The Future of Africa

The Future of Africa

While pastors like John Piper and the rest of the liberals all claim that Africa is 46% Christian and a fine example that we should follow, the rest of us are looking at the dark continent and seeing that 2 + 2 does not equal 5.

South African Schools
South African School Looking Not Unlike a Prison

Consistency is rare sight in any news article on Africa. Consider the opening paragraphs on this NY Times article.

KHAYELITSHA, South Africa — Seniors here at Kwamfundo high school sang freedom songs and protested outside the staff room last year because their accounting teacher chronically failed to show up for class. With looming national examinations that would determine whether they were bound for a university or joblessness, they demanded a replacement.

Finally the students’ frustration turned riotous. They threw bricks, punched two teachers and stabbed one in the head with scissors, witnesses said. The traumatized school’s passing rate on the national exams known as the matric — already in virtual free fall — tumbled to just 44 percent.

Thousands of schools across South Africa are bursting with students who dream of being the accountants, engineers and doctors this country desperately needs, but the education system is often failing the very children depending on it most to escape poverty.

A student who dreams of doing great things with his career does not fall into the same category as a student who stabs anybody in the head with scissors. They are not compatible. If he did obtain his “dream career” and went off to be an engineer, would he one day stab his coworker for similar reasons? Consistency aside, this article places the blame upon the shoulder of the teacher, and ignores the savagely violent and debased culture of the student body also known as “the bright future” of Africa.

The future of Africa relies entirely on non-blacks. As long as blacks control anything, it will fail. History has shown this to be true. Cultural Marxism hates this truth and works endlessly toward it’s goal of rewriting history. But black contempt for non-blacks runs deep. If they worked half as hard toward building their country, as they did at working toward assaulting South African whites, they might actually get somewhere.

Can The Negro Rule Himself?

“Today in Haiti we come to the real crux of the question. At the end of a hundred years of trial, how does the black man govern himself? What progress has he made? Absolutely none.

When he undertakes the task of government, he does so, not with the intent of promoting the public weal, but for the sake of filing his own pocket. His motto is still, “Pluck the fowl, but take care she does not cry out”. Corruption has spread through every portion and every department of the government. Almost all the ills of the country may be traced to their source in tyranny, the ineptitude, and the improbity of those at the helm of state. (…) Can the negro rule himself? Is he congenitally capable? (…) Today, and as matters stands, he certainly cannot rule himself”.
~ Hesketh Prichard, Where Black Rules White – 1900

Ethnic politics pushes and passes Puerto Rican Statehood

US Congress pushes and passes Puerto Rican Statehood today?

Locust:  This will allow a democrat super majority, when will the rest of you wake up, the core problem is not the illegals, its the western core, the ethos of universal equality, not all men are created equal, and we must defend our peoples right to exist.

by Molly Posted 6 hours ago

by James M. Simpson

Apparently there is to be a vote later today on a bill regarding Puerto Rican statehood. They are calling it “non-binding” but it is not non-binding! It is a trap. The bill makes eventual Puerto Rican statehood a virtual certainty. This is despite the fact that statehood has been voted down repeatedly. The Puerto Rican people don’t want it!

Sidebox-Puerto-Rico-C

But since when has that stopped the Left from ramming what they want down people’s throats? And why do they want this? The same reason they want everything, to further entrench their power. Statehood would mean two new senators, six or seven new representatives, a whole slew of new voters and tons of opportunities to spend more of your money. As Examiner.com’s Robert Moon points out:

Due to its dense population of poverty-stricken minorities, Puerto Rico can be counted on to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats and all their handouts, and their representation will also consequently outnumber that of 25 other existing U.S. states.

Meanwhile, with Puerto Ricans having an average income of less than half that of our poorest state, they will instantly become eligible for dozens of our welfare programs. Truckloads of taxpayer dollars will also have to be perpetually dumped into the territory, by federal law, to bring it up to American infrastructure and environmental standards.

Oh, and never mind us. We don’t get a say in this either. Puerto Rico, which doesn’t want statehood, is being forced to vote, while we American citizens, who have a vested interest in the outcome, will not be given the opportunity to vote! Simply incredible!

HR 2499, titled “A Bill, to provide for a federally sanctioned self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico” follows a very devious, underhanded multi-step path to essentially force Puerto Rican voters to eventually adopt statehood. Here’s how.

The bill first authorizes Puerto Rico to hold a vote where they are given the following two choices only:

1. Puerto Rico should maintain its current political status.
2. Puerto Rico should have a different political status (Different political status. These vague words are exactly as in the bill.)

So citizens get to choose 1 or 2. Period, no ifs, ands or buts. Then the bill stipulates what comes next:

If the people pick option 1 – which they have chosen multiple times already – then the Puerto Rican government is directed to conduct more plebiscites every eight years for the foreseeable future. So in other words, Mr. Puerto Rican citizen, we are going to keep cramming this down your throat until a majority of you choose option 2.

Once the people choose option 2, then there will be a second vote with the following three options:

1. Full independence.
2. Sovereignty “in association with the United States…” not subject to the Constitution’s Territorial Clause.
3. Statehood.

For the record, the first two options will not get much support. So the entire structure of the bill is designed to funnel Puerto Rican voters into a predetermined outcome: Statehood. This despite the fact that Puerto Ricans have voted against statehood over and over again!

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a senior Democrat Congressman no less, just posted his views on this bill at Huffington Post. Here is what he has to say about it:

I am a senior Democratic Member of Congress, whose parents were born in Puerto Rico, and for whom Puerto Rico self-determination has been – and remains – a central issue of my congressional career. This statehood bill is the opposite of self-determination.

It is designed to craft an artificial majority for statehood where none exists now. Every time the people of Puerto Rico have been consulted on this issue through a plebiscite they’ve said NO to Statehood. NO to Statehood in 1967. NO to Statehood in 1993. NO to Statehood in 1998. This should be called the “Don’t you dare say NO to Statehood Bill”.

But he is just getting going. Listen to this:

When a similar Puerto Rico bill came up under Speaker Newt Gingrich’s Republican controlled Congress a decade ago, it was the product of lengthy and thorough hearings and an open and fair process. Then, I was given time to offer seven amendments. Then I was able to clarify the bill for the Puerto Rican people. Then, each of my seven amendments got 30 minutes of floor time for debate.

Flash forward to now. Now a Democratic Majority Congress is only allowing me two of the 16 amendments I offered in the Rules Committee on Wednesday. Now I only have 10 minutes to debate each one.

Now, under Democratic Leadership, we get one hearing, no forewarning, no companion Senate bill, and a debate only a few seconds longer than a NASCAR pit-stop…I get more time to debate renaming a Post Office than I will get to debate a bill that could make Puerto Rico the fifty-first state.

In my opinion, this bill is the political equivalent of a shady Goldman Sachs derivative: It’s secretive. It lacks transparency. It’s likely to blow up down the road and cause systemic risk to out democracy. And those who put this political derivative together don’t really tell you what this is really about and will play dumb when it explodes.

We all know now from the outrageous experience of Obamacare that leftists could care less what the will of the people is. For those of you who traditionally vote Democrat this should serve as a warning: that includes you! Even if it’s those poor, downtrodden Puerto Ricans the Left claims to want to help so much. Ram Obamacare down Americas’ throat; ram statehood down Puerto Rico’s throat.

Do I detect a pattern here?

This information needs to go viral. Congress needs to be shut down with phone calls and faxes starting first thing in the morning. That is today, April 29, 2010.

All this is going on while everyone is distracted by the monstrous financial bailout bill coming out of the Senate. The timing was deliberate! And we now hear that despite losing support from lone RINO Republican Lindsey Graham, the Democrats are going to go ahead with illegal immigrant amnesty.

So now we see a pretty comprehensive electoral strategy mapped out:

1. Naturalize 12 million illegal aliens to vote Democrat
2. Universal voter registration
3. Do away with Electoral College using state-by-state approach
4. Force Puerto Rican statehood
5. Soros-funded Secretary of State project to help steal close elections
6. Stimulus monies as political slush fund

If you’re not sufficiently angry and alarmed now, there is no hope for you. These people are demonstrating right to our faces their willingness to trample our rights and defy our will. If they are willing to do this now, what will they do if they get the permanent majorities they want?

Locust:
We must be ready, war is upon us, make yourselves ready for the time is at hand, only a revolution, a bloody revolution to kill our enemies and retake our nation can save the republic, born in the blood of our patriots!!!
Lets make Mexico the 52nd state. We might as well provide them with free health care and untold entitlement programs. Hell most of them are living here anyway. Sarcasm.

Puerto Rico – 51st State? Congress Scrambling to Make it So

by Kristinn Taylor and Andrea Shea King

Last night (Tuesday) on his TV show, Glenn Beck dropped another bombshell — on Thursday, Congress will take up a bill to make Puerto Rico a state. Why is our Congress doing this now? Secretly? Quickly? If it hadn’t been for one of Beck’s “Refounders” (a Congressional insider), would we even know about this? Why is this important to you and me?

Well, the word is out, and my local 9-12/Tea party organization sent this out this morning. First thing to hit my mailbox, in fact…

There is a bill to make Puerto Rico a state. Again, they are trying to pull one over on us and on Puerto Ricans, who have consistently said they do not want to become a state. Read below for more information (from Eagle Forum). This was also discussed by Rep Tom Price on a conference call yesterday.

Please consider this:

* The U.S. would transform, overnight, into a bilingual nation. At least half of Puerto Ricans do not speak English, the language of our U.S. Constitution and founding documents. The Washington Times article, “Puerto Rican statehood,” analyzes all the implications of adding a foreign language-speaking state to the Union.

* It would bring immediate demands for massive federal spending. The average income of Puerto Ricans is less than half that of our poorest state, and infrastructure and the environment are far below American standards. Puerto Rico has a population with a median national income of $17,741, nearly a third of that for the U.S.

* Puerto Rico is already a democracy. Despite the bill’s deceptive title, Puerto Rico already has an elected government and exists as a self-governed commonwealth of the U.S.

* Statehood would give Puerto Rico more congressional representation than 25 of our 50 states! It would inevitably give Democrats two additional U.S. Senators and 6 to 8 additional Members of the House.

H.R. 2499 is stealth legislation designed to lead to the admission of Spanish-speaking Puerto Rico as the 51st state, thereby making us a de facto bilingual nation, like Canada. The U.S. Congress should not be forcing Puerto Ricans to vote on statehood, especially since the Puerto Rican people have rejected statehood three times since 1991!

No Member of Congress who describes himself as a limited government, fiscal conservative should be casting a YEA vote for H.R. 2499, as Puerto Rican statehood would cause an immediate increase in federal expenditures, particularly for taxpayer-funded welfare state services.

Sponsored by Puerto Rican delegate Pedro Pierluisi (D), the Puerto Rico Democracy Act (H.R. 2499) – which has reared its ugly head a number of times over the past few congresses but has yet to have any success – would require Puerto Ricans to hold a national referendum to decide if they want Puerto Rico to remain a self-governing U.S. commonwealth, or become the 51st state.

The referendum would be set up as two plebiscites which would effectively deceive Puerto Ricans into voting for statehood. In the first round of votes, the Puerto Rican people would be given the choice between remaining a U.S. territory and “pursuing a different political status.” If the majority votes to maintain the status quo, this bill would require that Puerto Rico vote on this same issue every eight years.

If the majority votes for “different status,” a second round of votes would be held where Puerto Ricans would choose either statehood or independence-the status quo of “U.S. territory” would not even be an option! In other words, the two ballots would be rigged to favor the outcome of statehood, overriding the wishes of Americans and Puerto Ricans who want to maintain the current commonwealth status.

* Contact your US congressmen AND
* Take quick action here: http://www.capwiz.com/eagleforum/issues/alert/?alertid=14966151&type=CO

Rep. Luis Gutierrez

Posted: April 28, 2010 11:50 PM

Why the Rush on the Puerto Rico Statehood Bill? Something Doesn’t Add Up

H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico statehood bill was brought to the House this week after a surprise announcement last Thursday. Debate on this bill has been severely limited by the way Democratic Leaders are managing the process. Democratic Puerto Rican Members of Congress are being shut out of the process and will be severely limited in their ability to debate the bill and offer amendments. Under the current Democratic Leadership, there will be less opportunity for Members and for the people of Puerto Rico to gain a better understanding of the bill.

So, what is up with this Puerto Rico statehood bill?

In my opinion, this bill is the political equivalent of a shady Goldman Sachs derivative: It’s secretive. It lacks transparency. It’s likely to blow up down the road and cause systemic risk to our democracy. And those who put this political derivative together don’t really tell you what this is really about and will play dumb when it explodes.

I get more time to debate renaming a Post Office than I will get to debate a bill that could make Puerto Rico the fifty-first state.

Two Puerto Rican U.S. Senators? Six or seven new Puerto Rican House Members? Really? I can understand why some people would like that idea…but shouldn’t we discuss it first?

When a similar Puerto Rico bill came up under Speaker Newt Gingrich’s Republican controlled Congress a decade ago, it was the product of lengthy and thorough hearings and an open and fair process. Now, under Democratic Leadership, we get one hearing, no forewarning, no companion Senate bill, and a debate only a few seconds longer than a NASCAR pit-stop.

Then, I was given time to offer seven amendments. Then I was able to clarify the bill for the Puerto Rican people. Then, each of my seven amendments got 30 minutes of floor time for debate. Flash forward to now. Now a Democratic Majority Congress is only allowing me two of the 16 amendments I offered in the Rules Committee on Wednesday. Now I only have 10 minutes to debate each one.

Then was then this is now.

This means Speaker Gingrich, not a Speaker I voted for, not MY Speaker, allowed me 210 minutes of debate on my amendments alone, and under Democratic Leadership I get two amendments at ten-minutes each.

What’s the rush? Something is wrong with this picture. It just does not add up.

I am a senior Democratic Member of Congress, whose parents were born in Puerto Rico, and for whom Puerto Rico self-determination has been – and remains – a central issue of my congressional career. This statehood bill is the opposite of self-determination.

It is designed to craft an artificial majority for statehood where none exists now. Every time the people of Puerto Rico have been consulted on this issue through a plebiscite they’ve said NO to Statehood. NO to Statehood in 1967. NO to Statehood in 1993. NO to Statehood in 1998. This should be called the “Don’t you dare say NO to Statehood Bill”.

Why is it that the when the people of the District of Columbia repeatedly and overwhelmingly ask for Statehood, Congress ignores them, and when the people of Puerto Rico, who have never asked for statehood and who have actually said ‘no’ to statehood three times get this statehood bill pushed on them in a rush…with little or no debate?

For the first time I can remember, I am planning to vote against the rule crafted by my party to govern the floor debate of this bill (H.R. 2499). It is a vote I did not expect to have to cast and is a deep disappointment. But I’m left with no choice.

Follow Rep. Luis Gutierrez on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RepGutierrez

Puerto Rico’s “Nuclear Option” Statehood Strategy

Written By: Guest Contributor
Published: 4/23/2010 Print This Article

Puerto Rico’s “Nuclear Option” Statehood Strategy

By Robert DePosada

Next week Congress will vote on a bill to invite Puerto Rico to become our 51st State.  The Democratic leadership in Congress is using their usual playbook of deceptive rhetoric and stealth tactics to push their agenda, but the misleadingly-named Puerto Rico Democracy Act (H.R. 2499) is a new low.

Under the banner of a non-binding self-determination bill, Congress will likely put their stamp of approval on a flawed election process in Puerto Rico that will guarantee the addition of Puerto Rico as our 51st state. In addition to costing U.S. taxpayers more than  $30 billion a year, we will be adopting a state where only 20 percent of its residents speak English, the per capita income is half of Mississippi’s (our poorest state) and the gun control laws are more stringent than any state in the U.S.

Here is how it will work: Congress passes a non-binding self-determination bill which calls for a federally sanctioned self-determination process for Puerto Rico. Statehood leaders in Puerto Rico, who control all branches of government, will design – by not offering the continuation of Puerto Rico’s current status as a commonwealth – an election that guarantees a significant statehood victory. Then, after statehood wins a landslide majority, they will elect a congressional delegation to send to Washington, D.C. and demand they be seated.  With its current population of about four million, Puerto Rico could add six or seven liberal members to the House of Representatives and two to the U.S. Senate.

Because Puerto Ricans have repeatedly rejected statehood and voted to remain a U.S. Commonwealth in all three elections in which they have voted on the issue, the New Progressive Party (PNP) are exerting their one-party control of Puerto Rico’s government to implement their own version of the “nuclear option.”  In fact, the PNP’s 2008 platform says that Puerto Rico will follow the same strategy Tennessee used to gain admission to the Union in 1796: to dispatch its newly elected congressmen to Washington to demand their seats in Congress.

But the Puerto Ricans will have one weapon the Tennesseans lacked. As PNP leader and former Governor Carlos Romero Barceló, told local newspapers, “They [congressional leaders] will have to support [statehood] in order to avoid being accused of bigotry against Hispanics.”In other words the Puerto Ricans won’t hesitate to denounce anyone who resists their demand as “racists.” Anyone who thinks such a public relations strategy is far-fetched should recall the battle over seating Roland Burris, Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s pick to be U.S. Senator from Illinois.

One has to wonder why Puerto Rican statehood leaders would use such strong-arm tactics to force their way into the Union. The main reason is that Puerto Rico’s economy is in shambles and it needs a bailout from the U.S. Treasury that it could not hope to get as a commonwealth.

Next week’s vote should be a wake-up call to all Americans and their Congressional representatives who remain committed to government transparency and our nation’s economic security. Rather than conduct an honest and open debate about the potential costs and benefits of Puerto Rican statehood, Congressional leaders are preparing to use the suspension calendar – which would limit debate and amendments for quick passage – to produce a larger Democratic majority. If Congressional leaders are committed to further stripping away our economic security and cultural identity, they should know that they will need to do it by force and not by stealth.

Tea Party PatriotsNew Patriot Media

<!–[if IE 7]> <![endif]–> GOP brings KBH back into leadership


Obama slams Arizona bill as fight lifts immigration to top of agenda


Threats Against Legislators Captured on Video!


Side Effects: The Catch 22 of Obamacare Risk Pools


Senator Dodd’s Regulation Plan: 14 Fatal Flaws


Puerto Rico’s “Nuclear Option” Statehood Strategy


Lessons from a Big Brother


Morris Makes Zack Space a Target


A Tale of Two Obamas


Tea Party Crash Fizzles Out


More Stories…

Puerto Rican Statehood Ahead?

Puerto Rican Statehood Ahead?

Wednesday, April 28, 2010
By Glenn Beck

I want to talk to you about the fundamental transformation of America. It could happen tomorrow.

But first, you have to understand progressives. What is it that progressives believe?

Big government, power and control: It’s not about Democrats or Republicans, people. It’s power and control. You can’t choose for yourself. You’re too dumb, so progressives will choose and regulate everything for you

Democratic elections: This is important to progressives. You’ll hear it “democratically elected” to refer to leaders like Hitler, Chavez and Castro — all democratically elected

Social justice: Collective redemption through the government: Call it socialism, Marxism, whatever — it’s all about the redistribution of wealth

Now, I want to talk to you about Puerto Rico. Understand: This is not about Hispanics. It’s not about freedom. It’s about power and control.

Puerto Rico is a self-governing commonwealth, but is subject to U.S. jurisdiction and sovereignty. It’s been a U.S. territory since after the Spanish-American War of 1898. They’re not an independent country. It’s similar to Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa. Some people like it, others don’t; they get to enjoy many of the benefits of America — like protection — and they don’t have to pay any taxes. That’s a pretty sweet deal.

// So it’s no wonder “the people” have consistently voted against becoming America’s 51st state; three times since 1967 — the latest in 1998. It’s always been the same question: Do you want to be a state?

Now, let’s take you to Washington, where there’s important vote happening: HR 2499 — it’s called “The Puerto Rico Democracy Act.” Gosh darn it, who could be against that? The bill is a non-binding resolution, supposedly to support Puerto Rico’s “self-determination” on if they want to be a state or not.

That’s so cute. Wait, I thought they already had a right to vote? They do. So I’m left with the question: Why do they need a non-binding resolution to support their self-determination? Is there something going on that I’m not aware of that is so important that we need to take attention away from the economy or immigration?

We’ve asked some of the Republicans in Congress who are supporting this bill and here are some of the answers:

“This is a vote about freedom.”

“This vote does not grant Puerto Rico statehood, it simply gives Puerto Ricans the right to determine if statehood is something they want for themselves.”

See, I thought they already had that. Three times they voted on that. It’s almost like something else is going on. But remember, they keep telling me it’s “non-binding.”

If I just trusted progressives. With progressives, democratic elections always comes with a trick. For instance, Hitler was democratically elected. But as the chancellor, not the fuhrer. Whether it be through parliamentary tricks or corruption, it’s important to progressives to have the appearance of “the republic.” Remember: They went through the democratic process for health care.

So what’s the trick?

HR 2499 — if it passes — would force a yes or no vote in Puerto Rico on whether Puerto Rico should maintain the “current status” of the island. Wait, that’s not a vote on statehood. That’s a vote on do you want to “maintain the status quo.”

Let me ask you this: Do you want to maintain the status quo of America? ACORN’s Bertha Lewis would agree with me and say no, I don’t want our current direction. But we would disagree on the reasons why.

See the trick?

In the past, statehood fails because some people like the status quo, some want to be a state and some want to be independent. There are too many choices, too many options. They need to unite people. Do you want to maintain the status quo unites them, not on the answer but on the question.

See, the folks that like the status quo are more likely to vote for statehood than independence.

In 1998, there were five options on the ballot: Limited self-government; free association; statehood; sovereignty and none of the above. Which one won? None of the above.

But now, the vote is going to happen in two stages. The first stage: Do you want to maintain the status quo? Then a chair is removed. The second vote leaves you with three choices: statehood; full independence or modified commonwealth.

Remember, full independence and modified commonwealth historically get less than 3 percent of the vote. So those options will be the only thing standing in the way of Puerto Rico becoming a state.

But Glenn, it’s non-binding. Big deal!

True, but here’s where if you don’t know history, you are destined to repeat it. Let me introduce something to you called the Tennessee Plan. (This is probably going to sound like a conspiracy theory, but I have one thing the conspiracy theories never have.)

OK — so the Tennessee Plan, you’ve probably never heard of it unless you are from Tennessee or Alaska. Apparently, some of those who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution haven’t heard of it either. When Tennessee first came to the Union, it had a different name; it was first called “Territory of the United States South of the River Ohio.” It was a U.S. territory, just like Puerto Rico is now.

But instead of waiting for Congress to decide if they wanted to make the territory a state, they took a different, bold route: They forced the issue themselves:

They elected delegates for Congress

They voted on statehood

They drafted a state constitution

And applied for statehood

Then, when Congress dragged their feet, they went to the Capitol and demanded to be seated

Congress was unsure of how to proceed; this was the first territory going for statehood. They relented and Tennessee became America’s 16th state. Alaska did many of the same things.

Again, the Tennessee plan in a nutshell:

Unsuccessfully petitioning Congress for admission

Drafting a state constitution without prior congressional intervention

Holding state elections for state officers, U.S. senators and representatives

In some cases, sending the entire congressional delegation to Washington to demand statehood and claim their seats

Finally, Congress has little choice but to admit a new state through the passage of a simple act of admission

Congressmen, voting for HR 2499 are like sheep being led to slaughter. They’ll say the people of Puerto Rico have a right to vote for themselves. They’ll vote yes. The progressives will then present a false choice to the people. Instead of saying “do you want to be a state?”it’s “Do you want the status quo?” If voters vote no, the next vote removes the status quo from the ballot, leaving statehood against two far less popular options. They’ll vote yes for statehood. Then they’ll elect their congressman and senators, they’ll demand to be seated and a 51st star will be attached to the flag.

How could this happen? Look at the immigration debate. What are Arizona and Texas being called? Racists. Anyone opposing Puerto Rico as state 51 would be called a hatemonger. Why do you hate Puerto Ricans so much? Why do you hate freedom?

This is not about Hispanics or freedom or sovereignty. It’s about power and control. If progressives convince Hispanics that everyone besides progressives are racist, you’ll have their vote for 60 years. But it’s more than that.

Why are Democrats and Republicans for this? Because it’s not about Republicans and Democrats. The progressives in our country know that this is the moment they’ve been waiting for; every Marxist daydream they’ve ever had, now is their time to get it done. They are not going to let it pass.

That’s what’s happening: The fundamental transformation of America. And this is only the beginning.

I told that this sounds like a conspiracy theory. But who is orchestrating this effort in Puerto Rico? Lo and behold, the New Progressive Party; from their own party platform:

“The New Progressive Party adopts the Tennessee Plan as an additional strategy for the decolonization and the claim for the admission of Puerto Rico as the 51st State of the United States of America.”

And: “This shall be done through legislation which will establish a process for the adoption and ratification of the Constitution of the State of Puerto Rico, and the election of two senators and six federal congresspersons to appear before Congress in Washington D.C. to claim their seats and the admission of Puerto Rico as the 51st State of the United States of America.”

They’re going to paint this as a vote for freedom, but Puerto Rico has already voted and they’ve already spoken. When they send the delegates to Washington, if you stand against this you’ll be labeled a racist.

— Watch “Glenn Beck” weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on Fox News Channel

News Channel

#642. The Uproar over “Thor” and more from Stuff Black People Don’t Like

#642. The Uproar over “Thor”


It was said by a man long since gone that, “Myths are public dreams, dreams are private myths.”

During Black History Month we discussed how cinema presents opportunities for Black people to take on roles that reality seems to continually deny them, granting them the chance to play characters who have vocations that are exceedingly rare in the real world.

Perhaps then, you have caught a glimpse of Hollywood’s public dream, creating myths in film by casting Black people in roles that non-celluloid enhanced life shockingly can’t provide.

It is important to note that Joseph Campbell was speaking about myths that unite a cohesive people to the past, safeguard their collective present and grant images of hope and courage to forge on to create a future where those myths may endure.

In Black Run America (BRA), the great myth that binds the nation together is maintained through sports, plus the continued inclusion of Black History Heroes in cinema and television to help satiate the appetite of those in need of entertainment.

Since 2000, the predominate form of entertainment at movie theaters and thus, wherever DVDs are sold, has been through the genre of comic book movies. Raking in billions upon billions in worldwide box office revenue, films such as The Dark Knight, X-Men, Superman, Spider-Man and a host of others have a profound impact upon pop culture.

The problem is of course the nearly complete absence of any Black people in comics or in comic book movies. Hundreds of millions of people see these films, read the comics and buy the merchandise but rarely is it in celebration of any Black comic book hero, but the continued perpetuation of the notion that” only white people can save the world” ideas.

Comic books are the 21st century answer to the myths of old that worked to make mere mortals strive to have the characteristics of the Gods, ennobling us to summon the courage of greater beings in pursuit of truth and the overcoming of personal obstacles:

Comic books have always been popular with the American people, but in recent decades their popularity has increased dramatically. The Christopher Reeve’s Superman movies may have that just shows America’s fascination with that character. Film seems to be America’s choice of form for pop culture, and comic book adaptations seem to be limitless lately.

In the more popular titles there is also more going on that is subtle that draws us to them. The characters are iconic in who they represent too. Superman represents the immigrant. He fully embraces America and will do anything to help his country, but at the same time he has to remember where he came from and that he is not truly an American (or even a human). The Hulk is a representation that anger can take over even the most rational of people and make them into a monster. Batman is an avenger, and uses fear against those who use fear to intimidate regular people. Captain America is an example of the truly patriotic and righteous as he fights the Nazis and Red Skull. The X-Men represent the outsiders, the people who suffer prejudice in the real world. It is these subtleties that also draw us in to these characters and stories.

Over time, these characters have dealt with a changing morality, and they have changed with it. That is one reason that we are drawn to them and why they are still compelling. The Greek and Roman myths changed too. The mythologies reflected morality and human nature, but there were many different versions of the stories just like in comics. Comic books will continue to reflect the nature of our society, and that is why they will continue to be popular. There is a lot more going on in comics than just kid’s stories, and that is why they will be around for a long time to come.

The problem with the comic book movie is one that plagues that Black people, for so few Black faces are seen in these films that can give Black people myths and heroes to cheer for (Barack Obama comics notwithstanding) and engineer any type of character that can import positive ideas to the Black community. The universality of heroism is a noble idea, but to Black people only characters that are distinctively Black can provide idols for young Black people to cheer for, buy their merchandise and strive to replicate (see the power of the Obama Effect).

Thus, in the new Iron Man movie the Ultimate Avengers story, the character of Nick Fury – long an aging white guy – has been replaced with inimitable Samuel L. Jackson. A traditional white character has become a Black character, merely for the sake of integrating the white world of comic books.

In the poorly-received Daredevil film, the master of criminality Kingpin – once again a white character in every incarnation of the comic before – was replaced with a Black actor, Michael Clarke Duncan.

Black people need heroes (and villains) to identify with and the inclusion of Black characters – replacing boring white people – helps to open the door of mythology to more people, bring about inclusion.

Regrettably, Black people forget the incredible 1990s film Meteor Man that stars a nearly all-Black cast and a Black superhero trying to make Washington DC safe for Black people.

The upcoming Thor 2011 film (all part of the plan to eventually make an Avengers film) is one movie that hardly has the ability to cast Black people or any person of color, considering the subject material is the Nordic God of Thunder and his companions of Asgard:

In Norse mythology, Asgard (Old Norse: Ásgarðr; meaning “Enclosure of the Æsir[1]) is one of the Nine Worlds and is the country or capital city of the Norse Gods surrounded by an incomplete wall attributed to a Hrimthurs riding the stallion Svadilfari, according to Gylfaginning. Valhalla is located within Asgard. Odin and his wife, Frigg are the rulers of Asgard.

Ostensibly, a film about Nordic Gods is one that will be devoid of Black people, right? You see, Black people have a problem with white actors playing Black roles. This reasonable response to white people being cast as historical Black characters devalues the films authenticity:

Ya’ll know that every time a historical Black person is deemed to be of merit, his or her onscreen depiction will be done by white people as white people.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not one of those people so pathologically Black that I have the urge to smash every pane glass window that depicts Jesus as a white man, but anybody with even a cursory knowledge of the bible realizes that he couldn’t have looked like Jim Caviezel.

Anybody that knows Egypt is in Africa wondered what in the world was going on when they first saw the Ten Commandments starring Charleton Heston as Moses.

I mean, this wasn’t an Egypt that had its bloodline significantly lightened by being conquered by Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon and Mussolini seemingly in succession. This was early BC Egypt; the one that still looked like Harlem in the 1980s.

And a lot of times, you don’t even have to be a dead Black person to get a white actor to play you.

Mariane Pearl, wife of slain journalist Daniel Pearl, is an African-Dutch-Jewish-Chinese-Cuban.

Who played her onscreen? Angelina Jolie who is none of the above.

And then (and I know this is a sidebar argument but please allow it) whenever a Black life is deigned significant enough to not only appear onscreen but also with a Black actor playing the part, there always seems to be a white story which serves as an undercurrent.

Take Invictus or Cry Freedom or the Last King of Scotland, movies about, ostensibly at least, Nelson Mandela, Steven Biko and Idi Amin.

Those movies also gave equal time to telling the stories of a white soccer player, a white journalist and a young white physician.

All this makes me wanna make my own movie: The Beatles—starring Charlie Murphy, Tracy Morgan, Kevin Hart and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje.

Black people should have the right to play Black characters in films. Of course this makes sense. However, Black people should also have the right to play white characters as well, no matter how silly the inclusion of such a character in a historical inaccurate might be. In the 2011 Thor film, the casting of Black actor to play a Nordic God makes perfect sense, as we live under the rules of Black Run America (BRA):

Even for an actor who has played a vampire-hunter with a guilty conscience, a Baltimore crime lord with a taste for Adam Smith, and an asset manager with a stalker, the role of the Norse deity Heimdall – guardian of the burning rainbow bridge between the world of men and the world of gods – was always going to be a bit of a challenge.

But playing a god in Kenneth Branagh’s forthcoming film Thor has turned out to be the least of Idris Elba’s worries, after fans of the comic books turned on the star of The Wire for reasons that have nothing to do with his acting ability and everything to do with the colour of his skin.

When news emerged late last year that the 37-year-old black Londoner had been chosen to play Heimdall, “the whitest of the gods”, a being who can hear the sap flowing in trees and look across time and space, many devotees of the Marvel comics on which the film is based flocked to online forums to weep, gnash their teeth and unleash a tide of indignation…

Elba, who was born in Hackney, north-east London, to a Ghanaian mother and Sierra Leonean father, has addressed such concerns in a string of recent interviews.

“There has been a big debate about it: can a black man play a Nordic character?” he told TV Times. “Hang about, Thor’s mythical, right? Thor has a hammer that flies to him when he clicks his fingers. That’s OK, but the colour of my skin is wrong?

“I was cast in Thor and I’m cast as a Nordic god,” he said. “If you know anything about the Nords, they don’t look like me but there you go. I think that’s a sign of the times for the future. I think we will see multi-level casting. I think we will see that, and I think that’s good.”

Cinema, which is far less reliant on existing, classic material, has lagged behind theatre when it comes to colour-blind casting.

Rumours of a black James Bond remain just that, although his CIA friend Felix Leiter has been played by two African-American actors, Bernie Casey in 1983′s Never Say Never Again, and Jeffrey Wright in the Daniel Craig films Casino Royale (2006) and Quantum of Solace (2008).

In 1999, another originally white US lawman, Captain James West, was played by Will Smith in Wild Wild West, which also starred Kenneth Branagh.

Understand, white actors cannot play Black roles but Black actors can play any role they want. Even a character of mythology that belongs to the pantheon of Nordic heroes is fair-game to be portrayed by a Black person, though evidence for Black people arriving in Europe starts in the 16th century.

Nordic myths are quite old and bespeak of a time when a homogeneous people roamed the land, with Gods that reflected their fair skin to worship. However, Black people see nothing historical wrong with the inclusion of a Black person into the world of Asgard, for it makes absolutely perfect sense.

Even Captain America was rumored to be open to a diverse potential actor base, with Will Smith leading the way at one point. Never mind that during World War II the United States Armed Forces were segregated, thus negating the opportunity for a Captain America to be Black as this is of trivial importance:

While everyone seems to be chasing down flimsy leads about who’s playing Captain America, I’m left wondering: What the heck is Marvel thinking here?

It’s been a month since “Captain America” director Joe Johnston promised casting news within “a couple of weeks,” and besides a disappointing (and ever-growing) list of actors I’d never dream of installing as the title character, we’re no closer to anything firm.

None of this answers the question: How is there not one non-white actor on this list? To have 10 actors reportedly in the running, with not a single one of them African American, Latino or otherwise, isn’t exactly representative of the American population these days. Why pass on a great opportunity for Marvel to think outside the box. After all, isn’t America a melting pot?

If a Nordic God can be Black, by gosh a World War II soldier can be Black and thus, earn the title of Captain America. Black people (who were 9 percent of the population during World World II in America, the rest of 90 percent of the people being white) can see themselves playing any role, regardless of the time, place, country or historical figure.

George Washington? Black in the next biopic on his life. Neal Armstrong? Don’t you know all of NASA is Black, as was the first man on the moon? The Romans, Greeks and Egyptians? Black, Blacker and Blackest.

White people cannon be cast as Black characters. Ever. Period. End of discussion.

Especially white women, for the opportunities of Black female actors are precious few to begin with and only growing rarer.

But Black people see no great travesty in playing historically inaccurate characters, especially “the whitest God of them all” as Stuff Black People Don’t Like includes the uproar over Thor.

Black people need myths to guide them by and though African mythology is orally rich , the visual shock of seeing a Black in Valhalla and as a Nordic God offers a chance to continue the displacement of the old mythology that once bound a people together, but now works to bring about their complete dissolution.

By rewriting history and mythology new and more palatable myths emerge.

The Obama Effect in Action – The World Kneels Before Barack Obama


The Obama Effect. What is it? What type of power does it have over the masses in not just America, but the entire world?

Mein Obama was seen as the Tiger Woods of politics, an individual capable of bringing closure to the open sore of race hostilities in the United States, capable of transcending negative stereotypes about Black people while ushering in an era of unprecedented peace and tranquility wrapped in “post-racial world” rhetoric.

All Zod Obama has asked of his loyal subjects is that they kneel before him in obsequious obedience and then the Obama Effect can work to magically cure all that ails and troubles not just in this weary nation, but the entire world:

As approval ratings for Barack Obama continue to decline at home, world opinion of the United States is rising steadily under his stewardship. A new international survey by the British Broadcasting Company reveals that views of the U.S. around the world have “improved sharply” during the first year of the Obama presidency, with positive opinion outweighing negative for the first time since 2005…

World opinion of the United States has warmed thanks to Obama, while opinion of Obama domestically has cooled considerably (save for Black people who still offer monolithic support their president).

In fact, move over Leonardo DiCaprio from Titanic, but it appears that Mein Obama is the true “King of the World”:

President Barack Obama is still the world’s most respected leader, according to a new six-country poll.

Released today by France 24 and Radio France Internationale, the Harris Interactive Poll asked 6,135 adults between the ages of 16 and 64 who live in the United States, Britain, France, Italy, Germany or Spain to name their favorite world leaders.

Seventy-seven percent of those surveyed chose Obama, which is one percentage point higher than when Harris Interactive asked the same question in November.

Like Xerxes before him and Ozymandias of Watchmen fame, Obama is the true God-King of the earth, awarded Nobel Prizes and other accolades for his ability to perform the genuinely difficult tasks that his Vice President stated were uniquely genetically disposed to him (unlike other Black people) during the Democratic Primary season of 2007-2008.

Perhaps the Obama Effect can be best described as uplifting Black hearts (and Disingenuous White Liberals) while simultaneously providing white people with a glimpse of what 2042 (when they are projected to be a minority in the United States) will be like. Thus, the domestic revulsion to Mein Obama that is taking place among white people (who continue to provide the impetus behind the freefall of Obama’s approval rating) is a corollary to the Obama Effect, which enables Black people to reach new heights of optimism tied exclusively to Mein Obama ascension:

But the black high school student is surprisingly optimistic about the future and her chances for a better life — an attitude common among her African-American peers, according to a new nationwide survey of high school students.

“I know kids who’ve been through less and maybe they can’t handle it,” said Fleming, who will head to Florida A&M University in the fall in hopes of eventually becoming a veterinarian. “But my mom always tells me, ‘Work hard, stay positive and you’ll make it.’”

A poll released Thursday by Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., found that 70 percent of black students ages 15 to 18 thought their standard of living would be better than their parents, compared with just 36 percent of white students.

Overall, 39 percent of respondents thought they would have a higher living standard.

Those numbers and the level of optimism among black students appeared to be closely tied to their enthusiasm for President Barack Obama, making for what some called the “Obama effect.”

Asked about the president’s performance, more than two-thirds of black students rated his performance as “good” or “very good,” compared with 23 percent of white students. Overall, about a quarter of the students who were surveyed rated the president highly.

DeQuan Foster, a 15-year-old high school sophomore in Newark, N.J., agreed that having someone who looks like him leading the country has strongly influenced his belief in the future and what he can personally achieve.

“You’re always told anything is possible — but when you see it, you believe it. It makes me want to try twice as hard,” said Foster, who’s active in the theater and his local Boys & Girls Club and hopes to start his own entertainment company after college.

It’s an attitude that mirrored the findings of a recent Harvard Institute of Politics survey of 18- to 29-year-olds, and that could have ramifications on November’s midterm elections, said John Della Volpe, the institute’s polling director.

“Young African Americans have this serious afterglow that is not as strong with whites and Hispanics,” Della Volpe said. “And that’s despite (African American youth) having more serious economic concerns.”

The Hamilton College survey involved 818 high school sophomores, juniors and seniors from across the country who were surveyed last month. The poll, funded by the school’s Levitt Center for Public Affairs, has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3.5 percentage points.

Stephen Wu, the Hamilton economist who oversaw the poll, said he was surprised by the stark difference in optimism among races and that black students’ attitudes appeared to be so tied to their view of the president.

But many students — even in Chicago, the Obama family’s home outside Washington — said they witness the divide all the time.

“It always comes back to Obama,” said Deja Bailey, a 15-year-old African American student who attends the city’s prestigious Walter Payton High School. Even her own friends can’t agree. She said one of them carries a scrapbook about the president and frequently argues with others who say he’s doing a “horrible” job.

The latter attitude also frustrates Foster, the black teen in New Jersey, who wishes his peers had more patience — and more hope.

“Everyone isn’t going to support every decision the man makes. That’s life,” he said. “It’s the same with parents. You may not agree with everything they do, but they have your best interest at heart.”

Black people closely guard the sanctity of Mein Obama’s halo that they rightfully hope to safeguard for four more years of hope, change and continued optimism in 2012. Providing 96 percent of their votes across the nation to Mein Obama in the 2008 President Elections, Black people are the only racial group that stands united behind their president with an approval rating hovering around 90-95 percent.

The Obama Effect causes Black hearts to beat faster with pride, consequently causing those hearts who can see to beat faster as well, but for opposite reasons. The people sense the fate of South Africa and Zimbabwe is what awaits a white minority in 2042 and the precursor to this moment – Mein Obama – offers a telling glimpse into how Democracy will play out for the beleaguered and hated majority now once they are granted permanent minority status.

Voting by those dispossessed is already frowned upon. Imagine what 2042 will bring? Thus, the glee and optimism of pay back for centuries of torment and degradations suffered at the hands at the majority is what motivates the Obama Effect. Good old fashioned revenge.

The humiliations and deprivations that the white majority enacted upon Black people in the past are constantly discussed in middle and high school and exacerbated on college campuses, feeding into the polarization of the purported post-racial world.

While no white people alive today have owned slaves, Black people are constantly bombarded with images and anecdotes from history of the evil nature of their classmate’s ancestors who subjugated Black people and denied them civil and human rights.

This works to enrage Black pupils and demoralize white pupils, feeding into the animosity of the former to the later thanks to the careful work of Crusading White Pedagogues.

If you were told your ancestors were the scum of the earth, would that constitute positive reinforcement or it would serve to severe any emotional attachment to them and thus cloud rosy projections for the future?

Mein Obama is seen as the savior of the world, a real-life General Zod who will usher in a utopia of equality, justice, humanity and the true nature of Democracy.

White kids are resigned to understand their collective fate, while Black pupils correctly project optimistic views of a future that belongs to them.

Most people still refuse to acknowledge the extent of Black Run America (BRA), when indeed we are increasingly becoming a Black Run Earth (BRE). And as the polls showcase, Obama is the Black Knight in shining armor that will reign supreme.

The Obama Effect is thus defined as creating cohesion and positivity among the Black community, who rally to the only flag that truly matters in life – race – while white people slowly resign themselves to protesting abstractions such as health care and other Tea Party ideas of government, losing all faith in the future and hiding behind men of Lloyd Marcus’ persuasion in the process.

We are reminded of the words from Ozymandias in Watchmen, as after he has revealed the plans to bring about world peace and unity through a clandestine calamity he orchestrated, he calmly states:

Do it? Dan, I’m not a Republic Serial villain. Do you seriously think I’d explain my master-stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting its outcome? I did it thirty-five minutes ago.

The United States is fully-vested in Black Run America. No amount of tea party events or those who can see can stop this contingency from coming to fruition. It is upon us, looming ominously in all its terrifying grandeur and optimism.

You can kneel before Obama – as the world seems have started to do – or face the fate of Richard Barrett.

It is your choice.

So-called “civil rights” leaders promise lawlessness in response to immigration bills

So-called “civil rights” leaders promise lawlessness in response to immigration bills

The so-called peaceful and tolerant “civil rights” activists are once again up to their tricks from the 1960’s by threatening riots, violence and promising not to abide by the law:

PHOENIX – Civil-rights activists called on President Obama yesterday to fight a tough new Arizona law targeting illegal immigrants and promised to march in the streets and invite arrest by refusing to comply if the measure takes effect.

U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., told about 3,500 protesters gathered at the state Capitol that the Obama administration can help defeat the law by refusing to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police and turned over to federal immigration officers.

“We’re going to overturn this unjust and racist law, and then we’re going to overturn the power structure that created this unjust, racist law,” said Grijalva.

I wonder what would happen if a white conservative activist proudly declared that he or she wasn’t going to abide by the law and that they were going to work to overturn the government. I’m just asking.

Minorities have learned over the course of the past half-century that things will eventually work out to their liking if they simply act out whenever they’re upset. This is childish behavior and such tactics should never be rewarded by a mature society.

Fire spreading through the grassroots?

The strides being made on America First immigration reform has given me more hope, legislatively speaking, than I’ve had in a long, long time!

For her efforts, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is skyrocketing in public opinion polls:

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state shows that 56% now approve of the way Brewer is performing her role as governor. Two weeks ago, just 40% offered their approval.

The new figure includes 22% who Strongly Approve of the governor’s performance. That’s up from five percent (5%) before Brewer signed the law that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant.

The bounce in the polls is also evident in new numbers on the November election. If Brewer is the Republican nominee, she would get 48% of the vote while her likely Democratic opponent, State Attorney General Terry Goddard, would attract 40%. Two weeks ago, it was Brewer 44% and Goddard 40%. Goddard is an outspoken opponent of the new law.

As with all poll bounces, it remains to be seen whether this is a temporary spike in support for the governor or if it signifies a lasting change in the race.

While most Arizona voters favor a welcoming immigration policy, 64% support the new immigration law.

We reported that Utah and Texas are following Arizona’s lead by proposing similar bills in their state houses.

We can now add Missouri to the rapidly growing lists of states that is, thankfully, taking matters into their own hands in order to protect their citizenry from the lawless alien invasion:

KANSAS CITY, Mo. – A big change to Missouri’s immigration laws is waiting in the wings in Jefferson City. It could bring Arizona’s tough new immigration law to Missouri.

Several metro groups were in Jefferson City Wednesday to testify in a House committee meeting. They went to talk about a bill that would crack down on illegal immigrants in a way that opponents believe could put U.S. citizens in jail.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Mark Parkinson of St. Charles, is now floating a substitute that would change Missouri’s immigration laws to more closely match the new, controversial law in Arizona. Parkinson said his staff contacted lawmakers in Arizona, so the wording is mirrored in his proposal.

Is a fire spreading through the grassroots that could make a major positive impact on this country? I certainly hope so.

Texas and Utah now set to follow Arizona’s lead on immigration!

You can’t have a first world nation with a third world population. We’ve said it on our radio show countless times. I’ve said it on CNN. Now, elected officials are, apparently, finally beginning to see the light with regard to the illegal immigration issue and move forward with an America First agenda!

Utah and Texas legislators plan to introduce bills similar to that of Arizona’s new immigration law. The Arizona law, in turn, is modeled on federal immigration law:

8 U.S.C. § 1304 : US Code – Section 1304(e)
“Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times
carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate
of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to
him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails
to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined
not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or
both.”

An alien is anyone who is not a citizen. Correctly used, the term includes legal immigrants. Aliens are required to carry identification papers, whereas citizens are not.

Here is the good news from Texas:

AUSTIN, Texas—A Texas lawmaker says she plans to push for a law similar to Arizona’s get-tough immigration measure.

San Antonio Express-News and Houston Chronicle report Wednesday that Republican Rep. Debbie Riddle of Tomball says she will introduce the measure in the January legislative session.

The new Arizona law would require local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status — and make it a crime for immigrants to lack registration documents.

Riddle says if the federal government did its job “Arizona wouldn’t have to take this action, and neither would Texas.”

And here is the good news from Utah:

Arizona’s SB1070, signed into law Friday by Gov. Jan Brewer, calls for, in part, all local law enforcement officers to ask for immigration status documents “whenever there is reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present.”

Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, told the Deseret News Monday he’s started work on drafting a bill for the 2011 Utah legislative session that uses the Arizona statute as a model — a move he said is necessary to stanch the flow of illegal immigrants into the Beehive State.

“It is imperative that we pass similar legislation here in Utah,” Sandstrom said. “In the past, when we’ve seen tougher legislation in Arizona … a lot of illegal immigrants just move here.”

The Democrats are “worried” that these measures will “hurt the GOP” at the ballot box, which should serve as further evidence that the state Republican Parties in Arizona, Texas, and Utah are, for once, doing something right!

How many more states will follow?

It’s just a start, ladies and gentlemen, but it’s a damn fine one!

Special thanks to Dr. Virginia Abernethy for providing me with the links used in this article.

Be sure to tune in this Saturday as we discuss these bills at length on the radio!

Illegals Are For The Birds

Illegals Are For The Birds

I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. What a beauty of a bird feeder it was, as I filled it lovingly with seed. Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.

But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue.

Then came the shit. It was everywhere: on the patio tiles, the chairs, the table .. everywhere!

Then some of the birds turned mean. They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket.

And others birds were boisterous and loud. They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.

After a while, I couldn’t even sit on my own back porch anymore. So I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio.

Soon, the back yard was like it used to be …. quiet, serene…. and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.

Now let’s see. Our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care and free education, and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen.

Then the illegals came by the tens of thousands. Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families; you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor; your child’s second grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn’t speak English.

Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to ‘press one ‘ to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than our flag are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.

Just my opinion, but maybe it’s time for the government to take down the bird feeder.

If you agree, pass it on; if not, continue cleaning up the shit.

http://www.northwestfront.org

Yes, It Is About Race. Quite Right Too.

Yes, It Is About Race. Quite Right Too.

By Peter Brimelow

I really must congratulate me on this prediction, made back in early March when Obama was still riding high, based on my observation of the intense grass-roots fervor that contrasted so sharply with the complacent Establishment leadership at the just-completed Conservative Political Action Committee conference:

“The followership, the vast and remarkably youthful crowd, essentially all white, both sexes dressed in very proper office clothes, was intensely enthusiastic if confused—applauding both Ron Paul’s assault on indiscriminate military interventionism and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum’s very disappointing belligerent boilerplate about the Islamic threat with equal enthusiasm, so far as I could see.

“But my guess is that the details don’t matter here. In Kevin MacDonald’s terms, a powerful ‘implicit community’ is blossoming in opposition to Obama’s racial-socialist coup. The backlash to Obama is likely to be faster and more furious than the Beltway Establishment, Right or Left, anticipates.”

(Emphasis added, gloatingly!)

The power of that backlash, at Town Halls and Tea Parties, has been the sensation of the summer. The Obama Administration is obviously shaken. The President hastened to disavow Jimmy Carter’s smear of Rep. Joe Wilson, dumped ACORN, and has even conceded that opposition to Obamacare is not, in itself, “racist”. Nevertheless, large parts of his agenda now seem imperiled.

But it is clear that the Establishment Right is also uncomfortable with the backlash, and particularly with some of its more exuberant enthusiasms, notably the apparently irrepressible demand that Obama produce his birth certificate—although this is clearly a case of symbolic politics filling a void created by the Establishment Right’s failure to lead.

It’s actually really interesting how many grassroots revolts have shaken the Establishment in recent years. The most dramatic examples, of course, was the back-to-back routing of the two Kennedy-Bush amnesty attempts. But I would argue that a precursor was the grassroots backlash to the War Against Christmas, which in the last couple of years has resulted in the simultaneous blossoming of what can only be called War Against Christmas denial, ludicrous in the teeth of scores of examples documented on VDARE.COM, so co-ordinated that it’s almost as if powerful group was shaken, like the Obama Administration, and circulated a secret memo.

Was the summer surge “racist”? I’m sure that New York Times house-broken conservative columnist David Brooks was absolutely right to say he detected no signs of “racism”, in the sense of visceral personal animosity, as he jogged through the 9/12 rally in Washington. (No, It’s Not About Race, New York Times, September 17, 2009.) This got Brooks denounced by Ed Kilgore, a New Republic blogger, as a “Yankee” (!!!apparently because Southerners regularly mingle with blacks, but everyone knows they’re racist). You have to wonder what the 9/12 crowds would have had to do to satisfy these people.

But it’s still “about race”. It is no coincidence, comrades, that the backlash is overwhelming white. Whites in America voted heavily against Obama. White Protestants (“let’s face it, they are America”—Phillip Roth, American Pastoral, p. 311) still make up nearly half (42%) the electorate and they voted 2-1 for McCain. But are even 4% of Obama’s appointments white Protestants?

The plain fact is that the Obama Administration has very shallow roots in historic America. It is, to put it brutally, a minority occupation government. Government and governed have little real contact or mutual understanding. It’s a recipe for continuous clashes.

Inevitably, a significant number of these clashes are racial. A year ago, in my introduction to Steve Sailer’s book America’s Half-Blood Prince, I wrote:

I think the contradictions that Steve has identified in this book will turn any Obama Presidency into a four-year O.J. Simpson trial and that the consequent melt-down will compare to the Chernobyl of the Carter Presidency in its destructive partisan effects.”

And these polarizing O.J. Simpson incidents are coming thick and fast—from the inexplicable dropping of voter intimidation charges against the Philadelphia New Black Panthers, to Obama’s reflexive siding with black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates against white Cambridge cop James Crowley, to black educator Charisse Carney-Nunes’ instructing school children to rap in praise of Obama to the multicultural photograph posed by the White House to celebrate Obama’s recent rally with doctors in support of his health care legislation. (Typical mordant discussion by Larry Auster here).

Under the clinically scientific headline Birth of a Notion, Scientific American’s Steve Mirsky recently argued that the inexplicable (to him) appeal of the birthers lay in what he called implicit social cognition, which involves the deep-rooted assumptions we all carry around and even act on without realizing it”.

As an example,

“Harvard University psychologist Mahzarin Banaji is a leader in implicit social cognition research. She excavates the hidden beliefs people hold by measuring how fast they make value judgments when shown a rapid-fire succession of stimuli, such as photographs of faces….[She] found that volunteers linked white Americans more strongly than Asian-Americans with, well, America. Banaji and Devos then decided to do what even they thought was a ‘bizarre’ study: they had people gauge the ‘American-ness’ of famous Asian-Americans, such as Connie Chung and tennis player Michael Chang, versus European whites, such as Hugh Grant.

“The study found that white Europeans are more ‘American’ than are nonwhite Americans in most minds….Little surprise, then, that in a study done during the 2008 election campaign, Devos found that John Mc­Cain (who, ironically, was born in Panama, albeit at a U.S. naval base) was seen as more ‘American’ than Obama.”

This may be annoying to Banaji and Mirsky. But, to adapt Phillip Roth, “Let’s face it, they [whites] are America.”

The moral of this story: Diversity is not strength. It is weakness. By importing diversity through the disastrous immigration reform of 1965 and the simultaneous abandonment of enforcement at the southern border, Washington has forced whites—who for most of U.S. history would have been simply called “Americans”—to recognize, if only for now at a subliminal level, that they have common interests and must act to defend them.

This development is unimpeachably legitimate. It is not, of course, a recipe for civil peace.

But I didn’t make current immigration policy. My advice to those who did: you (OK, your illegal alien maid) made your bed—now lie in it.

Peter Brimelow (email him) is editor of VDARE.COM and author of the much-denounced Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster, (Random House – 1995) and The Worm in the Apple (HarperCollins – 2003)

Political Biology- Genetic Interests and White Protest

Political Biology

Genetic Interests and White Protest

This is the third in a series of articles on the question, raised most publicly by Patrick Buchanan, whether the Tea Party movement nurtures white consciousness and unity and will become the political basis for whites as a people.

Patrick Buchanan has argued that whites’ dispossession and displacement by non-whites is forging a new sense of white identity that hadn’t existed before. Tea Parties are the most visible, though certainly not the only, manifestation of this deep, political, cultural, and historical phenomenon. Pat compared this process to the birth of Palestinian nationalism in the wake of Israeli occupation, and there are plenty of other examples throughout history he could have mentioned as well, including the Tibetans and Polish.

Generally, ethnic groups that are similar fight wars with each other, but when confronted by different races and peoples, they forge common identities.
Koreans and Japanese and Indians and Pakistanis hate each other in their homelands, but they all join the Asian Student Association in America. Mexicans have a complex racial caste structure in Mexico, and wouldn’t even think of aligning themselves with Guatemalans or Hondurans; all come together in America, however, to fight for Latino power and “la raza.” In fact, a lot of the Mexican immigrants in this country come from Indian peasant groups who do not identify as Mexicans or even speak Spanish. They’re “Hispanic” once they sneak across the border.
While Europeans squabbled amongst themselves for millennia, they often united against a non-white foe — be it the Moors, Ottomans, or Mongols.
This can also be seen with bi- and multi-racial identities. In America — with whites still greatly outnumbering blacks — mulattos, including our president, tend to identify themselves as black. In Africa or Haiti, however, where pure Africans are the norm, they have their own identity.
There are biological reasons for this. In his book On Genetic Interests, F.A. Salter of the Max Planck Institute offered an explanation of group solidarity taking off from the “Selfish Gene” concept, which holds that a great deal of behavior is explained as our DNA trying to reproduce itself. According to this view, there is a “genetic interest” in preserving our kin beyond our children. As the famous line from JBS Haldane goes, “I would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins.”
Salter take this a step further to extended families — ethnic groups or, as he calls them, “ethnies.” There is certainly more genetic differences within ethnies than between cousins, but in large numbers and vis-à-vis genetically alien groups, ethnies can be said to have unitary interests.
Salter explains,

Although being more dilute stores of genetic interest than families, ethnies can number in the millions and so are often orders of magnitude more precious. If immigrants replaced one quarter of the English nation of approximately 50 million people, the remainder would suffer a very large loss even if their own relatives were not affected. If 12.5 million Danes and similar peoples moved to England, the genetic loss to the remaining English would be the equivalent of 209,000 children. The corresponding loss due to the same number of immigrants from India would be 2.6 million children, and due to Bantus over 13 million children.

With this in mind, let’s look at American identity.  In his famous book Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America, David Hackett Fischer examines how we were founded by essentially four different British sub-groups: Puritans from East Anglia who went to Massachusetts, Cavaliers and Indentured Servants who came to Virginia from the South of England, North Midland Quakers who settled Delaware and Pennsylvania, and North British and Scots Irish who settled the Appalachia. What stands out in Fischer’s account is just how much these groups hated each other. But they all eventually began to see themselves as British Americans and eventually just as Americans as the United States became its own unique country.
As time went on, Germans and then the Irish came to America with much opposition and suspicion, but they, too, eventually assimilated as Americans. Then it was the turn of Southern and Eastern Europeans. Israel Zangwill’s iconic play, The Melting Pot, refers to America as “God’s Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and re-forming!” [emphasis added]
The relative genetic distance between these different European ethnies was marginal (e.g. English and Irish and English and German are so similar that for the purposes of genetic interests, German-Americans had no real reason to oppose Irish immigration). When the new European immigrant groups came over, the conflicts that arose between natives and newcomers were largely cultural. And next to no second- or third-generation Pole or Italian failed assimilate.
Race deniers and creationists will use this latter fact to show that the definition of white is flexible — as put forth in books like How the Irish Became Whiteand open borders advocates will say that America has consistently been hostile to new ethnic groups who nonetheless assimilated.  Even some more politically correct immigration restrictionists like Mark Kirkorian see Asian and Latin American immigration as “the continuation of the expansion of ‘Us.’”
Whatever truth there is to an “expanded” American identity, until the second half of the 20th century, no one questioned who was white or that America was a white country.
The 1790 Naturalization Act limited citizenship to whites. At that time there were small numbers of Poles, Italians, Jews and other Eastern and Southern Europeans in the country.  Many were quite prominent. The Italian Taliaferros were one of the First Families of Virginia, and the Polish Jew Haym Salomon was considered “the Banker of the American Revolution.” There was no discussion about denying these men citizenship, as they were considered white.
Of course, there was also the issue of black slaves and Native Americans. While greater in genetic distance from whites than Asians and most Hispanics, blacks were seen as American in some sense. And they were given citizenship by the 14th Amendment, and by the 20th century, even segregationists saw them as fellow Americans, though not equal. Native Americans were not given citizenship until 1924 — the year of the last great immigration cut off — but had long been romanticized.  American whites generally did not see them as their equals or part of them but as groups that they had wronged.
Where does this fit in to the prospects for white identity in multiracial America? Based solely on Ethnic Genetic Interests, one would conclude that the more non-white America becomes, the stronger white racial identity would become.
But that clearly isn’t happening. At least, not at the moment.
One reason, put forth by Steve Sailer, is that whites do not view non-Asian Minorities (NAMs) as competitors, because, deep down, they know they are not their equals in ability. They simply segregate themselves from them as much as possible and then use them as tools in their fights with other whites. Even Tea Partiers have paraded black speakers and entertainers before the crowds to prove that they’re less racist than MSNBC.
I don’t think whites will ever see themselves as a besieged group unless non-whites dominate positions of power (as opposed to the situation we’ve had for decades in which white elites pursue anti-white policies.)  One can look at how much even white liberals tend to hate black mayors such as Marion Barry or Ray Nagin. In this sense, the liberals are probably right that Obama’s race is an important factor in the opposition to him from the Tea Parties, especially now that his “post racial” façade has fallen off.
I would, however, question the assertion that the Tea Parties are overtly anti-racist. There are many career politicians attached to the movement, Dick Armey most notably, who wring their hands about the absence of non-white “outreach” and presence of Rep. Steve King and Tom Tancredo, who will scare off blacks. The Tea Partiers have also strained to put the few black faces front and center, as if they’re casting for a college brochure. However, I don’t think your average Tea Partier really cares one way or the other.
Whites have segregated themselves in every single aspect of their lives without really acknowledging it. I don’t think most would even think twice about the fact that there weren’t any blacks at their Tea Parties if it were not for the reminders by Keith Olbermann and Co. However, even if they do not attribute the lack of blacks to insufficient pandering or the left-wing media, I doubt many have considered the real implications.
When they speak of “real Americans,” they mean to exclude the urban elites more than the urban underclass. And more importantly, they don’t consider that if there are virtually no non-whites in the movement, what will the fate of limited government be when whites become a minority in America.
Unfortunate, outside Pat Buchanan, there is no visible commentator who’s willing to even broach the question of whether white identity might be natural, legitimate, and politically effective.

Secession and the Future of American Statecraft

Secession and the Future of American Statecraft


The late, great George Kennan was not only one of the most influential and important diplomats in American history, but he was also a serious man of the Right in every important aspect of his thought. With regards to foreign policy, he combined humility with unsentimental realism. Kennan recognized the ideological threat posed by Soviet Communism, but considered the militarization of U.S. foreign policy and extravagant interventions in places such as Indochina to be an inappropriate and unnecessary response. He was particularly opposed to entangling American foreign policy objectives with ideological crusades. In an interview with The New York Review of Books in 1999, the 95-year-old Kennan remarked, “This whole tendency to see ourselves as the center of political enlightenment and as teachers to a great part of the rest of the world strikes me as un-thought-through, vainglorious and undesirable.” What was Kennan’s preferred alternative? He insisted, “I would like to see our government gradually withdraw from its public advocacy of democracy and human rights. I submit that governments should deal with other governments as such, and should avoid unnecessary involvement, particularly personal involvement, with their leaders.”

In his 1993 book, Around the Cragged Hill: A Personal and Political Philosophy, Kennan described the United States in its present condition as a “monster country” that suffers from “the hubris of inordinate size” and proposed that America be “”decentralized into something like a dozen constituent republics, absorbing not only the powers of the existing states but a considerable part of those of the present federal establishment.” He further suggested that the metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago should become the equivalent of semi-autonomous city-states. Kennan’s vision was not far removed from that of the self-proclaimed “left-conservative” Norman Mailer, who ran for mayor of New York in 1969 on a platform having the city become the 51st state and devolving the municipal government to the boroughs by re-constituting them as independent townships. More recent thinkers, such as Vermont’s Thomas Naylor, have gone even further, calling for full-blown secession of particular states or regions from the authority of the federal government altogether. Indeed, Naylor’s colleague Dennis Steele is currently running a maverick campaign for governor for the sake of advocating completely independent nationhood for the Green Mountain State. While the Vermont secessionist effort has a left-libertarian flavor to it, the emerging regional independence movements in various corners of North America transcend the left/right paradigm. Texas’ Larry Kilgore, an unabashed Christian theocrat and a proponent of complete secession by the Lone Star State, won 225, 897 votes in the 2008 Texas Republican Senate primary.

The most serious arguments against such efforts offered by a thinker on the genuine Right were those of Sam Francis. He dismissed secessionism as an “infantile disorder” and remarked, “I do not believe that secessionism will prosper as a serious political movement, but I do worry that it will prosper to the point of becoming a serious political distraction; a distraction from the imperative that Middle Americans now face of constructing their own autonomous political movement that can take back their nation rather than assisting the new underclass and the globalist ruling class in breaking it up.” Dr. Francis preferred instead the more moderate but still radical by contemporary political standards goal of reasserting the Tenth Amendment. I do not know which is the least feasible objective, full-blown secession or restoration of an authentic federalism. Either way, it appears that the revolution by the “Middle American Radicals” that Francis hoped for is dead in the water and, as John Derbyshire has recently written, the Tea Partiers are well on their way to being just another arm of the neocon-friendly establishment.

Still, interesting things are happening in American society. A work published in 2008 by Bill Bishop, a center-left journalist, and titled “The Big Sort,” showed how Americans are in the process of self-separating into more or less segregated enclaves along the lines of political ideology and party affiliation, religion, culture, race, ethnicity, income, age, and other such demographic concerns. Further, this process is taking place less at the state level, and more on the level of counties, towns, municipalities, or even precincts and neighborhoods. Efforts by the elites to the contrary not withstanding, Americans are apparently doing what human beings naturally do anyway: seeking out others of their own kind with whom they form communities. This state of affairs seems to fit fairly well with the decentralist vision offered by Kennan, Mailer, and the Vermont independencias. A 2008 Zogby poll likewise indicated that one in five Americans holds favorable views regarding the possibility of secession.

One thing is certain. If the Alternative Right were to embrace secession or radical decentralization of this kind, it would surely serve to separate the wheat from the chaff, i.e. those on the supposed Right who really wish to bring down the rule of the managerial-therapeutist-welfarist-multiculturalist elite as opposed to “conservative” careerists and main-chancers.

No Great Awakening

No Great Awakening

The Tea Parties and Whiteness

By Jared Taylor

This is the first in a series of articles on the question, raised most publicly by Patrick Buchanan, whether the Tea Party movement nurtures white consciousness and unity and will become the political basis for whites as a people.

Unlike Pat Buchanan, I do not think the Tea Party movement marks the emergence of a new, white ethnonationalism. At the end of his recent article on the subject, Buchanan himself backs away from this prediction, conceding that the conflict that gave rise to the movement “is not so much racial as it is cultural, political and tribal.” The politicians Tea Partiers admire most are Sarah Palin, who has the racial consciousness of a fried egg, and Ron Paul, who flirted with heterodoxy years ago, but now claims to have put all that behind him.

The racial significance of attending a Tea Party is not much different from going to the opera or a Renaissance festival: Virtually everyone there is white, and most like it that way but would never admit it — not even to themselves. Tea parties, just like opera companies, fret over their whiteness and claim to want to cure it.

Other more promising movements have come and gone without giving rise to ethno-nationalism. The militias and the Minuteman border patrols were far more likely than Tea Parties to attract racial free thinkers, but they never talked about race. Their leaders threw out anyone who did.

The Left detects “racism” whenever whites gather and for whatever reason: Tea Partiers, Daughters of the American Revolution, Republicans, suburbanites, country clubbers, NASCAR fans, etc. Some people even complain that Star Trek conventions are too white. What the Left is detecting is only its own propaganda; there is no racial consciousness in these groups. They are not a sign of ethnonationalism, nor will they be until their organizers and participants are prepared to say, “Yes, we’re white, and we like it that way.”

Buchanan compares the Tea Party movement to the breakup of the Soviet Union along ethnic lines. Until Tea Partiers are prepared to echo the motto of the Vlams Belang Flemish-identity political party in Belgium — Eigen volk eerst! (Our people first!) — that comparison is fantasy. The motto of the Tea Party Patriots, “fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets,” is hardly a celebration of ethnic identity.

For racial consciousness to have political consequences, it must be as explicit and unapologetic as that of the Congressional Black Caucus and the National Council of La Raza. That is what it will take for whites to survive as a distinct people with a distinct culture, but tea partiers do not have even the vocabulary to think in those terms, much less the backbone to act on them.

Whites are schizophrenic about race. When it matters to them personally, they can be shockingly illiberal. They clear out when the neighborhood turns Mexican or the public school turns black, and they do this whatever their politics. As Joe Sobran has noted, in their mating and migratory habits, liberals are no different from members of the Klan. But virtually no whites admit race has anything to do with this, and they claim not to care if the whole country goes black and Mexican.

Immigration and high non-white birthrates are turning ever-larger parts of the America into those very places where whites refuse to live, but once they have escaped from the joys of diversity, and found a little patch of homogeneity, whites forget why they moved. This deluded state of mind is now at least 50 years old, and is only slowly crumbling. Don’t expect a speaker at a Tea Party rally to point out the contradiction between wanting “good” schools, “safe” neighborhoods, and “diversity.”

I applaud the tea partiers’ opposition to big government and to Obama’s leftist politics. The country will need them if Obama is to be stopped after a single term. But they will not be an incipient ethno-nationalist movement until they dump Sarah Palin and make Patrick Buchanan their champion.

More from political cesspool blog!

JAMES EDWARDS

The Rise Of Ethnopolitics

“This is Alabama; We speak English”

Category: Immigration

This week has proven that some small pockets of this country may yet still have a pulse! First we learn that Arizona has fired a volley at the Cultural Marxists by passing a sensible immigration law that will put its citizens (and not the illegal alien invaders) first.

Now an Alabama gubernatorial candidate has come out in favor of the English language! I know, I know, it’s pretty sad when someone supporting something as common as English makes a hero of them, but times are bad in America at the moment:

(April 27) — Tim James is betting his election that Alabama voters prefer what he calls “common sense” to “political correctness.” The Republican gubernatorial candidate is running a provocative ad arguing that Alabama’s driver’s license exam should be given only in English.

“This is Alabama; we speak English,” James says. “If you want to live here, learn it.”

You’ll probably be shocked to hear this, but the liberals are calling this a “racist” policy and the Obama Administration is threatening to withhold federal funding from Alabama should such a measure be put into law.

To that I say, give ‘em hell Alabama! Hold the line and steady the course.

Ritz-Carlton Hotel bans family from hotel

Category: America Is Becoming A Third World Country, Diversity Is Our Greatest Strength, Hatred Of White People, Immigration, Racism Schmacism

Here’s the latest frivilous lawsuit from the country that used to be America. Apparently, it’s now a “civil rights” violation if a family chooses not to be waited on by “minorities”.

FORT MYERS, Fla. (CBS/AP) Naples Ritz-Carlton waiter Wadner Tranchant is suing the hotel and one of its managers for allegedly accommodating a family who requested they not be helped by minorities or staff with accents.

Tranchant, a 40-year-old Haitian-born U.S. citizen, says supervisors prevented him from serving the family during their lengthy stay last month.

He claims the hotel’s compliance with the request created a hostile and abusive work environment.

Tranchant’s lawyers filed the lawsuit last Tuesday in Florida’s Middle District of U.S. Court in Fort Myers and seek damages exceeding $75,000.

A spokesman says the family isn’t welcome to return, and the hotel has policies preventing discrimination and harassment.

Tranchant is still working at the Ritz-Carlton.

Let me get this straight. First, the hotel makes the right decision and respects the family’s simple request. Then, after the minority malcontent files an absurd lawsuit, the hotel sings a different tune and says the family isn’t welcome to return as guests.

So, it’s “discrimination” if the hotel chooses to cater to its guests, but it’s NOT discrimination to ban guests from renting a room for the night.

Hmmm. Yep, that makes since…if you live in Martin Luther King’s Diversity Wonderland.

Any sensible person would admit that it shouldn’t be punishable to have a preference in those with whom you choose to associate. Whether the family had cause, or no cause at all, when making their request is moot.

As perverted as this country has become, the waiter who had his feelings hurt because he couldn’t serve white customers will probably win his silly lawsuit and end up owning the hotel.

Of course, I’m sure it would have been perfectly understandable if this situation was reversed and a black family had chosen not to be served by whites. Cultural Marxism, folks. Nobody said it had to be consistent. It’s only consistency is that it’s anti-white, all the time.

Pat Buchanan on the new Arizona immigration law

Category: America Is Becoming A Third World Country, Immigration

As we reported last week, Arizona is now being called a “Nazi state” because they dare to protect their state sovereignty by attempting to secure the border.

Right on cue, Pat Buchanan jumps on the issue with his usual brilliance:

With the support of 70 percent of its citizens, Arizona has ordered sheriffs and police to secure the border and remove illegal aliens, half a million of whom now reside there.

Arizona acted because the U.S. government has abdicated its constitutional duty to protect the states from invasion and refuses to enforce America’s immigration laws.

“We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act,” said Gov. Jan Brewer. “But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created an unacceptable situation.”

We have a crisis in Arizona because we have a failed state in Washington.

What is the response of Barack Obama, who took an oath to see to it that federal laws are faithfully executed?

He is siding with the law-breakers. He is pandering to the ethnic lobbies. He is not berating a Mexican regime that aids and abets this invasion of the country of which he is commander in chief. Instead, he attacks the government of Arizona for trying to fill a gaping hole in law enforcement left by his own dereliction of duty.

He has denounced Arizona as “misguided.” He has called on the Justice Department to ensure that Arizona’s sheriffs and police do not violate anyone’s civil rights. But he has said nothing about the rights of the people of Arizona who must deal with the costs of having hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers in their midst.

How’s that for Andrew Jackson-style leadership?

Obama has done everything but his duty to enforce the law.

This is, by far, one of the greatest actions a state government has taken in years! I want to publicly thank the government of Arizona for being a courageous trailblazer on a vitally important issue. Bravo!

Pat Buchanan has twice appeared as our exclusive guest on The Political Cesspool Radio Program. To listen to these interviews, please consult our broadcast archives and select the programs dated 9.14.06 and 6.29.08.

Richard Barrett’s murderer speaks

Category: Blacks, Crime, Death By Diversity, Gays|Homosexuals, Hate Crimes

Vincent McGee, the class act who murdered a 67 year old man, had this to say about his latest crime:

PEARL, Miss. — A black man accused of stabbing an outspoken white supremacist to death in Mississippi said Monday he didn’t know about the man’s racist views before the killing.

Vincent McGee, 22, told an Associated Press reporter that he didn’t learn until after Richard Barrett had been killed that he was a racist leader. McGee, who is charged with murder, spoke to AP outside the home where Barrett’s body was found stabbed, beaten and burned last week.

“I know – now I do – I didn’t know at first,” McGee said of Barrett’s views.

McGee blurted out comments even though deputies told him he was not allowed to do interviews. McGee wouldn’t comment on whether he killed Barrett, and was cheerful and joked with deputies.

He also claimed to have killed 25 people, then smiled and stuck out his tongue.

Barrett was stabbed several times in the neck and bashed in the head, police said. He had burns over 35 percent of his body, though investigators believe he was killed Wednesday, and his house set on fire the following day to cover up his death.

Keep in mind that Vincent McGee has become a hero of the hate-filled left, who can be found on any number of message boards and article reply threads celebrating Barrett’s murder. “Peace and tolerance,” indeed.

I often decline media requests to interview me, but on Monday I granted a rare interview with a major newspaper today in which I made clear that, while I don’t believe there should be additional sentences added for so-called “hate crimes,” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder should certainly prosecute this murder as such, for consistency’s sake, in light of the murderer’s confession that he killed Barrett due to his alleged homosexual orientation.

I oppose “hate crimes,” in part, because we already have laws on the books to provide sufficient punishment for any crime that could be committed. If McGee is not charged with a “hate crime” it will be clear that the charges are exclusively intended for straight white male perpetrators. What’s good for the goose must be good for the gander as well.

Whether or not my interview will make it to print, and whether or not my comments will be placed in the proper context, remain to be seen.

Great minds think alike?

Category: A Conversation About Race, Conservatism Is Dead, Ethnopolitics, Hatred Of White People, Racism Schmacism, Tea Party Movement

-
For over a year now I’ve been saying that the Tea Parties are a dead end, and they’re going nowhere until they face the fact that they’re a white movement, and not only face it, but unashamedly embrace it. Of course, they never listen, and just keep packing their podiums with black and brown tokens to prove to liberals that they’re not about to start looking out for white people’s interests. Well, Jared Taylor of American Renaissance has written a great article along the very same lines. Of course, Jared said it far more elegantly and succinctly than I ever could, but it’s nice to know he shares my assessment of the movement! Everyone should read Jared’s fantastic piece and email it to everyone they know. Because until the Tea Party folks take Jared’s advice, and start speaking up unashamedly as white people and for white people, they’re never going to accomplish anything.

On a related note, check out this comment one TPC reader left on one of my recent articles about the Tea Party movement:

You are right about Tea Parties. Local tea party close to where I live had an April 15 rally. It was 100% white attendance. A few days after the rally I was invited to attend their “steering committee” meeting. I politely accepted. The Tea Party steering committee focused mostly on rounding up local blacks and black pastors to “diversify” their Tea Party. They spent more time on how to recruit blacks than any other issue. More time and energy was to be spent on recruiting token blacks than expanding the white base. Why? Whites have been conditioned like Pavlov’s dogs about race. Throw a tea party or ring a bell and they salivate “diversity or die”.

How does the Tea Party movement expect to accomplish its goals of reducing the size of government, and fighting Obama’s agenda, when they spend so much of their time not working toward these ends, but on their #1 goal, which is trying to prove they’re not a white movement?

Rise with us!

Category: General

Support The Political Cesspool Radio Program and watch as we soar to new heights together!

DONATE TODAY!

Legends of the Confederacy: DeWitt Smith Jobe

Category: Confederate History Month 2010

On the radio program last night (Saturday, April 24), we wrapped up our annual April series honoring Confederate History Month.

We talked about the many great legends of the Confederacy, stories of heroism and gallantry that you’ve, perhaps, never heard of before. Like the crew of the H.L. Hunley, the Confederate submarine that became the first to ever sink an enemy ship in naval warfare. We talked about Tennessee Governor Isham Harris, who, while Governor, fought alongside his countrymen in battle.

If you’ve never heard of these stories before, I encourage you to research them and learn more. Confederate History is something that should be honored and celebrated year round, not just in April.

We also discussed the bravery of Confederate Scout DeWitt Smith Jobe, whose sacrifice is one of amazing courage:

DeWitt Smith Jobe enlisted in 1861 and became part of Company B of the 20th Tennessee Regiment commanded by Col. Joel Battle and his cousin Thomas B. Smith.

He was wounded and captured at the Battle of Fishing Creek and fought at Stones River. Jobe was hand-picked as a scout about the time Maj. Gen. Braxton Bragg began his retreat out of Middle Tennessee and into Georgia.

As a scout, Jobe did escape the doldrums of routine military life, but his new role with the Army of Tennessee was far more dangerous. Many of the members of Coleman’s Scouts were shot, killed or imprisoned.

And each of the Scouts knew about Sam Davis’ end on the Union gallows near Pulaski, Tenn.

In August 1864, Jobe and fellow scout Tom Joplin were far behind Union lines and reconnoitering near College Grove, Triune and Nolensville.

On Monday, Aug. 29, Jobe was hiding in a cornfield after eating breakfast at the home of a family between Triune and Nolensville. He had an important message hidden on his person. With Yankee patrols in the area, the Confederate was hiding during the day and traveling at night.

Unfortunately, he was spotted by a patrol of 15 men from the 115th Ohio Regiment of the Union Army of the Cumberland.

Seeing that he was about to be captured, Jobe tore up the note and began to chew and swallow it.

Angered by the near miss, the Union patrol first threatened Jobe and then began to torture him in an effort to get the scout to divulge the content of the dispatch.

The Ohio troops first hanged Jobe from a bridle rein and then pistol-whipped him, knocking out some of his teeth.

“Bound and disarmed, helpless and bleeding, Jobe revealed nothing. They were dealing with a man in gray who held the welfare of the Confederacy above his life,” wrote Ed Huddleston in “The Civil War in Middle Tennessee.

“The torture went on. The Yanks were whooping now, yelling so loudly that they could be heard at a distant farmhouse.

“They put out Jobe’s eyes. Perhaps then it was that Jobe heaped epithets upon them. How much courage did it take to do what they did then? They cut out Jobe’s tongue,” Huddleston wrote.

The Union patrol finished off Jobe by dragging him to death behind his own galloping horse.

Once again we can compare and contrast the nobility of the Confederate soldier to the savage nature of the Union Army.

Jobe never gave up his fellow soldiers, choosing to die a painful death than to betray his country.

What happened to the nation that used to produce men like that?

In closing, Political Cesspool listener Joe Madoc has written this poem in honor of DeWitt Smith Jobe:

A lonesome rider dressed in gray
Glides across the rolling hills of bleak
Cold ground December day of burned out grass
And weeds close to the cow strewn pond.

His horse is sweating flushed with foam,
The dauntless rider, moustache flying
On the gentle, freezing breeze.
The horse rears up, I catch a glimpse-
The scout’s dark eyes: Fierce,
Steadfast, stalwart, bold,
And then a twinkle all aglow!

A smile comes fast upon his face,
He turns to leave and rise with grace
As he has done before, before.
As he has done before.
From my car I sprang aghast
And peered into the morning mist
Of snow and sleet and freezing rain.
What had I missed?

The misty rider was gone!
Ride on, ride on majestic one!
And drive the Yankees from our homes!

Oh lonesome rider dressed in gray
Escape again into the fray.
Scout on! Scout on! Intrepid one,
And drive the Yankees from our home.

I hope you have enjoyed The Political Cesspool’s coverage of Confederate History Month 2010.

Deo Vindice.

Mentally disturbed liberal “grateful” for the black man who raped her

Category: Blacks, Crime, Political Correctness

Amanda Kijera has dedicated her life to helping “disadvantaged” blacks. Now, after being raped in Haiti by of one the people she was trying to help, this obviously insane woman claims to be grateful for the experience.

Two weeks ago, on a Monday morning, I started to write what I thought was a very clever editorial about violence against women in Haiti. The case, I believed, was being overstated by women’s organizations in need of additional resources. Ever committed to preserving the dignity of Black men in a world which constantly stereotypes them as violent savages, I viewed this writing as yet one more opportunity to fight “the man” on behalf of my brothers. That night, before I could finish the piece, I was held on a rooftop in Haiti and raped repeatedly by one of the very men who I had spent the bulk of my life advocating for.

It hurt. The experience was almost more than I could bear. I begged him to stop. Afraid he would kill me, I pleaded with him to honor my commitment to Haiti, to him as a brother in the mutual struggle for an end to our common oppression, but to no avail. He didn’t care that I was a Malcolm X scholar. He told me to shut up, and then slapped me in the face. Overpowered, I gave up fighting halfway through the night.

I went to Haiti after the earthquake to empower Haitians to self-sufficiency. I went to remind them of the many great contributions that Afro-descendants have made to this world, and of their amazing resilience and strength as a people. Not once did I envision myself becoming a receptacle for a Black man’s rage at the white world, but that is what I became. While I take issue with my brother’s behavior, I’m grateful for the experience.

Yep, sure does look like those “stereotypes” about black violence were nothing but racist fantasy.

Liberalism is a mental disorder, and this white woman is plagued by it.

However, unlike the left, who have been celebrating the horrific murder of Richard Barrett, I take no comfort in seeing violence befall anyone, liberal or otherwise. It’s sad that this woman has been so poisoned by Cultural Marxism that she would put herself into a position that jeopardizes her life.

When will they see the light?

Special thanks to Western Voices World News and the Council of Conservative Citizens for originally bringing this story to my attention.

White people must die: More thoughts on the killing of Richard Barrett

Category: Blacks, Crime, Death By Diversity, Gays|Homosexuals, Hate Crimes, Hatred Of White People, The Media, splc

White people must die.

That’s the only conclusion you can come to when you really analyze what leftists and liberals preach constantly.

And I do mean preach, because liberalism is a religion, as my friend Bob Whitaker is always making plain. You preach to convert people to your way of thinking, to your religion.

Many people claim that liberalism has branched off of Christianity, and is rooted in Christianity. There may be some truth there, in the same sense that satan started out as God’s top angel, but rebelled and started his own religion.

Serious Christians understand that liberalism is satanic to the core, because it is ultimately a rebellion against reality. Satan can no more overthrow God than liberals can overthrow reality, but that doesn’t mean they both won’t create a lot of damage trying.

Let’s take a simple rule like the commandment against murder. Pretty straight forward. We didn’t create others, and we don’t have the right to dispose of them.

Liberalism adds a caveat. Certain groups of people can murder, and other groups can be murdered. Abortion is a case in point. One group, mothers and their doctors, may choose to murder their unborn children. They give many reasons to justify it, but looked at objectively it is murder.

We all try to sugar coat things that are disturbing, and have severe ramifications. Christians understand that as due to the fact we have a conscience, an innate sense of right and wrong. Where did that come from?

Liberalism is like candida, the fungus that lives in the intestinal tracts of people who eat too much sugar. The more we sugar coat unpleasant truths, the more food we give liberals to thrive and grow.

Liberalism exists because we can’t be honest with ourselves.

If you are following the story of the horrific murder of Mississippi attorney Richard Barrett with your thinking cap on, you’ll see how this applies.

White people get murdered by blacks everyday, and it’s rarely national news. But since Richard Barrett is a “white supremacist” we’ve got a national story.

Why?

Because being a “white supremacist” justifies his murder, at least as far as the left is concerned. They won’t come out and say it openly, they have to sugar coat it.

They leave it up to you to make the connection. Because if you make the connection yourself, you’ll hold to it much more deeply.

REALLY BAD GUY MURDERED! REALLY BAD GUY MURDERED! is the message.

“But no one deserves to be murdered for their thoughts or beliefs…” you might say.

“Oh, so you must be a REALLY BAD GUY too! Why else would you defend him!” is the classic liberal response. It doesn’t have to be stated, it is clearly implied.

Most of us will add a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down, then quietly rush off and put it out of our minds.

Hitler is bad because he killed Jews. Stalin killed way more people, but they were just white Christians, so it isn’t a big deal.

Have you ever seen Dees or Foxman attacking Stalin, or demonizing people by calling them communists? Of course not.

What is the point of demonizing people in the first place? It’s to set them up as justified candidates to be robbed and murdered. It doesn’t happen overnight. But just like a slow steady drip can erode a mountain, this leftist attack wears almost everyone down over time.

Abortion wasn’t legalized or accepted over night. Neither was “gay marriage” or race mixing. Murdering white people who oppose any or all of these things is just another logical step in the process.

What is the ultimate goal? You figure it out. Or take another spoonful of sugar.

More at 6pm tonight.

P.S. We’d like to get Mark Potok of the SPLC on the show tonight (Saturday, April 24) to help us understand why leftists are so happy about this heinous murder, and how we are to sort out the victimology “pecking order” that is getting complicated here:

We know that a “white supremacist” being murdered is good by liberal standards. Black killing white supremacist is therefore good. But now black accuses victim of being a homosexual. How does that alter the balance, or does it?

Since we know the SPLC reads our emails to get fodder for fund raising, have Mark contact us to set up a time tonight.

For more information, or for media requests, please contact: media@thepoliticalcesspool.org

In defense of Richard Barrett? Confession, motive is given

Category: Blacks, Death By Diversity, Gays|Homosexuals, Hate Crimes, Hatred Of White People, The Media

I reported last night that the Mississippi attorney, who once won a landmark first amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court, was found brutally murdered in his home on Thursday. Here is my original article on the matter, in which I offered a defense of Richard Barrett in light of how his name is being attacked postmortem under such vicious circumstances.

Now more details are emerging, including a confession from the primary suspect and possible motives:

RANKIN COUNTY, MS (WLBT) – Our 3 On Your Side investigation in this case has revealed there may have been a motive other than money for the murder of Richard Barrett.

Official sources who asked not to be identified, tell WLBT, 22-year-old Vincent McGee, in his confession, alleged Barrett made sexual advances to him, apparently sending McGee into a rage, a rage that ended in murder.

So, it is now being claimed that Richard Barrett was not only a “white supremacist,” but also a homosexual. How in the world does the media ever deal with that?

Now that there are two players (a black and an alleged homosexual) in the middle of a brutal murder story that is making national headlines, how will the media choose whom to support? Both are members of preferred “minority” groups.

Is Richard Barrett now a hero? Is his murder now a “hate crime?” Matthew Shepard was murdered for simply making sexual advances and we know how the media treated that story. Is it only a hate crime when straight white males murder a homosexual, or will a black murderer get the same treatment?

With all the furor in Mississippi over the “rights” of a teenage lesbian being infringed upon due to the fact that she couldn’t attend a prom, what will happen now that Richard Barrett has been murdered, apparently, as a result of his sexual orientation?

Will GLAAD stand in support of Barrett? Will Ellen DeGeneres set up a scholarship fund in his name? Can we expect to one day be able to contribute to the Richard Barrett Foundation?

The plot thickens and it will be interesting to see just how the media treats the new details of this horrific story. Will a hypocritical double-standard be employed by the MSM because of Richard Barrett’s politics? Will the story be buried because the pieces and players don’t add up to the textbook example of “hate” they’d like to have had?

I will be waiting and watching.

For more information, or for media requests, please contact: media@thepoliticalcesspool.org

AMERICA: The Story of Us

AMERICA: The Story of Us

America The Story of Us is an epic 12-hour television event that tells the extraordinary story of how America was invented. With highly realistic CGI animation, dramatic recreations and thoughtful insights from some of America’s most respected artists, business leaders, academics and intellectuals, it is the first television event in nearly 40 years to present a comprehensive telling of America’s history. Elaborate, ambitious and cinematic, America The Story of Us will take you into the moments when Americans harnessed technology to advance human progress, from the rigors of linking the continent by transcontinental railroad–the internet of its day–to triumphing over vertical space through the construction of steel structured buildings to putting a man on the moon. It is an intensive look at the people, places and things that have shaped our nation, and the tough and thrilling adventure that is America’s 400-year history.

Rebels

Crossing the Atlantic Ocean to start a new world (CGI)
Crossing the Atlantic Ocean to start a new world (CGI)

In 1607, a small group of English adventurers lands in Jamestown. Thirteen years later the Pilgrims settle in Plymouth, New England. These men and women are all driven by the promise of a new life, and all face huge dangers from disease, starvation and conflict. The two colonies are very different, yet in time both grow. One man’s entrepreneurial dream, tobacco, and the first African Americans, turn the swamps of the South into a land of opportunity. The hardworking and resourceful Puritans forge the North into a trading powerhouse with shipbuilding at its core. Within 100 years, they have the highest standard of living in the world–a testament to a unique American spirit. Yet success and wealth prompt British jealousy, taxation, resistance and, finally, war. This is the story of how, over seven generations, a group of European settlers survive against all odds, claw themselves up and then turn against their colonial masters. A diverse group of men, women and children are about to become truly American.

Revolution

Boston Harbor in the 18th century (CGI)
Boston Harbor in the 18th century (CGI)

July 9, 1776. The Declaration of Independence is read to crowds in New York. Offshore, more than 400 ships bristling with soldiers and guns are massing. It is the largest British invasion force until D-Day. America’s 13 colonies have taken on the might of the world’s leading superpower. Within months, George Washington’s army has been decimated and defeat seems inevitable. Yet by 1783, America is free. It is a conflict that tests the resolve of Patriot soldiers to the breaking point. It takes us from the trenches of Manhattan, to the harsh winter camp of Valley Forge, and from the forests along the Hudson, to the spy-ridden streets of occupied New York–and finally, to victory at Yorktown. American forces learn the hard way how to master the landscape, new weapons and unconventional battle tactics. And with this elite force, forged through revolution, Washington saps the strength of the British Army to prevail in what has become a titanic battle of wills. As the British leave, a new nation, the United States of America, is born.

Well what do True Americans Say?

Lets see the comments:

Locust: why the need to mention “african americans” every 5 mins? They suddenly feel like they helped the whites build this nation after Obama became president, only now they want to rewrite history to make their people feel good, and erase our peoples history.  This nation is fucked, we are going to pay for disregarding the laws of nature, with collapse and ethnic strife.

United States: Next empire on the precipice of collapse?

United States: Next empire on the precipice of collapse?

We have heard for months that the sky is falling and the American economy is on the verge of collapse. The Bush administration warned of an economic Armageddon if its Wall Street bailout wasn’t approved immediately. The Obama administration has talked about saving us from the “verge of collapse.”

The fact is more nuanced than that; America may well be collapsing before our eyes, but it is happening more slowly than some would believe. A country like the United States is not going to go away over night, but it could very well be a shell of its former self a decade or more from now.

British historian Niall Ferguson, writing for Foreign Affairs, outlines the decline of the American empire as a result of its inability to squash desires for international commercial, military and political dominance. As our leadership struggles with the day-to-day problems of political sausage making, the seams of this nation could be coming apart.

The political right viciously attacks any and all provisions brought up by the Democrats in Congress. They lament “socialism,” “Marxism,” “radicals” and other faceless terminologies in demonizing their opposition. But in the end, after the dust settles, the nation has accomplished nothing. Regardless of whether or not you approve of these particular health care reforms, social spending reforms, financial regulations, or military expeditions, you have to favor progress. If you don’t march toward progress you will be overcome and eventually left behind.

Andrew Nagorski, writing for Newsweek, also highlighted the declining circumstances of the United States. Nagorski brought attention to the indecisiveness in Washington, the infighting and the lack of motivation. As the United States, nearly four years later, still clamors with how to even begin addressing its economic crisis the rest of the world has moved on.

Entrenched opposition fighting to take power at the expense of the other side does not divide the halls of government in Beijing; a yearning for collective success unites them. There are internal power struggles, but there is no gridlock.

The European Union is not universally popular even in the most liberal of European nations, yet it has continued to move forward with pro-Europe policies and reforms. Nobody was happy about bailing out Greece, but it had to be done for the future good of everyone else.

There is no way that our nation can continue in its special place of international prominence unless we start working together for our own benefit. Some things, like quality education and health care, are public goods that should not be susceptible to political gamesmanship. No other nation in the world is fighting over what should go in its textbooks, or which individual sick people should be given attention.

In the United States we have one party standing in the way of progress at every turn if that progress was conceived of by anyone other than them.

Trade policy, currency policy, manufacturing investment, infrastructure development, tax reform and financial regulation have all be done in by obstructionist members of the government. In the never ending foray to win electoral brownie points our elected officials have begun to act against the best interest of those they represent.

After generations of ignoring the future for the sake of immediate gains, the United States is at a crossroads. Our government has to start voting for the future, instead of trying to build up the status quo. We have had zero employment growth in ten years. A decade of financial gains was undone by a few months of chaos, and it could take another decade to make it all back.

No other country in the world is perfectly content to be in the same place today that it was ten years ago, but in the U.S. that is precisely what we see.

Locust:  I love comments

United States: Next empire on the precipice of collapse?

Yes…because, incompetent people are in key positions (fluff rises to the top) making decisions for the empire. It happened to other empires too. It is like too many lawyers doing brain surgery. Examples are everywhere to see.

“After generations of ignoring the future “

It was one generation, they don’t fit into the commonly classified generations because some of them are pre baby boomer and the rest are early baby boomers. Today they are from about their late 50′s to around 80 years old and calling them yuppies would be fitting.
They cheered on the 1980′s & 90′s and now are fully in charge of most everything, but in total denial what they cheered on could possibly be the problem. Their big ego’s will never let that happen so there is little chance the actual problems will be addressed as long as they are running things.

They are good at putting down people younger than them and brow beating them into silence. They know it all so don’t even listen, just go into attack and talk down to younger people. They have also managed to collect a following of younger groupies, The President is a good example of somebody with the exact same mentality as people 20 years older than him. The guy is straight out of the 1960′s hippie culture & civil rights movement, but wasn’t there and is fighting old battles.

The Reagan groupies suffer the same outdated thinking, it’s just in a different form. Reaganomics amounted to selling out the blue collar working class for the benefit of the yuppies. Problem is they ran out of groups of blue collar workers to sell out.

Until the real Generation X people gain control, not the phoney ones like the spoiled one who is now president there is no hope of change. He is just a pet of the yuppies, not somebody who ate the dirt of yuppies the last few decades so has no clue.

Pollster: Democrats Losing Support Among White Men

Pollster: Democrats Losing Support Among White Men


From NPR:

Many Republican leaders have condemned the acts, while other conservative accused the media and the Democrats themselves of blowing the event out of proportion to discredit health care opponents. Quarrels aside, though, one truth is coming to light: The political party in power is losing the support of a vital voting block, white men.

Here to discuss that is David Paul Kuhn. He’s chief political correspondent at RealClearPolitics.com and also author of “The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma.” Welcome, David.

Mr. DAVID PAUL KUHN (RealClearPolitics.com; Author, “The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma”): Thanks for having me.

KEYES: You wrote an opinion piece earlier this week in the L.A. Times titled “The Revenge of the White Men.” Why are white men frustrated and looking for revenge?

Mr. KUHN: Well, they aren’t looking for revenge. I didn’t write that headline and it’s not journalistically accurate, so let’s just avoid that word.

KEYES: Right. Okay, so let’s say what you wanted to say.

Mr. KUHN: Let’s use the words frustrated, forgotten, words like that.

KEYES: Okay.

[...]

Pollster: Democrats Losing Support Among White Men : NPR

Are Tea Parties Racist?

13 Apr 2009 Author: Jill Tubman

Were you wondering what happened to all the rabid, wild-eyed bigots yelling, “Kill him!” and “Terrorist” and “Socialist” carrying stuffed monkey plush dolls at the McCain-Palin rallies? It’s easy in our jubilation over Obama’s victory to forget the many people in America who were deeply fearful and hate-oriented towards an Obama presidency. Those people didn’t just shrug their shoulders at the Democratic victory in Nov 2008. No, they’ve re-organized. Largely abandoned by the Republican party who tapped cynically into their ignorance, fear and hatred and whipped these folks into a racist lather as a Get Out The Vote strategy, the Tax Day Tea Party people have used the internet to find each other and organize.

Obama ShamWowThey’re getting plenty of news coverage. And don’t get me wrong: the teabaggers (heh) have expressed some legitimate concerns about the impact of the economic stimulus on the ballooning deficit and the evolving structure of the financial bailout strategy. Concerns some progressives and many Americans share actually. Yet Obama’s kept his promise to lower taxes for most Americans except the very wealthy – I don’t know about you but I definitely am getting more back than I expected personally on my own taxes. So…whassup, really? Are these folks really concerned about their taxes going up or is it about what they perceive their taxes to be funding? Here’s an image from the Michelle Malkin blog that sums up their real concerns, IMHO – note the bloody imagery, btw.

I’ve been parsing the words and the racists have been very careful to cover their tracks and fury that a black man is President. But not well enough. I’m starting to become pretty convinced at this point that “socialist” is a some kind of code word for “nigger”. Here’s an example of some of the subtle language the Tea Party people are using to describe their own movement (emphasis mine) from the Michelle Malkin blog, a central hive for the poorly informed, wild-eyed, bigoted, Fox News/wingnut blog-driven lynch, ahem I mean Tea Partiers:

As you’re probably aware, Michelle’s been a huge supporter of the “tea parties,” as has been Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush and countless others. The phenomenon is spreading, and more will be held on Tax Day — April 15 (a map of all the locations is here).

In late February, I attended a tea party in Lansing, Michigan, and will be there again next Wednesday. While there, I spoke with several people, and, while everybody attended for the same “big picture” reason, many had their own reason to be there.

For some it was wildly excessive and confusing tax laws. Others were there out of concern for their children and grandchildren. Some were there because they’re maddened that the same glorious policies that have made Detroit look like Bangladesh after a garbage haulers strike are being introduced on a national level, a few were upset because the same people who created these massive problems are charged with fixing them, others don’t want their country sold out to some global entity, and one man I saw had a sign that said “‘Government job’ is a contradiction in terms.” Many were there for the reason of “all of the above.”

Huh? What does Detroit or Bangladesh have to do with Barack Obama? Oh that’s right, Detroit has experienced white flight, urban blight and economic devastation for years now, making some areas seem almost Third World. But that wouldn’t have anything to do with the crumbling U.S. auto industry and everything to do with the black mayors the city has been electing, right? The corrupt Kwame Kilpatrick notwithstanding, this sounds like a snarky, swiping slur directed at South Indian immigrants, African-Americans and unions all combined succinctly. There’s real racist animus here: check out the video above of Tea Party nuts convinced that Barack Obama can’t be president because he faked his birth certificate and is actually Kenyan by birth. My God — do you know what that means? It means a black man is illegally president! Because it’s just not possible for a black man to be president unless something has gone horribly wrong with the system! Citizens, act now and get to your local Tea Party!!!

White supremacists are loving the Tea Party movement btw. They hear the dogwhistle loud and clear and are looking to take advantage of the discontent. Much more including what white supremacists are saying, the top five questions journalists and bloggers should be asking Tea Party rallygoers and my updated criteria for undercover racist attacks after the jump.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart M – Th 11p / 10c
Baracknophobia – Obey

Many white supremacists report planning to attend Tea Parties or already have and some are looking for a way to recruit into their White Nationalist movement. There’s an awful lot of Tea Party chatter among these folks. Why doesn’t the media cover this angle? Here’s a telling and typical comment from Stormfront.org:

Ladies and gentlemen, I think every WN needs to not only attend the April 15th Tea Party nearest you (I’m going to the Alamo in San Antonio) but then stay involved and help provide leadership to this movement.

I believe that this is the white revolution we’ve been waiting for.

It doesn’t look what we expected but this is it.

I’ve seen probably 50 videos on TV showing previous marches and what strikes me is that the participants are all WHITE. It stands to reason . . . we’re the ones being taxed to support Affirmative Action, Welfare and other worthless social programs. It’s our tax dollars going to ACORN and supporting the 12 million illegals swarming into our neighborhoods.

I would urge news media and citizen journalists covering the tea parties to scratch below the surface to get at the rotting racist underbelly of these protests and ask revealing questions like these top five:

  • “How do you know Obama is a socialist?”,
  • “Do you believe Obama’s presidency is a conspiracy by the Jews and Blacks?”,
  • “Who do you think Obama takes his orders from?”,
  • “Is Barack Obama an American citizen like you?”,
  • “How do you feel about having a black president in the White House – what’s the worst that could happen?”

I’ve re-activating my criteria for an undercover racist attack on Obama from the campaign and revising it for the new reality. Check out the original and my updated revision after the jump. The original criteria for the racist attack zone from Oct 2008:

My criteria for a racist attack during this long and arduous campaign season has been to pause when these three conditions are present and examine what message might actually be on the dogwhistling march:

1) Is it unique to Obama, i.e. is it a phrase we’ve never heard before applied to any other presidential candidate ever or is it something we haven’t heard in recent memory? For example: elitist or drug seller.

2) Is it illogical or impossible – does the assertion plainly contradict the facts? For example: elitist, drug seller or tax raiser.

3) Is it repeated, over and over, by a desperate person whose team is falling in the polls & who adopts a wide-eyed, credulous, nodding stare pronouncing the lie slowly and precisely with a watchful eye to see if the listeners are buying it. For example: elitist, drug seller, tax raiser or terrorist.

Optional: Does the assertion cause nervousness, embarrassment or confusion among non-blacks? When other white people such as Tom Brokaw sense something wrong and start to ask questions like “Do you really believe that?”, you know for sure you’re in the racist attack zone.

Here’s the new criteria for an undercover racist attack:

1) Is it unique to Obama, i.e. is it a phrase we’ve never heard before applied to any other president or is it something we haven’t heard in recent memory? For example: he’s not an American citizen or he’s a socialist who’s planning re-education camps for young people.

2) Is it illogical or impossible – does the assertion plainly contradict the facts? For example: not an American citizen, socialist, tax raiser, re-education camps for young people.

3) Is it repeated, over and over, by a desperate person whose team lost badly in the last election & who adopts a wide-eyed, credulous, nodding stare pronouncing the lie slowly and precisely with a watchful eye to see if the listeners are buying it. For example: not an American citizen, socialist, elitist, drug seller, tax raiser or terrorist.

Optional: Does the assertion cause nervousness, embarrassment or confusion among non-blacks? When other white people such as Tom Brokaw or John Stewart sense something wrong and start to ask questions like “Do you really believe that?”, you know for sure you’re in the racist attack zone.

As Exhibit A, I offer John Stewart’s interpretation of the Tea Party movement as Baracknophobia above. My main concern here is that the heated rhetoric around the protests could lead to violence against African-Americans, Jews and Latinos if some Tea Party recruits go from non-violent to violent. That’s why it’s important to drag the masked racism here out into the daylight so we can deal with it and force denials from their movement leaders before certain elements become more brazen and people start getting hurt.

Are Tea Parties Racist?

Sifting through the anti-Obama-hysteria hysteria

Listen to Audio Version (MP3)

Editor in Chief Joan Walsh wrote that my “strange slur” against the president was a textbook example of “the racial nuttiness that Obama faces,” just about every person loudly opposing the administration’s economic policies had already been tarred with the same brush.

It started in early August, as members of Congress began facing their unusually restive constituents in a series of town hall meetings. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, citing not one shred of contemporary sociological evidence, asserted that “the driving force behind the town hall mobs” is “cultural and racial anxiety” on the part of the “angry white voter.” Within a month, that bit of omniscient whitey baiting was perilously close to conventional wisdom.

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne warned that the town hall protests exemplified “the politics of the jackboot,” comparing them directly to “lynching” and concluding that “it is profoundly troubling that firearms should begin to appear with some frequency at a president’s public events only now, when the president is black.” (There have been exactly two Obama appearances at which protesters outside the venue openly carried handguns. In both cases the acts were legal, and in one of them the gun-toting protesters included a black man.)

After Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted “You lie!” during Obama’s September 9 address to Congress, Krugman’s page mate Maureen Dowd wrote, “Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.” She added, “Fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!”

Generally speaking, when key evidence is “unspoken,” and in fact imagined by the prosecution, it’s a good bet that the overall case is weak. The same goes for relying on explanatory sociology dating from the early 1960s. During the summer, racism baiters such as New York Times columnist Frank Rich (“the atmosphere keeps getting darker”), Newsweek’s Susan Jacoby (“This toxic brew of racism and class resentment is rooted in anti-rationalism”), and Los Angeles Times columnist Gregory Rodriguez (“the first black president, as well as the deep economic recession, have challenged Americans’ sense of self”) cited the liberal historian Richard Hofstadter’s famous essay “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” (which is not primarily about race). “The biggest contributor to this resurgence of radicalism,” Rich wrote in a typical passage, “remains panic in some precincts about a new era of cultural and demographic change.”

Hofstadter’s essay was published in November 1964. At the time, it was still illegal for blacks to marry whites in 19 states. Black professional football players were still denied service in posh New Orleans hotels and restaurants. Discriminatory poll taxes and ballot box literacy tests were still widespread. In short, race relations have changed quite a bit since then, as illustrated by the fact that we now have a black president.

But in a genuinely curious turn of events, Obama’s race—after failing to provoke any significant appeals to white fear or resentment during the long 2008 campaign—has now become a central factor in the eyes of people frustrated by the volume and effectiveness of the opposition. So Salon’s Walsh, after having previously complained about “GOP zealots” who were blocking health care reform, read between the lines of an online column I wrote about the president’s September 9 speech and declared that it would “go down in history as one of the dumbest white-boy outbursts in the history of covering Obama.”

My racist slip? In a throwaway line and hyperlink, I had compared Obama’s warning to those spreading lies about his health care plan—“We will call you out”—to the chorus of a new Snoop Dogg song I’d been listening to in heavy rotation: “We will shut you down.” Where my mind registered the similarity of two five-syllable phrases containing three of the same words, Walsh’s projection of my mind saw “totally gratuitous racial imagery” and the implication that Obama emulates gangsta rappers.

Contra Walsh, history basically ignored my “outburst,” but a fat new target marched into view the very next day, when roughly 100,000 protesters descended on the National Mall to demonstrate against Obama’s economic policies. “It was a Klan rally minus the bedsheets and torches,” William Rivers Pitt, a former spokesman for Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), wrote at Truthout.org. “It’s obvious to anyone who has eyes in this country,” comedian/political activist Janeane Garofalo said on HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher, “that teabaggers, the 9/12ers, these separatist groups that pretend it’s about policy, they are clearly white identity movements; they are clearly white-power movements.” And in the biggest endorsement of the “racial anxiety” hypothesis yet, former President Jimmy Carter fired this warning shot across America’s bow: “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American,” Carter told NBC Nightly News three days after the protest.

So were these nightmarish descriptions of the 9/12 protest accurate? Was the “overwhelming portion” of demonstrators motivated by racism? Unlike any of the critics mentioned above, I actually attended the rally. And despite looking specifically for white-boy outbursts during four hours and across dozens of conversations, I didn’t see any.

This is not to say they weren’t there. Thanks to the magic of ubiquitous digital cameras, motivated partisans, and the Internet, I was able to ascertain after the fact that there was a poster featuring Obama with a bone through his nose, another showing the president in Robin Hood get-up with the charming headline “Robbin’ for the Hood,” and a scattering of Confederate flags.

But if there was anything “overwhelming” about the protest it was the percentage—which I would place well above 90—of signage and conversation specifically referring to government spending, economic policy, and creeping federal interference into various areas of life. I saw nothing about affirmative action, nothing about welfare, nothing about illegal immigration, almost nothing about hot-button social conservative issues, and very little on foreign policy. If race played a central role, 100,000 people did a good job of hiding it.

Yes, there were many, many placards hyperbolically comparing Obama’s policies with those of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, proving once again that Americans of all stripes continue to despise the two worst totalitarian (and murderously racist) systems yet attempted. And the protest’s single biggest celebrity endorser (see Greg Beato’s “Glenn Beck’s Experimental Melodrama,” page 14), did create a stir earlier this year with an asinine comment that Obama has “a deep-seated hatred for white people.” But even that sentiment was not visible to my naked eye on September 12.

So is the Tea Parties = racism meme a sincere expression of anxiety about resurgent racist violence? A knowingly inaccurate attempt at political marginalization? Whatever was behind this summer’s hysteria, it seems reasonable to assume that the next three or seven years will feature more of the same.

Call me an incurable Californian, but I see reasons to hope otherwise. President Obama himself smothered much of the rhetoric by telling David Letterman, “I think it’s important to realize that I was actually black before the election.” Jimmy Carter, no doubt under pressure from the administration, backpedaled on his racism claims two weeks after he made them. And most hopefully of all, the kind of overt or thinly coded appeals to white racial resentment and nativist paranoia that have stained generations of American politicians have been marginalized in right-of-center politics. Whether Jimmy Carter will get around to noticing how much America has changed for the better remains to be seen.

McCain’s Daughter: Tea Party Movement is Racist

Infowars.com
February 9, 2010

According to Meghan McCain, daughter of John McCain, the Tea Party is chock full of racists. Once again appearing on the View, McCain slammed the Tea Party movement, said young people are “turned off” by its “innate racism,” and attacked Sarah Palin, the washed up former vice presidential candidate who was appointed to lead the hijacked Tea Party movement by the Republicans and the corporate media. Palin has called for attacking Iran and has put her support behind Texas governor Rick Perry.

McCain criticized Tom Tancredo, who called for a literacy test for voters during the $500 admission Tea Party fest in Nashville last week. Tancredo is a dyed-in-the-wool neocon Republican and a former member of the House of Representatives from Colorado’s 6th congressional district. He not only believes in undeclared wars that violate Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution, but also suggested in 2005 that it would be OK to wipe the Muslim holy city of Mecca off the map in response to al-Qaeda.

“People who would not even spell the word vote or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House… named Barack Hussein Obama,” Tancredo told the those gathered at the Republican Tea Party convention.

Obama’s version of socialism includes an administration replete with members from the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, and the Federal Reserve. Meghan McCain’s father was supported by the same cartel of bankers and establishment insiders during his presidential race.

Rhetoric coming from the Republican owned Tea Party “will continue to turn off young voters, and anybody who says different is smoking something,” said McCain’s daughter.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • iphone app

McCain neglected to mention that a significant number of young people supported Ron Paul’s run for the presidency. Ron Paul backed the original Tea Party movement before it was hijacked by the Republicans.On September 10, 2009, McCain went on the View to criticize actor Charlie Sheen after he issued an open letter to president Obama. “Charlie Sheen is the latest celebrity to talk about how he does not believe 9/11,” McCain told Barbara Walters. “I quoted Charlie Sheen yesterday about his experience with prostitutes, so really you’re the one I should be listening to about 9/11?… I am not going to take my political advice from Charlie Sheen.”

McCain’s comments reveal the strategy behind the Republican hijacking of the Tea Party movement. The organization initially founded by libertarians and constitutionalists can now be dismissed as a politically irrelevant clatch supported by warmongering and racist rednecks.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 149 other followers