn't a mere oversight on the part of the Brass in Washington, nor was it a case of ineptness- this was intentionally done so as not to have to pay out benefits.
___________________________________________
From: WCSH^.com

National Guard Troops Denied Benefits After Longest Deployment Of Iraq War
Rhonda Erskine, Online Content Producer
Created: 10/3/2007 2:39:29 PM
Updated: 10/3/2007 5:32:02 PM

MINNEAPOLIS, MN (NBC) -- When they came home from Iraq, 2,600 members of the Minnesota National Guard had been deployed longer than any other ground combat unit. The tour lasted 22 months and had been extended as part of President Bush's surge.

1st Lt. Jon Anderson said he never expected to come home to this: A government refusing to pay education benefits he says he should have earned under the GI bill.

"It's pretty much a slap in the face," Anderson said. "I think it was a scheme to save money, personally. I think it was a leadership failure by the senior Washington leadership... once again failing the soldiers."

Anderson's orders, and the orders of 1,161 other Minnesota guard members, were written for 729 days.

Had they been written for 730 days, just one day more, the soldiers would receive those benefits to pay for school.

"Which would be allowing the soldiers an extra $500 to $800 a month," Anderson said.

That money would help him pay for his master's degree in public administration. It would help Anderson's fellow platoon leader, John Hobot, pay for a degree in law enforcement.

"I would assume, and I would hope, that when I get back from a deployment of 22 months, my senior leadership in Washington, the leadership that extended us in the first place, would take care of us once we got home," Hobot said.

Both Hobot and Anderson believe the Pentagon deliberately wrote orders for 729 days instead of 730. Now, six of Minnesota's members of the House of Representatives have asked the Secretary of the Army to look into it -- So have Senators Amy Klobuchar and Norm Coleman.

Klobuchar said the GI money "shouldn't be tied up in red tape," and Coleman said it's "simply irresponsible to deny education benefits to those soldiers who just completed the longest tour of duty of any unit in Iraq."

Anderson said the soldiers he oversaw in his platoon expected that money to be here when they come home.

"I had 23 guys under my command," Anderson said. "I promised to take care of them. And I'm not going to end taking care of them when this deployment is over, and it's not over until this is solved."

The Army did not respond questions Tuesday afternoon.

Senators Klobuchar and Coleman released a joint statement saying the Army secretary, Pete Geren, is looking into this personally, and they say Geren asked a review board to expedite its review so the matter could be solved by next semester.

Minnesota National Guard spokesman Lt. Col. Kevin Olson said the soldiers are "victims of a significant injustice."

Commit an Adult Crime...

2007-10-04T11:45:00.000-04:00

Do adult time. When I was growing up, there was no crime problem in Manatee County. Nowdays, it's not safe to go to the beach on a holiday because that's become a favorite time and place for gangs to shoot it out, regardless of who gets hurt in the process.

I don't care if the brat thug in the following story is only 14 years old- she's a member of a Mexican gang, she was in felony possession of a weapon, and she assaulted a police officer. She committed adult crimes, and now she's facing adult prison time.

Black and Mexican gangs are starting to take over the County. There's gang graffiti all over the place, and earlier this year some gang thugs gunned down a 9-year old little boy. Forget coddling these little criminals- stick their butts in jail where they belong.

Our liberal paper doesn't say whether she's here legally or not. That detail seems to escape their notice when reporting the rise in Mexican gang violence.
_________________________________________

From The Bradenton Herald:

Unfair treatment of young suspect alleged
By MAURA POSSLEY
mpossley@bradenton.com

MANATEE --A 14-year-old girl who authorities claim is a gang member has been charged as an adult for alleged battery of a Bradenton police officer in July.

Magis "Maggie" Ruiz faces charges of battery of a law enforcement officer and attempting to deprive an officer of means of protection/communication.

During a hearing Wednesday, Ruiz, who wept softly, was slapped with a third charge - possession of a weapon during commission of a felony - ensuring she would be tried as an adult.

Prosecutors and police say Ruiz bit an officer's arm and went for the officer's gun during her arrest on a warrant the afternoon of July 11.

Once handcuffed and in the officer's vehicle, police allege Ruiz said she wished she had gotten the gun to kill the officer and claimed membership in the SUR-13 street gang.

But the teen's public defender, Jennifer Fury, is crying foul on the state attorney for leveling such charges on a person her age.

The state's claim that Ruiz boasted of her gang membership, Fury said, was at minimum an association with friends and a way of surviving an uphill battle she has faced her whole life.

Ruiz had been in the custody of Florida Department of Juvenile Justice since the age of 11, Fury said.

She has been abandoned by her mother, who in their last contact told the teen she had washed her hands of her, Fury said Ruiz has told her.

"I don't know how much involvement in gang activity she has," her attorney said. "She has not been out on the street."

Ed Brodsky, assistant state attorney, declined to comment Wednesday, saying judicial ethics rules prevent him from talking about a pending case.

He said the state attorney's office reviews juvenile cases separately, and a juvenile has to commit a serious enough offense to be tried as an adult.

"The facts of each particular case will speak for themselves," Brodsky said.

Fury on Wednesday went on to describe conditions Ruiz has been placed in at the Manatee County jail, which she says are inappropriate given Ruiz's age.

Ruiz lives in a small medical unit, her attorney said, with no sunlight and two other inmates, including Ashley Rios, a 16-year-old reputed member of SUR-13 who is facing charges of principal to murder in the May shooting death of 9-year-old Stacy Williams III.

Jail spokesman Randy Warren said juveniles are held separately from the jail's adult population.

They are housed in the safest environments possible and given access to the exercise yard, he said.

Jail officials ensure inmates in the units get along, are not co-defendants and are not known enemies, Warren said.

"We are limited in the areas we can put her in," he said. "In jail, you don't always get your own room."

Fury contends Ruiz is being unjustly targeted as a criminal. Holding her behind bars is not the solution, she said.

"I told her, 'No matter what happens, I'm not leaving you,' " Fury said. "Even if I fail, I'll go down swinging, because she needs to know there are adults out there who care. That's this girl's problem - everybody has failed her."

Veteran Enforces Federal Flag Law

2007-10-03T23:11:00.000-04:00

4 USC Section 7(c) states:

"No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy. No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof:"

Please note the fact that the establishment mentioned in the story below was in violation of Federal law. It's not like it's some obscure clause, either- I learned this when I was still in elementary school, and that was about 35 years ago.

My hat's off to this patriot for taking action.
______________________________________
From WorldNetDaily:

THE RED, WHITE AND BLUE
Vet cuts down Mexican flag flying above U.S. banner
Took action after hearing of illegal display by Hispanic bar owner in Reno
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 3, 2007
2:44 p.m. Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Mexican flag flies above U.S. banner at Reno business in footage from local KRNV-TV
After hearing a Reno bar was flying a Mexican flag above a U.S. flag, an angered U.S. Army veteran took matters into his own hands, drove to the site and cut down the banners in front of a stunned group of Hispanic patrons.

Reno television station KRNV, which was there to document Jim Broussard's act of defiance, noted the U.S. code prohibits raising the flag of any other nations above Old Glory.

Broussard pulled up in his truck to the Cantina El Jaripeo near downtown Reno yesterday, cut the rope that anchored the flags and pulled them down from a makeshift flagpole.

He left the Mexican flag on the ground and, with the U.S. flag in hand, turned to the KRNV cameraman:

"I'm Jim Broussard," he said, "and I took this flag down in honor of my country with … a knife from the United States Army. I'm a veteran, I'm not going to see this done to my country. If they want to fight us, then they need to be men, and they need to come and fight us. But I want somebody to fight me for this flag. They're not going to get it back."

The KRNV footage shows a Hispanic man, possibly the bar owner, picking up the Mexican flag after Broussard briskly walks past him down the street to his truck.

Later, Broussard, told nationally syndicated talk-radio host Mike Gallagher he took action after hearing on a local talk station that the flags had been flying all day.

"I was immediately infuriated and felt a duty to do something about it," Broussard said. "I feel there's a lot of this turning-our-heads-on-things in concern with the Hispanic community and the things they do. They seem impervious to our laws in a lot of situations."

Broussard, pointing out the bar was committing a federal offense, said local authorities weren't sure what to do about it.

He affirmed Gallagher's comment that many Americans are afraid to speak out on the problem of illegal immigration and lack of assimilation because they are afraid of being called bigots.

Broussard said he had no idea a TV camera would be there until he arrived on the scene.

About a dozen Hispanic men came pouring out of the building when he showed up, according to Broussard.

The men said, Broussard recounted, "What do you think you're doing?"

"I said, well, watch me."

Broussard said he talked to local police after the incident, and they have not taken any action. But Hispanic leaders, he said, "are trying to coerce the bar owner to file charges against me."

The veteran affirmed to Gallagher there are many Hispanics who are equally upset about illegal immigration and the resistance to assimilation.

"We have many cultures who've come here, and they've learned our language, and they respect our culture, because they know America is a great country, and they simply want to be a part of it," he said.

KRNV said it sent a cameraman to the scene after a viewer called to say "a business near downtown Reno was flying a Mexican flag above an American flag ... which is, in fact, illegal."

Illegal Aliens Could Give, Cost House Seats

2007-10-03T21:41:00.000-04:00

Here is a consequence of illegal immigration that isn't receiving much press- the unchecked flood of aliens into Florida, Texas and Arizona could net them more seats in the House of Representatives.

From the Norwich Bulletin:

Census to change Congress
Sep 30, 2007 @ 01:31 AM
By ERICA JACOBSON

Florida could get as many as three additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives with Arizona and Texas each gaining two seats if the 2010 U.S. Census counts the nation’s undocumented population.

This is according to a study released today by the Connecticut State Data Center at the University of Connecticut. New York and Ohio would each lose two seats and Illinois, Michigan and Missouri would lose one seat each. Connecticut’s seats would stay the same.

The changes could be problematic, the study’s author said, considering undocumented residents don’t vote.

“The number of voters hasn’t changed,” Orlando Rodriguez, the center’s manager, said Friday. “What you’ve actually done is allocated an extra seat to a group of people who are not participating in the political system. It gives more voting power to those who do participate.”

(The rest of the article can be read at the above link)

The Jena 6 Thugs- The Saga Continues

2007-10-03T19:12:00.000-04:00

If you do a news search on Yahoo, Google, or just about any other search engine, you'll find story after story of protests supporting the alleged attempted-murderers are breaking out all over the Country. They descended on the Justice Department, walked out of high school and college classes, wrote songs, and invoked the spirit of the 60s to anyone who would listen.

As much as I know all of this is a crock, the last thing I want to do is put a stop to it. I want them to keep protesting, keep marching, keep walking out of class, and by all means, please keep talking.

Why do I say that? Simple, really. The truth about what really happened in Jena is starting to come out- even black journalists are blowing the whistle (read my previous posting of an article by Jason Whitlock of the Kansas City Star). The truth is out there and available- we'll see how long Jackson, Sharpton, and the protesters refuse to accept it. We'll see how long Jackson, Sharpton, and their ignorant sheep followers keep up the unrest in spite of the truth. Their true colors are showing, so to speak- they aren't interested in the truth, only in those things which will get them on TV and line their pockets.

How Many Billions Do You Suppose This Will Cost?

2007-10-03T16:22:00.001-04:00

In yet another red herring that will waste untold amounts of US tax dollars, Reuters is reporting that the United States and Russia have reached an agreement to jointly search for water on the moon and Mars.

I have to ask- exactly what benefit if there in this undertaking? How is this going to benefit me as a taxpayer? How is knowing whether or not the moon or Mars has water going to change my life for the better? We have Bush's war in Irag costing us billions, Hillary's Baby Bonds that will cost billions, illegal aliens costing us billions, and now this ridiculous idea- when will it end?

The only way to put a stop to the insanity (short of armed revolt) if for sensible Americans to get off their butts, get to their polling places, and elect Ron Paul President of the United States. You know the Democratic candidates aren't going to cut spending, and the top tier Republicans all want to keep pouring money down the bottomless pit that is Iraq. Ron Paul is the only candidate who will get us back to Constitutional constraints on out of control spending. Ron Paul believes "we need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States."

SPLC Launches Yet Another Attack on "The Political Cesspool"

2007-10-03T14:37:00.000-04:00

Once again, Morris Dees and his cult of political correctness (aka the Southern Poverty Law Center) are launching an assault against freedom of speech. The SPLC has again slandered The Political Cesspool in a lengthy "expose," calling it a "shamelessly white nationalist talk show." The SPLC can't win arguments on merit, so they resort to name calling and false accusations against anyone who doesn't fall in line with their warped view of "tolerance." If you say anything against blacks (of for whites), you're a white supremacist and a racist; if you say anything against gays, you're a homophobe; say anything bad against any group (other than whites) and you're intolerant.

For more information on Dees and his cult following, read "The Church of Morris Dees" on American Patrol Report website.

Here's the revolting report from SPLC, which I received via email from The Political Cesspool...
____________________________________________________________________
Friends:

Today, the radically leftist Southern Poverty Law Center issued (another) attack on our award-winning radio program. This three-page "expose" is the SPLC's most detailed assault to date. As with any SPLC hit-piece it is littered with inaccuracies, but I felt as though the listeners of this program would appreciate being made aware of what it said. I encourage you to read it for yourself and then reply to this e-mail with your comments. Now, more than ever, we need the fans of our groundbreaking show to stand with me and the rest of the staff. At the conclusion of the article you can click on a link that will enable you to help us fight back!

On To Victory,

James Edwards
Founding Host, The Political Cesspool Radio Program
www.thepoliticalcesspool.org

Memphis Sewage
In Tennessee, a Racist Radio Host Thrives
by David Holthouse

When the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) held its annual national conference June 1 and 2 at a Holiday Inn in Greenville, S.C., James Edwards was the golden boy of the hate group's proceedings.
Tennessee radio host James Edwards has worked assiduously to provide neo-Nazis, Klan associates and Holocaust deniers with a path to mainstream respectability.
Edwards, 27, is the host of "The Political Cesspool," a shamelessly white nationalist radio talk show that's broadcast for two hours every weeknight from a studio near Memphis, Tenn., where Edwards grew up and still lives.

"The Political Cesspool" in the past two years has become the primary radio nexus of hate in America. Its sponsors include the CCC and the Institute for Historical Review, a leading Holocaust denial organization. Its guest roster for 2007 reads like a "Who's Who" of the radical racist right. CCC leader Gordon Lee Baum, Holocaust denier Mark Weber, Canadian white supremacist Paul Fromm, American Renaissance editor Jared Taylor, neo-Nazi activist April Gaede, anti-Semitic professor Kevin MacDonald, Stormfront webmaster Jaime Kelso and League of the South president Michael Hill have all been favorably interviewed on the "Political Cesspool" this year, along with former Klan leader and neo-Nazi David Duke, the show's most frequent celebrity racist guest, who has logged three appearances.

"I have known Dr. Duke for a number of years and have found him to be a Christian man above reproach," Edwards says on the "Cesspool" website. "Time and again, he has gone out of his way to help me, asking for nothing in return."

Edwards is quite a bit younger than the majority of CCC members who attended the South Carolina conference. Many of those members' involvement in the white supremacist movement dates back to the White Citizens Councils that were formed to oppose school desegregation and the civil rights movement and were later reincarnated as the CCC. Edwards sat with his wife at a table near the back of the conference hall, engaging in conversation with a nearly constant stream of admirers who looked twice his age or more. They slapped his back and shook his hand and congratulated him not only on the success of "Political Cesspool" — which is tailored for a southern, neo-Confederate, white nationalist audience — but also his recent triumphs in smoothly injecting white nationalist ideology into national mainstream media discussions of race relations and crime in America.

Edwards arrived at the hate group conference just three days after his third primetime appearance on CNN in the previous two months. "Crime and violence follow African-Americans wherever they go," he said in his April 4 CNN debut, a panel debate on "self-segregation" hosted by Paula Zahn. "And if you think that is racist, then spend some time on the mean streets of south Memphis."

Zahn, who initially identified Edwards to CNN viewers as merely a "radio talk show host" from Memphis, invited him back on May 21 for a "Paula Zahn Now" episode titled "The Changing Face of America."

"Why not celebrate the diversity?" Zahn asked him in one exchange.

"My primary interest is to protect and safeguard my family," Edwards replied. "Whites are in for the fight of their lives. America is becoming balkanized. We are being robbed of having a future in the very nation our ancestors carved from the wilderness."

David Duke, who calls Edwards his "favorite radio patriot," gave the "Cesspool" host's CNN appearances a glowing online review: "He delivered a powerful performance, stuck to his guns and didn't back down as he articulated an unapologetically conservative viewpoint regarding race relations."

'Heathen Savages'
Edwards began garnering similar accolades from his elders on the radical right last year as the "Cesspool" gained a larger and larger audience. (Although the show is broadcast only regionally on the airwaves, anyone can listen to it on the Internet.) "James is a bundle of energy and dedication who is deeply concerned about the genocide against European-Americans," white nationalist Bob Whitaker stated online after appearing on the show. "He is also wiser than many of the older members of our movement. … He sticks with legitimate complaints that gentiles have and our fear of the genocide of immigration and intermarriage that respectable conservatives all advocate. The Political Cesspool is one of the first major steps toward making our perfectly legitimate and generally felt concerns — the ones that are presently denounced as heresy, racism and hate — the mainstream."
The "Cesspool" host is a rising star of the white nationalist movement because he's articulate, charming and equally at ease in a television studio, behind a radio microphone and standing in front of a crowd. He was a specially invited guest speaker at the CCC conference. His topic: "Creating Your Own Media." CCC National Field Coordinator Bill Lord told a "Martin Luther Coon" joke in his introduction of Edwards. Lord and other longtime CCC members casually dropped racial epithets at the conference, but Edwards carefully avoided using such crudely derogatory language, as he always does when speaking in public, on the airwaves or to the media. Edwards allies himself with hate group leaders who call black people "niggers," but he doesn't drop the N-bomb himself. Instead he speaks in the more or less polished code of a suit-and-tie racist, calling blacks "heathen savages," "subhumans," and "black animals," exclusively in the context of discussing violent black-on-white crime.

His audience of about 150 at the CCC conference included Jared Taylor, whose magazine specializes in race "studies," and Don Black, the former Alabama grand dragon of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and founder of Stormfront, the largest racist forum on the Internet.

Edwards began by quoting Mississippi civil rights activist Fanny Lou Hamer, telling the crowd that he is "sick and tired of being sick and tired" when it comes to reverse discrimination against white people. He described "Political Cesspool" as "unabashedly pro-white" and detailed the show's early success in rallying Memphis whites to "defend" the gravesite of Confederate cavalry general Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first national leader of the original KKK. The gravesite was the subject of a protest in August 2005 led by the Rev. Al Sharpton, at which about 200 whites squared off against a few dozen black Sharpton supporters.

"Sharpton denigrated the general's gravesite with that kind of rabble there," Edwards said. He then boasted of the lavish all-expenses-paid treatment afforded him by CNN, including, he said, fine hotels and limousine rides. Edwards finished by announcing that "as a result of listener demand, support from station ownership and a surge of interest from the recent CNN exposure," beginning the following week "Political Cesspool" would expand from one hour per weeknight to two.

He received a standing ovation.

Biased and Controlled
The radio station that carries "Political Cesspool" — WLRM-AM — is a Christian station (WLRM stands for "We Love Radio Ministries," according to its website). Most of its programming consists of standard nationally syndicated conservative Christian "news and views" content that is often homophobic but generally non-racist, including a two-hour weekday show by the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a well-known anti-gay minister who is African-American.
WLRM is not audited by Arbitron, the radio industry's equivalent of the Nielsen Ratings system, so there's no reliable estimate of the number of "Political Cesspool" listeners. Advertising on the show is cheap: $100 a week for a regular plug. Edwards describes "Cesspool" as primarily "listener-supported," and the show's website claims it has received nearly $15,000 in donations this year.

The WLRM station manager did not return three phone calls seeking comment for this story. Edwards politely refused to comment as well. "I appreciate your request for an interview as much as I do the SPLC's continued interest in our conservative radio program," he wrote in response to an E-mail from the Intelligence Report. "I must, however, respectfully decline your offer."

Proper manners were instilled in Edwards early in life both at home, he writes on his website, and when he attended Briarcrest Christian School, an expensive private school in Memphis — tuition is now $10,000 a year — where "conservative Christian values and morals are taught and practiced in every aspect of school life," according to the Briarcrest mission statement.

Paul Fromm, a well-known Canadian white supremacist, has appeared on "The Political Cesspool" this year.
When Edwards reached the ninth grade he transferred into a "Christian nationalist" home schooling program. "It was that decision that ultimately led me down the road of political activism," Edwards says on his site. "I could no longer be aware of the problems that are plaguing this Republic without trying to be part of the solution."

He began reading the works of white nationalist politician and commentator Pat Buchanan, who appeared on "Cesspool" last year. "Buchanan was one of the first commentators that I noticed who really seemed to be speaking my language," Edwards told the Mid-South Patriot, a monthly Memphis newspaper, in a February interview. "I felt as though he was articulating a message that resonated within me."

When Buchanan ran for president in 2000, Edwards worked on his campaign. "Politics was in my blood at that point and there was no turning back," he said. Edwards ran for the Tennessee House of Representatives in 2002 on a pro-life, pro-school vouchers platform. His campaign website featured endorsements from his pastor and the fathers of several children on a bowling team that Edwards coached. He lost. But during his campaign, Edwards befriended fellow Memphis-area conservative activist Austin Farley.

The two of them together launched "The Political Cesspool" in October 2004. Farley left the show in 2006 to run for the Tennessee House in District 97, the same district Edwards had targeted four years earlier. Farley also lost.

The "Cesspool" founders won a remarkable token of mainstream political acceptance in 2005, when Memphis City Councilman E.C. Jones, who has been interviewed on "Political Cesspool" several times, presented Edwards and Farley with a certificate "in appreciation of outstanding contributions to the community," and named them honorary city councilmen.

League of the South leader Michael Hill has been on "The Political Cesspool" this year.
When Jones came under fire from the Memphis media for honoring the "Cesspool," he told the The [Memphis] Commercial Appeal, "It pisses me off when people want to make a big damn deal out of nothing. … Just because they have a different political view, am I supposed to exclude those people?"

When the Mid-South Patriot asked Edwards in February about the accusations that he's a racist he replied: "The horrible defamations we must endure are little compared to the physical battles of blood and bone that so many of our ancestors had to endure so that we could be here now." He also said that David Duke, his favorite "Cesspool" guest, is unfairly maligned. "Most of his detractors come to their conclusions about him based upon what they hear parroted from a biased and controlled global media."

Idolizing Duke
The Feb. 20 "Political Cesspool" broadcast featured a phone interview with David Duke, speaking from the Ukraine. Edwards made it abundantly clear during their conversation that he, like Duke, believes Jews control the media, among many other things. "We have a very small minority that has incredible power in the American media, the American government, in academia, and in the economy," Edwards told the infamous author of Jewish Supremacism. "I find it amazing that no movement has been too big or too small that these people have not had their hands in. … You look at all the destructive movements of the 20th century. We're talking about women's rights, the civil rights movement, and today the newly protected minority status for homosexuals."
Duke said in response: "Well, the way they have been able to do that, James, and everybody listening, is through organization. They have an agenda. They make a united front. When I was a university student at LSU [Louisiana State University] on campus, the very leftist, liberal anti-Vietnam war movement was absolutely led by radical Jews." Duke failed to mention another aspect of his LSU years: In 1970, while still a student, he was photographed dressed in neo-Nazi regalia, including a swastika armband, to protest the appearance of left-wing Jewish attorney William Kunstler at nearby Tulane University. That photograph, along with hundreds of others of Duke in his Ku Klux Klan robes, have haunted Duke over the decades and hampered his attempts to win mainstream political office.

Radio host James Edwards has been compared to former Klan leader David Duke, who has run for numerous political offices. But unlike Duke, who was photographed as a young man with neo-Nazi and white supremacist symbols, Edwards has avoided the most compromising situations and language.
Edwards idolizes Duke. At the CCC conference, he repeatedly quoted "Dr. Duke" in conversation. But as much as he admires Duke, Edwards has also clearly learned from his mentor's early mistakes. He does not appear at any hate group events where he knows swastikas and other white supremacist symbols will be photographed or filmed.

A frequent topic on "Political Cesspool" all of this year has been the gruesome murders of a young white couple in Knoxville who were allegedly carjacked, raped and murdered by four black men. "Hate crime laws were made for one reason and one reason only — to protect these black animals," Edwards said during his May 28 "Cesspool" broadcast. "If these two souls [the victims] had been more aware of the racial realities of our time, perhaps they would still be alive today."

Two days before that broadcast, neo-Nazi leader Alex Linder organized a protest against "black crime" in Knoxville. Edwards was nowhere to be seen. When he appeared on CNN May 29, the network rolled footage of the protest showing demonstrators wearing swastika T-shirts and displaying other white supremacist symbols. CNN host Kiran Chetry asked Edwards, "Why has this [murder] case become a rallying cry among the white supremacists?"

Edwards disingenuously dodged the question: "Well, I can't necessarily speak for people that I don't have any association with. But I will promise you this: Had the roles been reversed, and had the victims been black and the murderers white, this would have been the biggest news story in America."

The next day on his blog, Edwards posted this message to his fans: "With regards to those who showed up in Knoxville (who were labeled 'Klansmen' and 'Nazis' etc.), conservative activists often get maligned with nefarious descriptions because they dare stand up and speak out. I don't know the hearts and minds of those who attended the Knoxville rally because I wasn't there. However, with regards to their demonstration, they were doing the right thing by bringing attention to the despicable double standard this case has received. God bless them for that."

It's not exactly a stretch to "label" a man wearing a swastika T-shirt and shouting "Heil Hitler" a Nazi. Edwards knows that, but he's a master of carefully parsing his language so that he walks the razor's edge between conservative commentary and outright neo-Nazi rhetoric. This balancing act allows him to continue building his core audience of white nationalists without doing irrevocable damage to his mainstream political aspirations As this article went to press, Edwards was scheduled to deliver the keynote address at a Sept. 15 meeting of the Missouri chapter of the League of the South, a racist, neo-secessionist organization based in Alabama. He also had recently announced that he was in negotiations with a Michigan-based media company to start broadcasting "Political Cesspool" nationwide.

His stated mission is "[f]ighting to advance a nationalist agenda based upon the Christian world view" and turning back the clock in America to the pre-civil rights era, "back when America had a strong moral compass," as he put it during his May 17 show. "You had cultural and racial integrity in those days. …What's been taken away from us, we can take back."

Edwards works hard to maintain a professional appearance and demeanor. He wears suits, not Klan robes. But he's doing more than anyone else in the white nationalist movement at this point to promote the views of neo-Nazis, Klan sympathizers, Holocaust deniers, academic racists and anti-Semites. Helped along by cable news television and the occasional sympathetic elected official, he's beginning to look a lot like the next David Duke — and he'd almost certainly consider that a compliment.

Emily Brown and Janet Smith contributed to this report.

Intelligence Report
Fall 2007

Direct Link: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=817

Proof the Jena 6 Saga is Bogus

2007-10-02T20:45:00.000-04:00

A black reporter from Kansas City blows the lid off the widespread deception and fabrications concerning the Jena 6 thugs. It's about time the mainstream media figured out what some of us knew from the start- it was hogwash.

_________________________________________________________

Jena 6 case caught up in whirlwind of distortion, opportunism
By JASON WHITLOCK
Source: Kansas City Star

JENA, La. | Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and talk-show hosts certainly feasted on the racial unrest in this tiny central Louisiana town.

But it would be unfair to claim they threw the match that ignited the Jena Six case into a global blaze of hostility and misinformation.

That distinction belongs to Alan Bean, a 54-year-old white, self-proclaimed Baptist minister from Tulia, Texas.

“Do I know him?” was LaSalle Parish District Attorney Reed Walters’ sarcastic and dismissive response when I asked about Bean during a 45-minute interview.

“People are reluctant to say it,” said Craig Franklin, editor of the Jena Times, “but there is no doubt that Alan Bean created all of this.”

This is different things to different people. To some, this is a long overdue civil-rights reawakening, which points out pervasive racism in the South and in our justice system. To others, this is a horrific public-relations crime against the white people of Jena and irreparable damage to race relations in the poor oil town. And to some dispassionate observers, this is an unfortunate situation being exploited by white and black racial extremists.

On Sept. 20, when Jackson, Sharpton and Jena Six family members led competing rallies in support of six black youths accused of brutally attacking a white classmate, this — more than 20,000 marchers — was something no one in Jena could ever imagine.

But Alan Bean could.

Bean — the creator of Friends of Justice, an organization primarily dedicated to helping poor minorities victimized by our justice system — had warned prominent members of the Jena community as early as January that the town would be painted as racist by the national media if Walters didn’t back down.

“I told them I was going to bring media attention to this situation, and it was likely the same thing would happen to them that happened to my little hometown,” Bean said by phone on Friday. “Tulia got a bad rap, a rap it probably didn’t deserve. But the media doesn’t do its job. It’s in the entertainment business.”

“Tulia” refers to the case that made Bean and Friends of Justice a player in the world of American criminal justice. In the late 1990s, Bean exposed a corrupt cop in his hometown. More than a dozen drug convictions against minorities were overturned because of Bean’s work. Tulia was labeled as racist, and Bean became the person to call if you thought the police and/or a prosecutor were exploiting you.

A lawyer in New Orleans put Bean and parents of the Jena Six in contact with each other in December. Within three months, Bean had researched Jena and the events surrounding the assault, and published a 5,400-word narrative titled “The Making of a Myth in Jena, Louisiana” and a 2,400-word, media-friendly narrative titled “Responding to the Crisis in Jena, Louisiana.”

These two pro-defense narratives form the outline for most of the world’s understanding of the case. Bean connected the December assault on Justin Barker to the September noose hangings, to Reed Walters’ infamous “I can ruin your life with the stroke of a pen” statement at a hastily called school assembly, and to separate off-campus confrontations between Robert Bailey and white men on the Friday and Saturday before the attack on Barker.

Walters said Wednesday he’d never heard that the attack on Barker had anything to do with the noose hangings until the defense filed motions in the spring to recuse him from the case.

Bean said he first spoon-fed his narratives to Tom Mangold of the BBC because Mangold had worked with Bean on the Tulia drug cases. The BBC filmed a documentary on the Jena Six titled “Race Hate in Louisiana.” Bean said he then gave the Jena Six story to newspaper reporter Howard Witt of the Chicago Tribune, which published a similar story on May 20.

“I put it in the hands of people I knew would do a good job with the story,” Bean said.

Bean also gave his story to a blogger, Jordan Flaherty, and a law professor, Bill Quigley. From all of these sources the story mushroomed and became fact.

The Jena Six beat up Justin Barker because they were still angry about the lack of sufficient punishment given to white kids who hung nooses on a whites-only shade tree, and the six were railroaded by an overzealous district attorney who failed to properly prosecute white men who viciously assaulted Robert Bailey and later pulled a shotgun on Bailey and two others at a convenience store.

Walters, police investigators, school officials and some Jena residents say Bean’s story is hogwash. There is at least some legitimacy to those claims. Bean’s story and subsequent posts on his Web site contain factual errors.

The three kids responsible for hanging the nooses were given more punishment than just a “few days of in-school suspension.” They went to an alternative school for nine days and received two weeks of in-school suspension, LaSalle Parish school superintendent Roy Breithaupt said.

But more than the factual errors, Bean’s story is framed — by his own admission — as an indictment of the criminal justice system and the people in power in Jena and, therefore, the story is unfairly biased. Bean never examined the other forces at work that contributed to the Jena Six assault and Walters’ heavy-handed approach to justice as it relates to the alleged perpetrators.

“I didn’t know,” Bean said when asked whether he knew of defendant Mychal Bell’s violent juvenile history when he was crafting his narratives. “I never talked to Mychal’s family, and I never talked to Mychal. He was in jail. I knew he had a history for getting into trouble. I knew he was a kid at a crossroads.”

Bean also didn’t know that in fall 2006, Bell, who 16 at the time, was living with his then-18-year-old best friend John McPherson and McPherson’s then-16-year-old wife, Ashley, in a three-bedroom trailer. The McPhersons are white. Bell is the godfather to their 18-month-old daughter.

Bean has a very idealistic view of the Jena defendants.

“These are fun-loving, impetuous, athletically gifted black males that don’t drink and don’t smoke, and they go to church as well,” he told me.

The church-going contention flies in the face of what Rev. Jimmy Ray Young, pastor at L&A Baptist Church, said Wednesday.

“None of these boys have been in church except when Al Sharpton was in town,” Young complained. “I’ve told the ministers we need to get these boys back in church.”

Walters claims that Bean and the media have distorted other key elements in the case.

Bean reported that Walters directed his “stroke of the pen” remark at black students when the school called an assembly to quell protests of the noose hangings. Some pro-Jena Six chain e-mails create the impression that Walters met privately with black students and threatened them. Not true, Walters and police say.

Paul Smith, Jena’s chief of police, says he and sheriff’s investigator Jimmy Arbogast called Walters to the school after a student took a swing at Smith when he was breaking up a fight between students.

“Tensions were high. Everybody was upset,” Arbogast said. “We wanted Reed to explain to them that, ‘Hey, look, you have to think for a minute. Look what age you are. Y’all are in high school.’ ”

Flanked by Arbogast and Smith, Walters addressed the entire student body. He said he began by telling the students about an aggravated rape case (possible death penalty) that he was considering.

Walters recalls saying: “ ‘I can be your best friend or your worst enemy. With the stroke of a pen I can make life miserable on you or ruin your life. So I want you to call me before you do something stupid.’ That last part doesn’t get reported. It doesn’t make good press.”

Bean also wrote that three days before the Jena Six assault a white man, Matt Windham, pulled a shotgun on Bailey and two others. He wrote that they wrestled the gun away from the man and ran off, and that Walters charged them with a crime rather than the white man.

The police contend that Windham — not the boys — called the police, claimed the boys threatened him, chased him back to his vehicle and wrestled his gun away. The police also say that two uninvolved female witnesses backed Windham, and that’s why the boys were charged.

Bean also mischaracterized the simple battery that Bailey suffered at the Fair Barn party four days before the attack on Barker, according to Walters, police, several witnesses and Bailey’s statements to police.

“Robert Bailey Jr. was attacked by a savage white mob at a local dance,” Bean wrote. “True, he wasn’t knocked unconscious — but that is just a matter of aim and good fortune. He was punched, he was kicked, and he was smacked over the head with a beer bottle (and he’s got the scars to prove it).”

Walters, who prosecuted Bailey’s lone attacker (Justin Sloan), said there was no mob attack. It was simply a dispute at the door of a mixed-race, invitation-only party that Bailey was denied access to.

“It wasn’t a fight,” Walters said. “Robert Bailey didn’t swing. He didn’t do anything. The kid hit him, knocked him down. No beer bottle, no anything. There was no statement of the victim at that time indicating any weapon was used. … The defendant (Sloan) was arrested on a simple battery. He was prosecuted on a simple battery. He pled guilty to a simple battery.

“It was only after the fact that I learned that a beer bottle was involved, that stitches were involved,” Walters continued. “And I checked after the fact with my local hospital: Did this happen? The information (about a beer bottle) came up in a motion to recuse me from the current charges. That’s the first time I’d heard about that.”

Ironically, Bean is now growing frustrated with the way the case has turned, particularly since Jackson and Sharpton got involved. He said they wouldn’t return his calls. He indicated there was a riff between the Bailey (Bean camp) and Bell (Sharpton camp) families.

People in Jena say the feud is over money. The families are handling the donations to the Jena Six defense fund. Robert Bailey recently posted and took down MySpace photos of himself and another Jena Six defendant with wads of $100 bills stuffed in their mouths and splashed across their bodies.

“I can tell you there is no misappropriation of the funds,” said Bean, adding he was not being paid for his services. “I’ve been there and seen them handling the checks. Where Robert got his hands on that money, I don’t know. He’s a kid. It was a stupid thing to do.”

As for Bean’s thoughts on Jackson and Sharpton?

“I’m not at all comfortable with the way this has been handled by the Jackson and Sharpton folks,” Bean said. “What’s wrong is that Jesse and Al have tried to turn this into an old civil-rights story in which Mychal Bell emerges like Rosa Parks, and that’s not right. These guys (Jackson and Sharpton) have lost their gravitas, lost their credibility. People are really tired of the same old 1960s shtick.”

Based on the crowds in Jena on Sept. 20, I’m not so sure.

Hillary's Marxist Roots are Showing

2007-10-02T15:52:00.000-04:00

The supposed heir-apparent to the Bush/Clinton dynastic throne- aka Hillary Clinton- is letting her Marxist roots show in her latest proposal- to give every child born in America a $5,000 account, to be issued along with their birth certificate. This is just another glimpse into her thinking towards her ultimate goal- the redistribution of wealth in America.

This is wrong on so many levels, I'm not even sure where to begin attacking it. I'll start by the illegal alien implications. Since Mr(s) Clinton seems to favor allowing the unfettered flow of aliens across our "border" with Mexico, I assume that all of the anchor babies will be included in her program. As if the billions in Federal and State aid the invaders are receiving, now we're going to up the ante even further, and provide even more incentive for the invasion to continue.

The cost per year is prohibitive. Live birth numbers in America hover around 4,000,000 annually, and that trend will likely continue, if not increase. If every child born receives $5,000, that $20,000,000,000 per year. In just 5 years, that'll total $100 billion. Where is that money going to come from? Spending cuts? Please. Couple this program with her mandatory health care plan, and we're going to be at a trillion dollars before we know it, just for those 2 boondoggles. Rolling back the Bush tax cuts isn't going to provide enough revenue, and true to progressive form (and Neocon form, for that matter), the only answer will be to raise taxes.

Then there's one tiny detail that seems to mean nothing to the Bush/Clinton regime- there's no constitutional basis for it whatsoever. Not only is it horrible fiscal and social policy, in light of the Tenth Amendment, it's indefensible from a constitutional perspective. But that matters very little to progressives and neocons alike- they only care about our greatest document when it suits them and their agenda.

Hillary if trying to rekindle the theology of FDR and LBJ- government is god, and is our only means of salvation. In the case of their religion (the state is god), Marx was right- religion is the opiate of the masses. Judging from the latest Presidential Preference polls, half the voting public is under the influence.

Marxism is alive and well, and married to Bill Clinton.

US Neocons Prepare Britian for Attack on Iran

2007-10-01T13:24:00.000-04:00

I am no fan of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, nor of Iran, nor of radical Islam. It would bother me one bit if I woke up one morning, and they were all gone off the face of the planet. But that isn't my decision to make- nor is it the decision of the neocons in Washington, nor their lackeys in Great Britian. John Bolton, Bush's attack dog on Iran, told Tory delegates in Britain that there's no alternative to a military strike against Iran.

Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia University was just what the doctor ordered for the Neocons. They've been able to portray him as a complete megalomaniacal dictator, bent on the destruction of the West and a radical islamic conquest of the world.

Bush is beating the war drums louder and louder against Iran, and an attack will almost certainly be launched before he leaves office. The next President will have to deal not only with the quagmire in Iraq, but the mess Bush and his Neocon cadre will leave in Iran- and who knows where else. But then, that's exactly what I think Bush wants. The American people will want to get out of the messes he puts us in, and in order to do so, will fall in line with his daddy's New World Order, austensibly under Bush's hoped-for successor- Hillary Clinton.

We better put an end to the Bush/Clinton dynasty before it puts an end to us.

______________________________________________________

From: The Jerusalem Post

Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told Tory delegates in Britain Sunday that efforts by the UK and the EU to negotiate with Iran had failed and that he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country.

Bolton said that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was "pushing out" and "is not receiving adequate push-back" from the West.
"I don't think the use of military force is an attractive option, but I would tell you I don't know what the alternative is.

"Because life is about choices, I think we have to consider the use of military force. I think we have to look at a limited strike against their nuclear facilities."

He added that any strike should be followed by an attempt to remove the "source of the problem", Ahmadinejad.

"If we were to strike Iran it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change ... The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back," he said.

Bolton said that the fact that only partial intelligence about Iran's nuclear activity existed should not be used as an excuse not to act.

"Intelligence can be wrong in more than one direction... Responding after they (nuclear devices) are used is unacceptable."
Bolton also said the UN was "fundamentally irrelevant".

The former envoy criticized Britain's "softly softly" approach to Iran's imprisonment of 15 British sailors in April.

They were released after Ahmadinejad announced he was making a "gift" to the British people. "They [Iran] got no response from the UK or the US. If you were the Iranian leader, what conclusion do you draw?"

Not Our Fathers' America

2007-10-01T09:25:00.000-04:00

Pastor Baldwin is spot on with this commentary. A must-read for anyone who loves America and is sickened at Her present condition.

________________________________________________________

Not Our Fathers' America
by Chuck Baldwin
June 8, 2007

Every country goes through changes. However, stable countries are able to maintain their basic culture, identity, language, and heritage throughout the various gradations of societal evolution. Hence, through major wars, minor conflicts, turmoil, depression, and dissension, America, for the most part, has been able to maintain the fundamental underpinnings that made our country unique. But, Ladies and Gentlemen, those underpinnings are very quickly disappearing.

In a very real sense, this is not our fathers' America. And by that, I am not referring to our modern conveniences, our advanced technologies, or our avant-garde styles of dress and forms of entertainment. I am talking about the principles and values that cut to the very core of who and what we are as a nation. We are fast losing the substance of what it means to be American.

For the most part, our fathers' America was a nation that had a firm faith in God and was not ashamed to publicly acknowledge Him. This faith in God was not something worn on the sleeve to parade around every two years during a political campaign; it was something genuine, something that guided practical day-by-day decisions and choices.

Can one imagine people in past generations saying that, while they had a "deep and personal" faith, this faith had no place or bearing in the practical decisions they would make. What lunacy! Yet, this is exactly what we hear so many of today's politicians and businessmen routinely say.

In fact, one common saying for this generation of Christian businessmen is, "He doesn't let his Christianity get in the way of his business." And for what appears to be a majority of today's commercial leaders, this is not just a maxim; it is a fact.

Secondly, our fathers' America enjoyed a strong commitment to the principles of freedom and independence. Through major wars, threats, and terrorist attacks, they never surrendered the principle that our Creator had granted us liberty.

Oh, there were times when our commitment to liberty was seriously challenged. However, the resolve of our forebears regarding the principle of freedom was stronger than any foe, whether it was found across the ocean or across the street. But, this is not our fathers' America.

Today, many, if not most, Americans seem eager to surrender practically any freedom upon the promise of protection and security. We no longer cherish the idea of liberty. Liberty seems to be no more valuable than a poker chip to be gambled away if the pot is sweetened with the promise that the government will take care of us.

For example, political leaders in both parties are allowed to chip away at our Second Amendment freedoms to the point that it is only a matter of time (and maybe a very short time) before the right to keep and bear arms will be forfeited, as has already been done in places such as England, Canada, and Australia (and in many states in the U.S.). This attack on the right to keep and bear arms will certainly intensify if any of the current presidential frontrunners is elected next year.

If Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney is elected President next year, Americans will have the fight of their life on hand to preserve the little freedom to keep and bear arms that currently exists. (Romney's recent attempt to present himself as pro-gun is mere pretense. Remember that, as Governor of Massachusetts, he supported the Brady gun-control ban. And as recently as 2002, Romney publicly reiterated his support for strict gun control.)

Why? Because the elites who control our media, Congress, the White House, and commercial boardrooms are in the process of constructing their New World Order, and a disarmed citizenry is absolutely essential to this end. Make no mistake about it: they want our guns, and they want them badly!

Already, big-game hunting is fast becoming a sport that is not only politically incorrect, it is a sport that only the rich can afford. Through hundreds of laws that restrict land usage and the type of game that can be legally taken, the average, middle-class worker can hardly find a place to hunt, and when he does find it, he can barely afford the price. Plus, the rules regulating his hunt are so restrictive that he becomes a lawbreaker practically every time he walks into the woods.

In addition, many wildlife officers resemble Gestapo troops more than they do peace officers. Nowhere are there more similarities between the old fascist and socialist regimes than can be found in many of our federal and state fish and wildlife officers. (And before you write me a nasty note of rebuttal, I am very much aware of the very fine and honorable wildlife officers out there. I know several such men personally. However, I stand by my assessment that federal and state wildlife officers are more and more being trained in Gestapo-like tactics.)

Can you remember the words of Franklin Roosevelt immediately following the attack on Pearl Harbor? As you listen to his words, remember that FDR was the poster child for the Twentieth Century Big Government liberal. In spite of this, Roosevelt said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."

However, this is not our fathers', even our liberal fathers', America.

Today, even so-called conservative politicians constantly instill nothing but fear in the hearts and psyche of the American people. Ditto for the media, and even the Weather Channel! The American people are constantly beaten down with the spirit of fear. Fear of terrorism. Fear of hurricanes. Fear of wildfires. Fear of tornadoes. Fear of disease. Fear of guns.

With no ill will intended toward any of the victims of the recent Virginia Tech shootings, why did not any of the students and teachers charge the shooter? As few as a half-dozen men could have stopped that rampage. Yes, two or three of them might have been killed in the process, but there is no chance that the shooter would have stopped them all. (Of course, the university itself bears the brunt of blame for this carnage for not allowing its faculty and qualified adult students to carry handguns for personal protection on campus.)

However, our entire culture is inundated with fear. The only thing we think about is survival. Running away. Staying safe. The concept of standing up and risking personal safety in order to resist the threat of bodily harm never seems to enter our minds. If there is no one around to protect or take care of us, we seem to be absolutely helpless. (I'm not referring to our military forces, obviously. On the whole, their courage under fire is nothing short of magnificent!) Our fathers' motto "We have nothing to fear but fear itself", has been changed to "We have nothing but fear itself."

Therefore, we enthusiastically embrace the chains of servitude via the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration, complete with hundreds of restrictions and attacks upon our privacy and liberty because we are scared to death and, in a panicked state, are willing to accept the phony promises of protection from the hand of an overbearing and ever-increasingly oppressive Nanny State.

Finally, consider the fact that our current leaders cannot even seem to understand the importance of being a nation of one language and culture.

In our fathers' America, immigrants were expected to enter the country legally. They were expected to learn the English language. They were expected to assimilate into America's public life and culture. They were expected to learn and appreciate our history and heritage. They were expected to be productive in their newfound country. They came to America, not expecting a handout, but only wanting an opportunity. And, for the most part, they were willing to live by our laws for the benefit of having that opportunity.

However, this is not our fathers' America. Today, multiculturalism demands that we tolerate lawbreakers (a.k.a. "undocumented workers"). More than that, it demands that we facilitate and bankroll them. And when we resist the attempts of our leaders to force lawlessness upon us, we are accused of being unpatriotic and un-American.

Of course, there is an agenda at work here, folks. Today's leaders do not share the principles and ideals of our fathers. They envision a new America. An America without national borders. An America that exists for the benefit of the elites and super-rich. An America that holds no loyalty to constitutional government or the Bill of Rights. An America that has no distinctively Christian culture. An America that is merged into a North American Community. An America that has forgotten Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson. An America that never heard of the Declaration of Independence. An America that uses its military to enforce the demands of international business interests. An America where the State controls everything we do, say, and even think. And, believe me, this new America is already here and quickly squeezing out the America our fathers fought to preserve.

The question is, what will people who believe in our fathers' America do? Our pilgrim fathers fled the New World Order in Europe and founded this great nation. Our patriot fathers fought a war of revolution against the New World Order on our soil and won our nation's freedom and independence. So, what will we do?

It seems quite certain that the time will soon come when we will be forced to make the same kind of decisions our fathers were forced to make. But, what exactly will those decisions be?

One thing is sure: this is no longer our fathers' America, and people who long for such a place are facing another crossroads in history.

© Chuck Baldwin

Man charged with crime of burning cross into his own yard

2007-10-01T08:40:00.000-04:00

I wonder if either the State or the Feds have the guts to tack on charges for falsely reporting a hate crime, since this action was intended to enflame anger against Whites in his community.

--------------------------------------------------------
From KTSP.com:

ANOKA, Minn. (AP) - De'Andre June told police he woke up Wednesday morning to find the charred outline of a cross burned in the lawn of his home. June now is accused of burning the cross in the lawn himself.

The 47-year-old Anoka man was charged Friday with falsely reporting a crime. He also is charged with disorderly conduct and obstructing the legal process stemming from an altercation when police arrested him Thursday afternoon on a felony warrant from Hennepin County in connection with a financial fraud case.

According to the criminal complaint, inmates at the Anoka County jail told authorities that June was planning such a ruse.

"Inmates from the Anoka County Jail saw the news story on TV and recognized Mr. June," said Capt. Phil Johanson of the Anoka Police Department. "(They) said that when he was in jail with them last week, he had made comments that he was going to do something like this to get sympathy from the community and the church for financial gains and otherwise."

(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Chuck Baldwin: The "Fix" is in

2007-09-28T15:47:00.000-04:00

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

Driving a Stake Through the Heart of Freedom of Speech

2007-09-28T14:05:00.000-04:00

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

Get ready for a Jena repeat

2007-09-27T09:06:00.000-04:00

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

Michael Anthony Peroutka, 2004 Constitution Party Presidential Candidate, Endorses Rep. Ron Paul

2007-09-26T17:45:00.000-04:00

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

Contact Your Congressman

2007-09-26T17:21:00.000-04:00

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.

Anger at Giuliani 9/11 Fundraiser

2007-09-26T14:41:00.000-04:00

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.

More Indictments for Vick

2007-09-25T20:43:00.000-04:00

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.

The Jena Dodge

2007-09-25T13:04:00.000-04:00

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.

Sean Hannity

2007-09-25T12:48:00.000-04:00

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?

The Cost of Illegal Immigration in Florida

2007-09-25T11:59:00.000-04:00

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.

Ron Paul- the Right Man at the Right Time for America

2007-09-25T11:07:00.000-04:00

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

2007-09-25T11:04:00.000-04:00

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."

I Changed Parties

2007-09-25T11:00:00.000-04:00

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.

It's Midnight in America- Do You Know Where Your Country Is?

2007-09-25T09:25:00.000-04:00

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.