Black Conservatives as rare as the most rare of creatures

Black Conservatives: as rare as the most rare of creatures

http://dalesdesigns.net/animals/baby_albino_alligator.jpg

http://www.gunaxin.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/flying_penguins.jpg

Any May not really exist.

http://images3.cafepress.com/image/31509293_125x125.png

http://angrywhitedude.com/wp-content/uploads2/2009/09/LloydMarcus-222x300.jpg

http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2008/06/14/blackGOP-topper.jpg

https://whitelocust.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/blackconservative.jpg?w=300

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs031.snc3/11831_1266578738962_1064592919_2577597_6509574_n.jpg

Black Conservatives Take Lead Role In Tea Party Movement

Though the tea party movement has attracted criticism for its supposed lack of diversity, minority activists who are involved say the movement has little to do with race, and that it is attracting a more diverse crowd every day (hat tip: Yahoo! Black Conservatives usergroup). Lloyd Marcus’ [pictured] conservatism started when he was 9. His family had just moved out of the “ghetto” to a brand-new high rise in Baltimore — within months, he said, the “dream come true” turned into a nightmare, as the building of welfare-collecting black residents became a den of crime. His father moved the family out as soon as he got a job with the city fire department, but “my cousins never escaped,” Mr. Marcus said. He cried as he told the story.

Mr. Marcus, a black conservative who is now involved in the growing tea party movement, attributes the problems of his childhood neighborhood, his extended family and the black community in general to a “cradle-to-grave government dependency” that in the case of his cousins enabled an idle life of crime and drug abuse. To him, President Obama’s policies perpetuate that dependency. That’s why, he says, it baffles him and other black conservatives when the tea party movement is dismissed as somehow anti-black, as a rowdy bunch of ignorant, white protesters who have it in for the nation’s first black president. “This is the nicest angry mob I’ve ever seen,” Mr. Marcus, who is a musician in Florida, said.

William Owens, a black author and publisher who with his wife traveled on the Tea Party Express tours with Mr. Marcus and has spoken at just about every stop along the way, also came out strongly against Barack Obama in 2008. He published the book, Obama: Why Black America Should Have Doubts, before the election, in an attempt to address what he called a “misguided passion” toward the former U.S. senator in black America. When the tea party movement started last year, he said he found a way to build on what he was already doing, outside the Republican Party system which he calls out of touch. He first spoke at a rally in Las Vegas on tax day last April. “It was just a natural fit,” Mr. Owens said.

Mr. Owens said the rallies are still “mostly white,” but that more blacks are getting involved. He took particular umbrage at Chris Matthews’ comment contending that the rallies were monochromatic, blasting out a press release that criticized the MSNBC host for “pushing conservative black Americans to the back of the media bus.” Mr. Owens now publishes a journal documenting the tea party cross-country tours. The Multi-Cultural Conservative Coalition is also sponsoring the next leg of the Tea Party Express.

Despite the enthusiastic involvement of black conservatives in the tea party rallies and trips, President Obama still enjoys seemingly unshakable support from the majority of black Americans. A recent poll from Gallup put his approval rating among blacks at 91 percent. Among whites, that number was 42 percent. Tea party groups also might not be doing themselves any favors when some of their supporters are photographed holding somewhat shocking signs at rallies — such as one last year that said, “The White House has a lyin’ African.” But such demonstrators may be the exception.

Lollar started speaking at tea party events last winter and said his biggest motivation is opposition to the stimulus package — both the $787 billion package that passed last February and the sequel that some Democrats are trying to push this year.Charles Lollar, a Maryland-based tea party supporter who is black, said there’s no validity to the racism charges. “I’ve seen black faces in the crowd. I’ve seen Latino faces in the crowd….It’s not a movement of color. It’s not a movement of party. It’s a movement of principle. It’s a movement of America,” he said. Mr. Lollar has since parlayed his activism into a high-stakes campaign. The Charles County businessman is hoping win the GOP nomination to challenge House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), in the congressional midterm this November. However, Mr. Lollar, whose previous post was as chairman of the Charles County Republican Central Committee, has an uphill battle to unseat the nation’s second most powerful House Democrat.

The Reverend Ken Hutcherson

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/democrats5.jpg

Locust: very few exist, but pushed to chose a side, they will choose their own kind.  Don’t get me wrong, its great that they value some of what we white nationalist value, but can they convince the rest of their kind in the next couple years?  Its a little late in the game. Sorry, I don’t trust you blacks to make that “change” when lives and our white civilization is on the line, see you soon on the battlefield where skin will be your uniform.

Rising Right

Rising Right – UK

journeymanpictures

Rising right Across Europe


Barack Obama—After Two Rough Years, An Even Bigger Wake-Up Call Is Coming

By Steve Sailer

President Barack Obama was marketed to America as the magic cure for its racial divisions. But in my book America’s Half-Blood Prince Barack Obama’s “Story Of Race And Inheritance”, based on a close study of Obama’s own much-purchased, little-read autobiography Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, I argued that Obama was in fact fundamentally motivated by race and that some people, probably his credulous white supporters, were in for a big surprise.

This is exactly what has happened. Obama has proved racially divisive both for implicit and explicit reasons. Eighteen months into his Presidency, the races are farther apart in their views of him than when he came to office.

Here are Obama’s Gallup Poll approval ratings every week since his Inauguration:

Black support for the black President remains almost rock solid, standing at 89 percent through the week ending July 11, 2010—slightly higher than in his first week in office.

But Obama’s approval rating among whites is now only 38 percent—51 points below the black level. The white approval rating has fallen 25 points since January 2009.

It’s important to note that the white approval rating was as high as 60 percent as late as the week of May 10, 2009. The subsequent sharp fall-off is usually blamed on the economy.

But an alternative explanation is that white disenchantment with Obama appears to have set in during the warm weather months of 2009—about the time of Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court (May 26, 2009); the Supreme Court’s rebuke of Sotomayor’s ruling in the Ricci case (June 29, 2009); and the ludicrous damage-controlling “Beer Summit” featuring Professor Henry Louis Gates and an Obama-dissed Cambridge, MA police officer, James Crowley (July 22-30, 2009).

Since the end of summer 2009, Obama’s staffers, such as the cynical Chicagoan Rahm Emanuel, have worked diligently to keep their boss from alarming whites with obvious racial gaffes—as when he responded frankly to the Henry Louis Gates question at one of his rare press conferences. Obama’s rating among whites has continued to trickle downward, but at a less catastrophic rate.

On the other hand, his staff’s perceived need to prevent “Obama from being Obama” has likely contributed to Obama’s current guarded, depressive affect.

For a man proclaimed an inspirational political genius in 2008, he strikes many people in 2010 as a downer, a bit of a buzzkill.

And Obama’s allies continue to provoke racial squabbles. For example, the NAACP is trying to “concern troll” [=undermine] the Tea Party movement into dropping all that stuff about endless deficits and conduct purges of purported racists in its ranks. And the public is just waking up to the fact that Congresswoman Maxine Waters has larded the new financial reform bill with racial quotas.

Hispanics’ feelings toward Obama lie in between those of blacks and whites, as is so common in American racial patterns. The President’s Hispanic ratings have fallen roughly in parallel with white opinion, with the big drop starting a little later in 2009. This also follows a long tradition: Hispanic voters generally follow changes in white opinion, just more erratically, and stay significantly to the left of whites for perfectly understandable reasons of self-interest: they are much more enthusiastic about racial / ethnic preferences and tax-and-spend policies from which they hope to benefit at white expense.

Over the last decade, the Main Stream Media has carried countless credulous articles about the Hispanic vote. Most are based on self-serving talking points fed to journalists by so-called Hispanic leaders.

But there is a dirty little secret in all this: Hispanic voters seldom pay much attention to whatever the press proclaims to be their burning issues, such as Sotomayor or Arizona’s SB1070.

For example, Hispanic warmth toward Obama hit its peak (85 percent) a few weeks before he nominated Sonia Sotomayor on May 26, 2009. By August, he was down in the 60s with Hispanics.

One high school teacher told me that, throughout June 2009, he repeatedly brought up the Puerto Rican judge’s name to inspire his mostly Mexican-American classes. One youth responded that he’d heard she was Cuban. But the rest never had any idea (even an incorrect one) about who she was or why anybody would think they’d care about her.

Similarly, in the weeks before Obama went to war against the citizens of Arizona in late April 2010 over SB1070, his Hispanic approval rating had been in the 60s. Now, it’s at 55.

The fact is that Hispanics, on average, don’t pay all that much attention to the news. They tend to be younger, less literate, less interested in America, and less interested in public affairs in general.

The decline of the Los Angeles Times would be a sad reminder of this—it has long tried to compete with the New York Times for the title of the Most Serious Newspaper in the country, but its circulation area has become increasingly Hispanic—if the paper hadn’t been such an enthusiastic backer of the cause of its own destruction.

The conventional wisdom that says that the GOP must submit to the rising tide of Latinos. I have repeatedly argued that this is simply overblown. Despite their numbers, Hispanics are not the most formidable challenge any political party has ever confronted. They don’t have terribly charismatic leaders, they don’t have a determined and focused rank and file, and they don’t have much of a claim on the conscience of America. Their main political advantage so far has been that they’ve bored whites and blacks into inattention regarding illegal immigration.

In contrast to Hispanics, however, black opinion tends to swing (to the extent that this rather monolithic bloc swings at all) in the opposite direction to white opinion. For example, Ronald Reagan increased his share of the white vote from 56 percent in 1980 to 64 percent in 1984. But his share of the black vote dropped from 11 percent to 9 percent.

This tendency for Hispanics to follow broad white political trends (while remaining consistently to the left of whites) has shown up throughout the history of exit polling. Journalists always label Hispanics a crucial “swing vote”. But in fact they are more of a “flow vote” that fluctuates with the overall tide.

For example, the GOP candidates for the House did their best among Hispanics in Newt Gingrich’s big year of 1994, gaining 39 percent of the vote—which was also the same year they did their best among whites.

There may be an even dirtier secret reason for this behavior: Hispanics don’t particularly like blacks. In fact, nobody likes blacks as much as whites do. Everybody else around the world has certain prejudices against blacks—and they don’t feel terribly guilty about having them, either. Hispanics, for example, come from cultures in which people of 100 percent African descent are at the bottom of the social ladder, and everybody else tries to be perceived as whiter, or marry somebody whiter. Even a race warrior like President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela traded in his dark-skinned first wife for an Eastern European-looking blonde.

So the “Rainbow Coalition” may not be as formidable as its advocates imagine.

Nevertheless, the Obama Administration’s first two years make it even more unmistakable than ever that American politics are Balkanizing racially.

As I wrote in VDARE.com in 2002:

“… I am uncomfortable with the idea of the two major parties splitting into racial blocs.

“But there’s a simple solution. If you don’t want whites to act like a minority group—e.g. racially-conscious, bloc-voting, biased, prickly, led by racial racketeers constantly proclaiming their group’s victimization—then the government should stop making whites a minority through mass immigration.”

Needless to say, the Bush Administration ignored my advice and pursued the opposite policy. And probably that is still the GOP Establishment’s instinct, given the rumors that it intends to respond to the surging immigration issue, not by supporting a moratorium, but by urging a guest worker program.

What does the rest of Obama’s term hold for his party—and America?

Recently, the pragmatic domestic policy influence on Obama of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, a ferocious competitor dedicated to winning victories today, seems to be waning. It’s not that Emanuel wouldn’t mind putting millions of illegal immigrants on the path to voting Democratic, it’s just that he can’t see how to get away with it over the next few years.

Yet, the lawsuit against Arizona filed by Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder, a descendant of the mulatto elite of Barbados, represents the ascendancy of the Elect-a-New-People-to-Rule-the-Future side of Obama’s otherwise cautious personality.

A Time article of July 14 by Jay Newton-Small Will Obama’s Immigration Focus Hurt Democrats? reports:

“Back in 2007, when Rahm Emanuel was in charge of electing Democrats to the House, he famously marveled at how immigration reform had overtaken Social Security as ‘the third rail of American politics.’ … Instead, western Democrats—egged on by rather large swaths of their moderate white base—are growing increasingly nervous at the Administration’s twin push on immigration …”

The article quotes a “senior Democratic aide” as saying “The White House’s infatuation with immigration reform is a lose-lose proposal for Democrats this election year.”

I wonder if that “senior Democratic aide’s” initials are R.E.? Will we be seeing President Obama announcing that his Chief of Staff has decided to move on to spend more time with his family?

In part, the Obama-Holder strategy of attacking Arizona and pushing amnesty is based on old-fashioned Karl Rovian delusions about the Hispanic vote. Greg Sargent noted in the Washington Post:

“Obama’s immigration speech was partly driven by serious White House concern about the impact of softening Latino support for the president in major swing states like Nevada, Colorado and Florida.”

In other words, Obama realizes no more than George W. Bush did that he’s being lied to by self-interested Hispanic politicians and consultants about the size and motivations of the Hispanic vote. They are all prisoners ofthe dominant interpretation of reality.” The repeated failures of its predictions simply mean that its nostrums have not been tried hard enough yet.

Obama has lived almost his entire life in a bubble of entitlement and theory divorced from reality. My prediction: he will get an even bigger wake-up call than we’ve seen to date.

[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog. His new book, AMERICA’S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA’S "STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE", is available here.]

Sniper Shootout in Oakland

Sniper Shootout in Oakland : Police Negotiations Fail, Civil Unrest Begins California

Unrest in Oakland After BART Shooting Verdict

This is only a small taste of what is to come.

Liberal Racism

Liberal Racism

By Robin of Berkeley

The Berkeley/Oakland area was on high alert last week…but not because of a natural disaster, like an earthquake.

A jury was deciding the fate of a white police officer charged with killing a black male at a BART station. People all around town began preparing for riots, certain that if the verdict was “not guilty,” the streets would erupt with violence.
The police officer was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, a lesser charge than many hoped for, but still a prison sentence of years. The first night after the verdict, 83 people were arrested, which, as riots go, is pretty tame. Looters, however, made out like bandits.
In a sense, a bullet was dodged, but there has already been a huge cost. All week, employers were developing strategies for if there were mayhem. Public events were canceled.
What no one is doing is this: stating emphatically that riots are inexcusable, no matter what the verdict.
In fact, the opposite is occurring. The brainwashed masses are making excuses.
This is not the first time that riots have occurred relative to this incident. Mobs have already broken windows, looted stores, beat people up, and destroyed cars. The attitude then, as well as now, is that “we” have a right to riot.
Why? Why do certain groups have a right to riot? And why do others make excuses when livelihoods are ruined, millions of dollars are wasted, and innocents are hurt?
My opinion? Liberal racism.
A colleague said this to me the other day. “That police officer should be found guilty. But if he’s not, they have every a right to riot.”
She was simply expressing the typical liberal view. But let’s pick this apart.
If thousands of Jews or Chinese or white males looted stores and burned cars, would the public be so tolerant? I don’t think so. Are we really talking tolerance here, or something else entirely — a colonialist, superior attitude?
Put bluntly, when liberals say that “they” have a right to riot, what’s the implication here? Is it that blacks are primitive, out-of-control Neanderthals? Those Jews, Chinese, and white males are expected to have self-control. No such expectations exist for designated victim groups like blacks and Latinos.
By treating blacks as a special class, liberals marginalize and infantilize. Liberals also set the bar insultingly low.
Obama and his handlers knew that white liberal guilt could be exploited to their advantage. They realized that Obama would be insulated from scrutiny.
But it’s not just guilt; it’s also a white feeling of superiority. Because you have to see yourself as on top to offer special treatment to those on bottom.
Obama has been the Teflon President because of the color of his skin. Liberals are giving him a free ride.
We see it every day when criticism of Obama evokes cries of racism. But who are the real racists here?
Are the racists those conservatives who hold everyone accountable to the same standards? Who believe that people should be judged by their character and their behavior, not their race, creed, or color?
Or are the racists those white liberals who treat Obama like some delicate flower? While liberals still eviscerate George W. Bush, any judgment of Obama is off limits.
It’s not just whites who are enabling Obama by acting like his protectors. Blacks voted en masse for Obama. Sadly, what has he offered them?
From the start, it was obvious that Obama, though half-black, had never done anything for the black community. In Chicago, his actions hurt blacks.
Obama was a huge supporter of Tony Rezko, a notorious slumlord, now a felon. When Obama served in the state senate, black residents picketed Rezko’s offices to protest their rat-infested, unheated apartments.
And what has Obama done to help blacks since he’s been president? One of Obama’s first actions as president was eliminating the DC school voucher program that offered poor black kids the chance for a better life.
Obama and the Democrats have created record debt and crushed the economy. A depressed economy hits minority groups especially hard.
And then there is Obama’s push for amnesty for illegals. How is giving jobs to millions of illegals going to help blacks, who have unconscionably high unemployment rates?
But there is one perk Obama has afforded the black underclass — the right to behave brutally. Obama’s Justice Department dropped charges for those New Black Panthers who allegedly threatened and harassed people at election sites.
This encouragement to act out is deeply cynical and manipulative. It’s designed to control racial minorities and promote social unrest.
Although Obama has only agitated, not uplifted, Americans, most liberals regard him as their icon. To them, Obama is the Great Black Hope.
Liberals handle Obama with kid gloves. In the meantime, they turn a blind eye to his dangerous policies, like flirting with radical Islam. Liberals make excuses for the plummeting economy, blaming their usual bogeyman: conservatives.
They refuse to see Obama without the rose-colored glasses. Why? Because when it comes to Obama, liberals see a black man deserving of special treatment.
Will the real racist please stand up?
A frequent American Thinker contributor, Robin is a licensed psychotherapist and a recovering liberal in Berkeley. You can e-mail her via robinofberkeley@hotmail.com. Due to time constraints, she regrets that she may not respond to your e-mail.

59 Comments on “Liberal Racism

Storm of an Epoch

Storm of an Epoch

By Tad Wintermeyer

I have navigated over and around many storms over my years as a professional pilot. I have seen from the air squall lines, gust fronts, dry lines, rotor clouds, tornadoes, and hurricanes. None, however, frightened me as much as does the coming geopolitical storm. Nothing gives perspective on a storm better than altitude. The same is true in politics.
With sufficient reserves and altitude, it is possible to circumnavigate any storm. Few things are more beautiful or exhilarating than to glide past an exploding cumulonimbus storm cell at a safe distance. The crisp white scalloped edges belie the deadly power within. The cauliflowered heads rocket upward at a stratospheric pace. These aerial landmines are harmless at a distance. However, more than one craft has ventured too close, cut the corner too tight, shot a gap too narrow, and paid the ultimate price.
Above the dingy haze of politics, it is possible to see things as they really are. The United States is bankrupt — economically, politically, socially, morally, and spiritually. For too long, those in power have navigated this nation ever closer to disaster. Our nation is surrounded by landmines of our own making. The financial bailouts, corporate takeovers, energy takeover, and the health care takeover, are prime examples of the willful eunuchification of American exceptionalism. America as it once was is over. The utopian sucker hole of legislated equality promised a reality not possible on this plane of existence. So long as there are good and evil, there can be no utopia. So long as there is freedom to choose between the two, there is hope.
Those in Washington have maneuvered these United States into an extremely tenuous position. The squall line is dead ahead, and there is no room to turn around. The preceding shock waves that led the market’s decline and current unemployment levels are only harbingers of the coming tempest. America as we know it is out of altitude and out of gas. The inevitable is upon us. Where do those of us who subscribe to American exceptionalism turn to?
I choose to take hope in the coming storm. The gust-front has yet to hit. There is still a little more time to prepare. The current political wind is but a precursor of the impending fury — a gentle breeze. The dark power lords have conjured a fiction of the highest magnitude. Their cumulonimbus rhetoric has reached stratospheric levels. They thunderously hammer away on a meaningless political anvil: beating sense to shreds, reason to rancor. In blinding fashion, the left attacks the right and the right the left. Pols crack and pundits shake in a hail of fire and ice.

Neither suffix, delta nor rho, will matter in the coming storm. Each bows only to its gilded platform, upon which stands its utopian idol: power. Inherent in their worship is the belief that each one’s set of ideas can make man into their own image — that man is perfectible — that man is god and God is man. For many politicians, government is their religion, their compass — their navigation chart. This theology blinds politicians to the needs of those they represent. Political pursuit of power justifies the course they plot. Politicians consistently confuse their best interest with those of their constituents. Special interests cloud the collective vision from the hidden dangers ahead. Political expediency parlays meaningful change for quick votes. This is a religion of the most sinister form.

Belief in the theology of government, large or small, leads to a myopic vision of reality. The theology of government creates a sliding scale of reality. Good is what the government says is good, and evil likewise. History becomes what the government says it should be. Reality is what it won’t let us see. Viewing the world through the cataract of government dims reason and enslaves all within its purview. The theology of government is a lens that clouds perception and deadens the senses. Dependence on government for that which we are capable of achieving ourselves destroys the freedom to choose. Individualism is lost in a sea of monochromatic mediocrity.
Inherent in the freedom to choose is the belief that good and evil are immutable. I see it every day in my law practice. Be it rape, murder, robbery, or assault, all had a choice whether or not to commit the criminal act. None accidentally committed the crime. Government can’t make them choose to obey the law — only punish them for transgressing it. The maintenance of a lawful, law-abiding society must depend on the belief in right and wrong. Once that line is blurred, it is too late; the storm is already upon us.
I welcome this storm. The cleansing power of a storm is undeniable. Afterward, the air is fresh, the land verdant — the sky crystalline. The deadwood has fallen and the weak have succumbed. The flood will shed, and the river will wash the detritus from the sand. I know where I have placed my faith. I know that I cannot stop the wind. Nor catch the storm. But I can take refuge on the high ground, in the cleft of the Rock. I am ready for this storm, this end. Archangel, let loose the wind.
Tad Wintermeyer is a practicing attorney and airline transport rated professional pilot.

29 Comments on “Storm of an Epoch

Strength through homogeneity! The Rise Of European Nationalism in the West.

Strength through homogeneity!

The phrase “diversity is our strength,” touted ceaselessly by the extreme left, is a standing insult against white people. Do you think this independence day celebration in Estonia would be improved with more “diversity?”

A recent study published in the science pages of the New York Times says that civic engagement decreases as the racial/ethnic diversity of a neighborhood increases. The study was conducted by Robert Putnam, PhD, author of the book Bowling Alone. This well known and respected scholar was so shocked by his own results that he kept them a secret for years before publishing them. Click Here.

Translation:

Keeping the beauty of fatherland.
Fighting against the enemy:
Pay attention, pay attention,
Pay attention, pay attention!
If you believe in yourself,
In opinions of the wise,
In shoulders of the strong,
In mightiness of the elders,
In nimbleness of young men,
In sisters, brothers,
Above all in yourself,
Then you get better life……

The downside of diversity

A Harvard political scientist finds that diversity hurts civic life. What happens when a liberal scholar unearths an inconvenient truth?


(Illustration/ Keith Negley)

IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam — famous for “Bowling Alone,” his 2000 book on declining civic engagement — has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

“The extent of the effect is shocking,” says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.

The study comes at a time when the future of the American melting pot is the focus of intense political debate, from immigration to race-based admissions to schools, and it poses challenges to advocates on all sides of the issues. The study is already being cited by some conservatives as proof of the harm large-scale immigration causes to the nation’s social fabric. But with demographic trends already pushing the nation inexorably toward greater diversity, the real question may yet lie ahead: how to handle the unsettling social changes that Putnam’s research predicts.

“We can’t ignore the findings,” says Ali Noorani, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. “The big question we have to ask ourselves is, what do we do about it; what are the next steps?”

The study is part of a fascinating new portrait of diversity emerging from recent scholarship. Diversity, it shows, makes us uncomfortable — but discomfort, it turns out, isn’t always a bad thing. Unease with differences helps explain why teams of engineers from different cultures may be ideally suited to solve a vexing problem. Culture clashes can produce a dynamic give-and-take, generating a solution that may have eluded a group of people with more similar backgrounds and approaches. At the same time, though, Putnam’s work adds to a growing body of research indicating that more diverse populations seem to extend themselves less on behalf of collective needs and goals.

His findings on the downsides of diversity have also posed a challenge for Putnam, a liberal academic whose own values put him squarely in the pro-diversity camp. Suddenly finding himself the bearer of bad news, Putnam has struggled with how to present his work. He gathered the initial raw data in 2000 and issued a press release the following year outlining the results. He then spent several years testing other possible explanations.

When he finally published a detailed scholarly analysis in June in the journal Scandinavian Political Studies, he faced criticism for straying from data into advocacy. His paper argues strongly that the negative effects of diversity can be remedied, and says history suggests that ethnic diversity may eventually fade as a sharp line of social demarcation.

“Having aligned himself with the central planners intent on sustaining such social engineering, Putnam concludes the facts with a stern pep talk,” wrote conservative commentator Ilana Mercer, in a recent Orange County Register op-ed titled “Greater diversity equals more misery.”

Putnam has long staked out ground as both a researcher and a civic player, someone willing to describe social problems and then have a hand in addressing them. He says social science should be “simultaneously rigorous and relevant,” meeting high research standards while also “speaking to concerns of our fellow citizens.” But on a topic as charged as ethnicity and race, Putnam worries that many people hear only what they want to.

“It would be unfortunate if a politically correct progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social solidarity posed by diversity,” he writes in the new report. “It would be equally unfortunate if an ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism were to deny that addressing that challenge is both feasible and desirable.”

. . .

Putnam is the nation’s premier guru of civic engagement. After studying civic life in Italy in the 1970s and 1980s, Putnam turned his attention to the US, publishing an influential journal article on civic engagement in 1995 that he expanded five years later into the best-selling “Bowling Alone.” The book sounded a national wake-up call on what Putnam called a sharp drop in civic connections among Americans. It won him audiences with presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and made him one of the country’s best known social scientists.

Putnam claims the US has experienced a pronounced decline in “social capital,” a term he helped popularize. Social capital refers to the social networks — whether friendships or religious congregations or neighborhood associations — that he says are key indicators of civic well-being. When social capital is high, says Putnam, communities are better places to live. Neighborhoods are safer; people are healthier; and more citizens vote.

The results of his new study come from a survey Putnam directed among residents in 41 US communities, including Boston. Residents were sorted into the four principal categories used by the US Census: black, white, Hispanic, and Asian. They were asked how much they trusted their neighbors and those of each racial category, and questioned about a long list of civic attitudes and practices, including their views on local government, their involvement in community projects, and their friendships. What emerged in more diverse communities was a bleak picture of civic desolation, affecting everything from political engagement to the state of social ties.

Putnam knew he had provocative findings on his hands. He worried about coming under some of the same liberal attacks that greeted Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s landmark 1965 report on the social costs associated with the breakdown of the black family. There is always the risk of being pilloried as the bearer of “an inconvenient truth,” says Putnam.

After releasing the initial results in 2001, Putnam says he spent time “kicking the tires really hard” to be sure the study had it right. Putnam realized, for instance, that more diverse communities tended to be larger, have greater income ranges, higher crime rates, and more mobility among their residents — all factors that could depress social capital independent of any impact ethnic diversity might have.

“People would say, ‘I bet you forgot about X,’” Putnam says of the string of suggestions from colleagues. “There were 20 or 30 X’s.”

But even after statistically taking them all into account, the connection remained strong: Higher diversity meant lower social capital. In his findings, Putnam writes that those in more diverse communities tend to “distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.”

“People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’ — that is, to pull in like a turtle,” Putnam writes.

In documenting that hunkering down, Putnam challenged the two dominant schools of thought on ethnic and racial diversity, the “contact” theory and the “conflict” theory. Under the contact theory, more time spent with those of other backgrounds leads to greater understanding and harmony between groups. Under the conflict theory, that proximity produces tension and discord.

Putnam’s findings reject both theories. In more diverse communities, he says, there were neither great bonds formed across group lines nor heightened ethnic tensions, but a general civic malaise. And in perhaps the most surprising result of all, levels of trust were not only lower between groups in more diverse settings, but even among members of the same group.

“Diversity, at least in the short run,” he writes, “seems to bring out the turtle in all of us.”

The overall findings may be jarring during a time when it’s become commonplace to sing the praises of diverse communities, but researchers in the field say they shouldn’t be.

“It’s an important addition to a growing body of evidence on the challenges created by diversity,” says Harvard economist Edward Glaeser.

In a recent study, Glaeser and colleague Alberto Alesina demonstrated that roughly half the difference in social welfare spending between the US and Europe — Europe spends far more — can be attributed to the greater ethnic diversity of the US population. Glaeser says lower national social welfare spending in the US is a “macro” version of the decreased civic engagement Putnam found in more diverse communities within the country.

Economists Matthew Kahn of UCLA and Dora Costa of MIT reviewed 15 recent studies in a 2003 paper, all of which linked diversity with lower levels of social capital. Greater ethnic diversity was linked, for example, to lower school funding, census response rates, and trust in others. Kahn and Costa’s own research documented higher desertion rates in the Civil War among Union Army soldiers serving in companies whose soldiers varied more by age, occupation, and birthplace.

Birds of different feathers may sometimes flock together, but they are also less likely to look out for one another. “Everyone is a little self-conscious that this is not politically correct stuff,” says Kahn.

. . .

So how to explain New York, London, Rio de Janiero, Los Angeles — the great melting-pot cities that drive the world’s creative and financial economies?

The image of civic lassitude dragging down more diverse communities is at odds with the vigor often associated with urban centers, where ethnic diversity is greatest. It turns out there is a flip side to the discomfort diversity can cause. If ethnic diversity, at least in the short run, is a liability for social connectedness, a parallel line of emerging research suggests it can be a big asset when it comes to driving productivity and innovation. In high-skill workplace settings, says Scott Page, the University of Michigan political scientist, the different ways of thinking among people from different cultures can be a boon.

“Because they see the world and think about the world differently than you, that’s challenging,” says Page, author of “The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies.” “But by hanging out with people different than you, you’re likely to get more insights. Diverse teams tend to be more productive.”

In other words, those in more diverse communities may do more bowling alone, but the creative tensions unleashed by those differences in the workplace may vault those same places to the cutting edge of the economy and of creative culture.

Page calls it the “diversity paradox.” He thinks the contrasting positive and negative effects of diversity can coexist in communities, but “there’s got to be a limit.” If civic engagement falls off too far, he says, it’s easy to imagine the positive effects of diversity beginning to wane as well. “That’s what’s unsettling about his findings,” Page says of Putnam’s new work.

Meanwhile, by drawing a portrait of civic engagement in which more homogeneous communities seem much healthier, some of Putnam’s worst fears about how his results could be used have been realized. A stream of conservative commentary has begun — from places like the Manhattan Institute and “The American Conservative” — highlighting the harm the study suggests will come from large-scale immigration. But Putnam says he’s also received hundreds of complimentary emails laced with bigoted language. “It certainly is not pleasant when David Duke’s website hails me as the guy who found out racism is good,” he says.

In the final quarter of his paper, Putnam puts the diversity challenge in a broader context by describing how social identity can change over time. Experience shows that social divisions can eventually give way to “more encompassing identities” that create a “new, more capacious sense of ‘we,’” he writes.

Growing up in the 1950s in a small Midwestern town, Putnam knew the religion of virtually every member of his high school graduating class because, he says, such information was crucial to the question of “who was a possible mate or date.” The importance of marrying within one’s faith, he says, has largely faded since then, at least among many mainline Protestants, Catholics, and Jews.

While acknowledging that racial and ethnic divisions may prove more stubborn, Putnam argues that such examples bode well for the long-term prospects for social capital in a multiethnic America.

In his paper, Putnam cites the work done by Page and others, and uses it to help frame his conclusion that increasing diversity in America is not only inevitable, but ultimately valuable and enriching. As for smoothing over the divisions that hinder civic engagement, Putnam argues that Americans can help that process along through targeted efforts. He suggests expanding support for English-language instruction and investing in community centers and other places that allow for “meaningful interaction across ethnic lines.”

Some critics have found his prescriptions underwhelming. And in offering ideas for mitigating his findings, Putnam has drawn scorn for stepping out of the role of dispassionate researcher. “You’re just supposed to tell your peers what you found,” says John Leo, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. “I don’t expect academics to fret about these matters.”

But fretting about the state of American civic health is exactly what Putnam has spent more than a decade doing. While continuing to research questions involving social capital, he has directed the Saguaro Seminar, a project he started at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government that promotes efforts throughout the country to increase civic connections in communities.

“Social scientists are both scientists and citizens,” says Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, who sees nothing wrong in Putnam’s efforts to affect some of the phenomena he studies.

Wolfe says what is unusual is that Putnam has published findings as a social scientist that are not the ones he would have wished for as a civic leader. There are plenty of social scientists, says Wolfe, who never produce research results at odds with their own worldview.

“The problem too often,” says Wolfe, “is people are never uncomfortable about their findings.”

Michael Jonas is acting editor of CommonWealth magazine, published by MassINC, a nonpartisan public-policy think tank in Boston.

Officials say gunmen kill 17 at party in Mexico

Officials say gunmen kill 17 at party in Mexico

Sunday, July 18, 2010

(07-18) 23:32 PDT PIEDRAS NEGRAS, Mexico (AP) –

The gunmen did not say a word as they jumped from their cars and stormed the private party. They simply opened fire. When they were done, 17 people lay dead and 18 wounded.

Sunday’s massacre in the city of Torreon was ghastly, but no longer unprecedented in northern Mexico, a region that is slammed day after day by gruesome slayings that authorities attribute to an increasingly brutal battle between drug gangs feuding over territory.

Investigators had no suspects or information on a possible motive in the attack, but Coahuila, where Torreon is located, is among several northern Mexican states that have seen a spike in drug-related violence as the Gulf cartel and its former enforcers, the Zetas, fight for control of drug-trafficking routes.

The attack on the party came just three days after a car bomb killed several people in the northern city of Ciudad Juarez — and a little more than a month after assailants raided a drug-rehab center in the northern city of Chihuahua, killing 19 people in cold blood.

Television footage showed the patio of the house in Torreon streaked with bloodstains and white plastic chairs overturned beneath a party tent decorated with pictures of snowmen.

Several of the victims were young and some were women, police said, but their identities and ages had not yet been determined.

The assailants arrived in a convoy of vehicles, the Coahuila state Attorney General’s Office said in a statement. Police found more than 120 bullet casings at the scene, most of them from .223-caliber weapons.

Torreon is no stranger to violence.

In May, gunmen killed eight people at a bar in the city, while later that month a television station and the offices of a local newspaper came under fire. A pregnant woman was wounded in the attack on the offices of Noticias de El Sol de la Laguna.

Across northern Mexico, there have been increasing reports of mass shootings at parties, bars and rehab clinics.

In January, gunmen barged into a private party in the border city of Ciudad Juarez and killed 15, many of them high school or university students. Relatives say that attack was a case of mistaken identity, while state officials claim someone at the party was targeted, although they have not said who it was.

On Thursday, drug-gang members set off their first successful car bomb. They lured federal police and paramedics to an intersection in Ciudad Juarez by calling in a false report of a wounded police officer, and when the authorities were in place at the scene, they detonated the explosive. Three people were killed, including a federal officer and a private doctor who had rushed to help.

The FBI has sent a small team to the crime scene to offer technical assistance to the Mexican investigators, FBI spokeswoman Andrea Simmons said. She did not immediately offer more details. Mexican investigators have not said what type of explosive was used.

Officials say 24,800 people have been killed in drug-gang violence since President Felipe Calderon declared war on the cartels in December 2006, deploying soldiers and federal police to fight traffickers.

On Saturday, four municipal police officers were ambushed and killed in the Pacific coast resort city of Acapulco, state police said.

The government attributes much of the rise in violence to infighting among drug gangs, whose leadership has been splintered after the arrest of kingpins.

Federal police said in a statement Sunday they have arrested 1,626 people suspected of belonging to the command structures of Mexico’s drug gangs since Calderon launched his offensive. They said 622 of the detainees belong to the Gulf cartel and 304 to the Sinaloa cartel.

On Sunday, a judge formally charged an alleged leader of the Beltran Leyva cartel, Jose Gerardo Alvarez, with organized crime. Alvarez, who had a $2 million U.S. bounty on his head, was captured in April in a wealthy neighborhood on the outskirts of Mexico City.

The federal government has steadily wiped out the leadership of the once-powerful Beltran Leyva cartel. In December, cartel boss Arturo Beltran Leyva was killed in a gunbattle. Two of his brothers are behind bars.

A fourth brother, Hector Beltran Leyva, remains at large and is believed to be battling for control of the cartel against Edgar Valdez Villareal, a U.S.-born suspect known as “La Barbie.”

Mexican authorities say Alvarez partnered with Valdez in his quest for control of the gang.

___

Associated Press Writer Alexandra Olson in Mexico City contributed to this report.

Fresh race riots in France. African & Arab immigrants loot/torch historical city of Grenoble.

Fresh race riots in France. African & Arab immigrants loot/torch historical city of Grenoble.

Immigrants, mostly from Sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa, rioted again in France. This time in the city of Grenoble. France has seen race riots monthly for several years now.

Mobs torched cars, looted and burned stores, and attacked white people.

Click Here.

Just a few weeks ago, thousands of Asian immigrants marched in Paris to protest the violent crime committed by African immigrants. After the march a full scale riot erupted in parts of Paris. Mobs of African immigrants blocked sidewalks and alleys and battled groups of Asian immigrants walking home.

NBPP claims whites are not victims of black murderers.

NBPP claims whites are not victims of black murderers.

The militant NBPP is calling a murder in Newberry, SC a dragging death and a lynching. Both claims are completely false. The murder took place when two long time friends and co-workers got into an argument after an evening of heavy drinking together. The white friend shot and killed the black friend. He then drug the body down a dirt road apparently thinking it would obscure the identity of the victim. The body was then crudely hidden in a ditch.

The crime does not constitute a lynching or a “dragging death.” The victim was not dragged to death, nor was he “lynched.” A lynching, under South Carolina state law is when multiple perpetrators kill a victim together. Police saw the perp acted alone.

In extremely rare cases when a black person is murdered by a white person, it is automatically a major nationwide news story. However, white people are murdered daily by blacks and these crimes are quarantined to local news only, and often heavily censored. In many cases the media outright insults the victims by downplaying the crimes with phrases like “victim was in the wrong place at the wrong time.” Or saying a racially motivated murder was “a robbery gone bad,” when the murderer did not even take anything.

Here we see one of the leaders of the NBPP making the absurd claim that only blacks are the victims of interracial murders.

Here is a list of local news stories detailing brutal, savage black on white murders and attacks. All of these are from one 30 day period in late 2009.

Continue Reading »

Tea Party Nation reaffirms opposition to racism

Tea Party Nation reaffirms opposition to racism

By Matt DeLong

Updated at 11:21 a.m.

Fresh on the heels of the banishment of Tea Party Express and founder Mark Williams on Sunday, another tea party group is reaffirming opposition to racism.

Following Williams’s satirical mock letter to Abraham Lincoln from NAACP President Ben Jealous in which Williams called slavery a “great gig,” Tea Party Nation issued a statement Monday appearing to condemn Williams without mentioning his name. The group says it has a “zero tolerance policy against racism” and “will ban any members who show themselves to be racist.”

Tea Party Nation is perhaps best known for hosting the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville earlier this year, where the keynote address was delivered by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. Former CNN host Lou Dobbs has signed on to headline the group’s next convention. The issue rose to prominence last week after the NAACP passed a resolution condemning racism within the tea party movement at its national convention.

Read Tea Party Nation’s full statement after the jump.

As most of you are aware, one of the leaders in the tea party movement posted a controversial blog many took to be racist.The Tea Party Movement is not racist. Tea Party Nation and many other groups have repudiated racism and racists. If you look on our website’s FAQ’s, you can see we have a no tolerance policy against racism. We have banned members who were racists and will ban any members who show themselves to be racist.

Tea Party Nation welcomes all patriots, regardless of gender, ethnicity or national origin to join us and help save this great country.

The Rape of Europe

The Rape of Europe

The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant (12 October) that young Europeans who love freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will no longer exist 20 years from now. Whilst sitting on a terrace in Berlin, Broder pointed to the other customers and the passers-by and said melancholically: “We are watching the world of yesterday.”

Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate himself. “I am too old,” he said. However, he urged young people to get out and “move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable.”

Many Germans and Dutch, apparently, did not wait for Broder’s advice. The number of emigrants leaving the Netherlands and Germany has already surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. One does not have to be prophetic to predict, like Henryk Broder, that Europe is becoming Islamic. Just consider the demographics. The number of Muslims in contemporary Europe is estimated to be 50 million. It is expected to double in twenty years. By 2025, one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families. Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for new-born boys in Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and other major European cities.

Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose islamization. “The dominant ethos,” he told De Volkskrant, “is perfectly voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated. She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death.”

In a recent op-ed piece in the Brussels newspaper De Standaard (23 October) the Dutch (gay and self-declared “humanist”) author Oscar Van den Boogaard refers to Broder’s interview. Van den Boogaard says that to him coping with the islamization of Europe is like “a process of mourning.” He is overwhelmed by a “feeling of sadness.” “I am not a warrior,” he says, “but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”

As Tom Bethell wrote in this month’s American Spectator: “Just at the most basic level of demography the secular-humanist option is not working.” But there is more to it than the fact that non-religious people tend not to have as many children as religious people, because many of them prefer to “enjoy” freedom rather than renounce it for the sake of children. Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose. Hence they will rather accept submission than fight. Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to be raped than to resist.

“If faith collapses, civilization goes with it,” says Bethell. That is the real cause of the closing of civilization in Europe. Islamization is simply the consequence. The very word Islam means “submission” and the secularists have submitted already. Many Europeans have already become Muslims, though they do not realize it or do not want to admit it.

Some of the people I meet in the U.S. are particularly worried about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. They are correct when they fear that anti-Semitism is also on the rise among non-immigrant Europeans. The latter hate people with a fighting spirit. Contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is related to anti-Americanism. People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit.

This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of European “islamophobes” who dare to talk about what they see happening around them. West Europeans have to choose between submission (islam) or death. I fear, like Broder, that they have chosen submission – just like in former days when they preferred to be red rather than dead.

China’s High-Wire Act: Working Without a Net

China’s High-Wire Act: Working Without a Net

July 18, 2010

China is walking a very shaky highwire right now as it comes to grips with its holdings of US bonds. One false move…one mistake…and they might fall off that highwire. But that fall might also bring down the entire circus tent.

China, the world’s largest economy, is the world’s largest holder of United States Treasury securities. In May 2009, the US owed China $772 billion. ..likely much more now. That places them in the position to entirely control the economic system of the United States. If Washington doesn’t go along with Chinese desires and directives, China could collapse the DC government overnight.

How, you say?

The world bond market is made up of debt instruments. The world’s reserve currency is the US Dollar. All China would need to do is sell off a small percentage of its US Treasuries at a steep discount. If it made its transaction at the end of a business day, or after hours, the bond market would collapse the very next business day. Other nations, investors, insurance companies and pension funds would see the precipitous decline of the US bonds and rush to market in a desperate attempt to sell and get SOMETHING…rather than waiting until after the market collapses and getting NOTHING.

China understands diplomacy and making appearances. That is why China allows Washington to bluff and bluster about monetary policy and the revaluation of the Yuan. They are allowing DC politicians to save face. But remember the old saying… “actions speak louder than words?”

China is dumping US Treasury debt instruments as fast as they can. At the same time, they are buying gold bullion in measured amounts.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is trying to replace the dollar as the world reserve currency. We used to think that the Euro had a chance. But the Euro is nearly as bad off as the dollar.

Big governments are as addicted to fiat money as a heroin junkie, so looking to existing nations for answers is futile. Which of them would actually repudiate their debt, their central planning and their currency? Which of them would switch to a gold/silver money system?

Answer: Possibly China and India. That’s because they are the lenders, not the borrowers.

Answer #2: Possibly an American state that secedes.

We have written previously about a Chinese strategy in which China gets their own people to monetize their currency. Click HERE to learn more.

The National Inflation Association has just published a six-minute video about this issue. Watch and learn.

When you bow your head for your bedtime prayers tonight, pray for the Chinese leaders. Pray that they don’t slip and fall before you have bought enough gold and silver coins to protect yourself.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Edwin Vieira on Secession, New World Order and the American Republic

Edwin Vieira on Secession, New World Order and the American Republic

July 19, 2010

(Editor’s Note: My comments on Mr. Vieira’s anti-secession article will follow this posting.)

Pastor Chuck Baldwin’s recent commentary, “Breakup of U.S. Is Inevitable”, sets out a provocative thesis in support of “secession”. Essentially, his argument is that:

(i) The United States is about to break up into small fragments.
(ii) This disintegration fits into the plan of the global elitists to construct a “New World Order” and a “world government”.
(iii) American patriots should welcome, participate in, assist, and even accelerate this breakup through “secession” of one or more States. And,
(iv) “Secession” will defeat the New World Order, at least with respect to the “seceding” States.

It may simply be that my mind is not sufficiently plastic to wrap itself around this argument—but I sense that something is missing here.

Now, I agree with Pastor Baldwin that “freedom-loving people are reaching a point of frustration—and even fury”. But I fear that he makes rather a large leap of logic to conclude that “State secession is, very properly, the last best option for freedomists to maintain fidelity to the principles of liberty”.

First, Pastor Baldwin asserts that “[t]he breakup of the US in inevitable! Short of another Great Awakening, nothing can stop it.” Well, I wonder if anything “in the course of human events” (as the Declaration of Independence put it) is truly “inevitable”, if enough people, sufficiently committed to another outcome, oppose it. And, as Pastor Baldwin himself correctly observes, “freedom-loving people are reaching a point of frustration—and even fury”. So maybe a new “Great Awakening”, in the political sense, is actually emerging.

Besides, it appears that Pastor Baldwin’s analysis may be mixing apples with oranges. For instance, he states that “[i]t is a historical fact that no empire can sustain itself. And America is more and more becoming a global empire.” “Folks, this new American empire is not sustainable. Mark it down: the American empire will follow every other notable empire of antiquity and collapse of its own weight. The signs are already ubiquitous.” To which I say: Amen! But is “the American empire” actually America; or is it the twisted, unconstitutional, unholy perversion of America that has been temporarily imposed upon WE THE PEOPLE by the globalists in our midst in aid of their own megalomaniacal schemes for world hegemony? And if “the American empire” were to collapse—as I, for one, anticipate that it will—why should the real America, founded upon the quite anti-imperialistic principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, have to collapse with it? Even more to the point, why should any patriot want the real America to collapse? Is it not possible that, with and even because of the collapse of “the American empire”, the real America could be restored and rejuvenated? And would not that be a desirable result?

In addition, if Pastor Baldwin is correct (as I believe he is) that “no empire can sustain itself”, then why should we conclusively presume that the global empire of the New World Order could “sustain itself”, or perhaps even come into being in the first place? It would seem that, the larger the empire, the weaker it must be, and that therefore prognostications of collapse will most likely be accurate when the imperialists attempt to impose their structure upon the entire world.

Second, Pastor Baldwin tells us that “[g]lobalists are already planning America’s breakup. Indeed, their plans for the future global economy DEMAND that America fracture.” Now, there can be no doubt that, on this score, Pastor Baldwin is accurate. The globalists’ New World Order cannot survive, or even come into existence, with an intact, economically and militarily strong, and legally independent (that is, sovereign) America standing against it. America frustrated the globalists’ first scheme for “world government”—the League of Nations. And although America was roped in to their next scheme—the United Nations—a large proportion of her population has always been (and now remains) at least suspicious of, and even openly antagonistic to, that institution. So, if America cannot be absorbed into some supra-national “halfway house” to global government, such as the projected North American Union, the globalists would like to see her balkanized into a number of mutually quarrelsome mini-states that they can manage politically by the age-old device of “divide and rule”.

My question to Pastor Baldwin, though, is: “Divide and rule” being the globalists’ own strategy for bringing America down and setting the New World Order up, why should patriots assist them, through “secession” or in any other way? As Sun Tzu taught, “the highest form of generalship is to baulk the enemy’s plans”, not to accede to, let alone to aid and abet, them. See Sun Tzu on the Art of War, Lionel Giles translation (Shanghai, China, 1910), Chapter III, § 3, at 17.

True enough, if “secession” were a way “to baulk the enemy’s plans”, things would be different. But that would depend upon the practicality of “secession” for that purpose. Pastor Baldwin
asserts that “all of those who want to parade around and pontificate about the ‘unconstitutionality’ and ‘impracticality’ of secession can do so to their hearts’ content. It changes nothing. The breakup is coming.” Well, “[t]he breakup [may be] coming”—but, even if it is, that does not necessarily compel the conclusion that “secession” is the best way, or even any way, to deal with the situation. Certainly, if “secession” were both constitutional and practical, it would be worthy of consideration. Under some extreme circumstances, “secession” would constitute a possible option, even were it unconstitutional, if it were nonetheless practical. But if “secession” is both unconstitutional and impractical, how can it be (as Pastor Baldwin claims) “the last best option for freedomists to maintain fidelity to the principles of liberty”? If “secession” cannot be shown to be workable, it is not a viable option at all—unless one subscribes to “the Divine Wind” approach to national defense.

Also, I suspect that, far from fearing “secession”, the globalists would actually welcome it, because they anticipate that a single “seceding” State or even a gaggle of “seceding” States could not possibly stand up to the New World Order. And every move towards “secession” would accelerate the breakup of America upon which (even Pastor Baldwin agrees) the globalists’ plans depend.

I believe that an united America, operating according to her Constitution and uncompromisingly asserting her national sovereignty under the Declaration of Independence, could successfully fend off the New World Order—although, perhaps, it might be a long-drawn-out and close-run thing. I believe that the globalists think so, too, and are doubtlessly sore disturbed by that distinct possibility. But what lone State or little group of States could put up such resistance? That one or a few States (in Pastor Baldwin’s words) “with the foresight to recognize the rise of tyranny and globalism as it approaches, [might] muster the courage and fortitude to do what principled patriots and lovers of liberty have always done: draw their line in the sand for freedom” would not, unfortunately, be enough. Something sufficiently strong must stand behind any such “line in the sand” to keep the New World Order from crossing it at will. As Mao Tse-tung rightly opined, “‘[p]olitical power grows out of the barrel of a gun’”, not out of abstract “line[s drawn] in the sand”. Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-tung (Peking, China, 1966), at 61. The Second Amendment agrees (although on a much more principled basis): “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” And Article 13 of Virginia’s Declaration of Rights is even more precise: “[A] well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state”. “[L]ine[s] in the sand”, without lead and steel—and, I should add, silver and gold—in the hands of “the people” to back them up, are as evanescent as gnats and of as little consequence.

At the present moment, any State which attempts to “secede” will simply be jumping from the frying pan into the fire, because no State is prepared—in terms of territorial expanse, size of population, natural resources, economic development, and especially military preparedness—for both “secession” and subsequent protracted conflict with the globalists and their New World Order. For instance, at the present moment no State (as I have pointed out repeatedly) has taken the first step either towards actually adopting an alternative economically sound currency (to free her from the Federal Reserve System) or towards actually revitalizing her Militia (to provide her with true “homeland security”), let alone both—and without which two reforms, at a minimum, all calls for “secession” hold about as much water as a sieve. If there is a single State which is now ready, politically and practically, for “secession”, I should appreciate having someone identify that State.

And if, as I suspect, no such State exists, then I should appreciate having someone explain precisely how any State can be made ready for “secession” in the near future. How “secession” might actually be accomplished, according to a plan the efficacy of which is verifiable or falsifiable, is, to my pedestrian mind, more important than whether “secession” might theoretically be a good idea—because if “secession” cannot be made to work very soon, it hardly seems worth discussing so late in the day.

In short, I should think that, in the absence of a practical blueprint for “secession” that shows not only how “secession” will come about but also precisely how it will “baulk the enemy’s plans” as to the New World Order, the only prudent course for patriots is to do whatever can be done to retake America—as a whole—State by State, to restore her to true constitutional government, and to reassert her sovereignty under the Declaration of Independence.

© 2010 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserved

Your faithful Editor responds:

Mr. Vieira has a long record of opposing secession. He has written extensively about the constitutionality of secession, and has concluded that it is not possible. Of course I disagree with many of Vieira’s opinions.

Mr. Vieira also has his educational pedigree from Harvard, one of the very universities that helps fill the District of Columbia with eager and willing big-government sycophants. It would be indelicate of me to write him off as a Yankee lawyer predisposed to protecting the interests of Harvard and the DC gang. Indelicate…not necessarily incorrect. But one can be right on some issues and wrong on others.

I am far less concerned about the machinations of the New World Order crowd than Vieira and Baldwin.

Vieira’s assertion that America could resist the New World Order with adherence to its Declaration of Independence and Constitution is naivete at its highest exhibition. What he omits is that the Declaration of Independence is a document that asserts the sovereignty of thirteen “free and independent States.” Jefferson’s label of the “United States of America” was a decription of states united under a common purpose, not a new nation. There was no new nation at that moment. Even under the Articles of Confederation that were ratified after the war, the states were independent and sovereign nations.

So, a Declaration of Independence is only fit for a state asserting its sovereignty against the tyranny of an empire. It is absurd for a fifty-state conglomeration of un-sovereign serf states to make noises about independence when they cannot muster the courage to become individually sovereign once more.

As to the efficacy of the Constitution, I refer you once again to the Lysander Spooner epic work “No Treason.” Spooner proves unerringly and irrefutably that the US Constitution has not now, nor ever at any time, held status as a legally enforceable document. So, I find that Vieira’s reliance on a constitutional argument is fatally flawed from its foundational premise.

Keeping a nation of fifty states and over 300 million people together as a single national unit has proven unworkable. When “We The People” was written by Thomas Jefferson, the population of the thirteen colonies was less than 3 million. So, each state was only a few hundred thousand souls. Smaller units of government more closely available to the people always function more efficiently. So, from the most elemental argument, smaller states are inherently more desirable than big nations.

Vieira is entirely correct that no state can secede without the power of the purse and the power of the sword. He is also correct to assert that no state possesses either of these powers and that no state is even preparing to secede.

The practical blueprint for secession that Vieira desires is quite simple, but not found in Baldwin’s article. But here it is:

1. Establish a money system based only upon gold and silver. That is the power of the purse.
2. Re-establish the “well-regulated militia.” That is the power of the sword.
3. Call a constitution convention in the state to rewrite the existing state constitution into a document of governance fit for a nation.
4. Draft a Declaration of Independence and an Ordinance of Secession.
5. Present the Declaration and Ordinance to the proper Federal authorities.

Done! Secession completed. Now the REAL work begins.

The practical blueprint for secession omits the practical realities of politics. To wit, no state government will consider secession until Washington’s system collapses. No state will voluntarily secede until the economic system is so hopelessly, irrecoverably destroyed that Washington can offer nothing more than hyperinflation and martial law. And even in the face of that desperate situation, only a handful of states will secede. The rest will meekly await their orders from their DC masters.

In conclusion, Vieira has deemed secession both unconstitutional and impractical. I assert that while secession is presently impractical, the constitutionality of secession is irrelevant.

Secession is the Hope for Mankind. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Finally a Debate between McCain and Hayworth

Finally a Debate between McCain and Hayworth

by James Buchanan

Traitor, one down, one to go.

After refusing to do a debate with J.D. Hayworth for over six months, John McCain finally condescended to do a debate –on extremely short notice –and only if the spoiler candidate, Jim Deakin were included. The GOP Arizona primary election is still over a month away on August 24th.

John McCain has received millions and millions of dollars in special interest money from the same old big corporations that buy his vote every six years. McCain has used that money to buy commercials to smear Hayworth as much as possible. After months of smearing, McCain recently had his biggest lead over Hayworth in months (about 50 to 30). Hayworth was within five percent of McCain at two times earlier in the election.

It should be noted that the telephone survey polls rely on landlines, which means that young and middle-aged people, who primarily use cell phones, are unlikely to be included in the polls. Unfortunately the Arizona election is an open primary, which means that large numbers of liberals can pretend to be Republicans (just like McCain does himself) and vote for McCain.

Considering that the biggest issue in Arizona for the last six month has been illegal immigration, it’s hard to imagine that more Arizonans are not upset about McCain’s past attempt to pass an Amnesty Bill in 2007. This suggests the polls may be considerably off and that McCain is only getting 50 percent of the vote from very old people with landlines, who get all their information from TV commercials and none from the Internet. (more…)

Tyrant

Tyrant

http://downwithjugears.blogspot.com/
I’ve never liked niggers. Never.

Long before I’d heard anything about them from anyone, I didn’t like them. Heck, the first time I ever smacked one was when I was 7 years old.

It wasn’t just their looks, it was the way they behaved. I found it extremely offensive and wrong. If there was something lowlife going on, or something bad had happened, you could bet your bottom dollar there was a black behind it.

Because of Dad’s profession we moved a lot, and were all over the map. But we always ended up back in California, which was and is a coon capitol of this country. Because of this, I was exposed to them far more than the average white American, and came to understand how the mind of the monkoid works, and just how alien it is to the way whites think.

To a monkoid, everything around them is a potential scam..something to either use, steal or destroy. Ownership means nothing to them. For like the Hispanic, they believe that something is yours only if you can defend it. To these lowlifes there is no such thing as intrinsic right to ownership. Just because you worked and paid for something or built it, doesn’t mean you get to keep it. If a nigger wants it, he’s got a right to take it from you if he can get away with it.

This is chimp logic. Exactly the way chimp society functions in the bush. This mind set is the main reason why all third world countries have failed and will always fail to prosper and advance. Without the rewards of hard work being secure, no one wants to work…especially if you can steal what you want and need without working.

This mindset is evil. There’s no other term for it. Evil. And the one nigger in this entire country that epitomizes the black mindset is Barack Hussein Obama.

He is without doubt the most evil primate I’ve ever seen. I despise that buck with a purple passion. Just the sight of him makes my blood boil. I don’t like hating anyone. Hate is like a cancer of the soul. It feeds on the hater. It’s bad news. Every person should take great care not to get consumed by hatred in this dire time, because in the end, hate will destroy you. But there are some things in this country today that no sane man of morals can fail to hate, and Barack Hussein Obama is near the top of the list.

He is a shining example of just how low niggers can sink if given the power. Obama has that same hate-filled mind set that all American blacks have toward whites. He despises America, despises whites, and despises freedom.

Also like all blacks, he cannot handle power. To Obama, power is a vehicle for his personal agendas and not a tool for helping the nation. Since he took office, he has run roughshod over the wishes and rights of the American people repeatedly. And he’s getting worse.

A person would have to be a complete idiot not to see what he’s planning for us in the very near future. I still can’t wrap my head around the fact that this ape is actually president of the United States. This is an outrage beyond my mind’s ability to accept.

When he first appeared out of nowhere to run for president, I laughed at first, thinking there was no way in hell that the American people were so stupid that they’d elect a monkoid for president, especially after suffering at the hands of blacks now for so many decades. But I forgot the power of long-range propaganda. The minds of America’s youth have been poisoned by liberal slogans and lies for most of their lives now, thanks to our communized schools, and this brainwashing was reflected at the polls. While whites over 30 voted against him, all whites below thirty were rabid supporters.

I almost died of shock and horror when that bubble-lip got elected, and that very day I sent out a ton of emails to every liberal I knew, telling them that they’d rue the day they elected it. And they have.

When I first sent out those emails, I got several replies telling me that I didn’t know what I was talking about, and that I was just a racist. Recently however, I’ve received a couple of emails from these same people, apologizing to me and admitting that I was dead right about that burrhead, and how they wished they had never heard the name Obama.

People need to remember that Obama isn’t his real name anyway. It’s Barry Soetero. He’s an 80′s radical nigger who spent his early years studying Marxism and the revolutionary tactics and methods of Che Guivera and Alinsky, dreaming of a day when he could destroy white America.

I really don’t comprehend how he was allowed to run for office using that phoney name to begin with. It’s one of those “African names” that blacks so love to use when they supposedly convert to Islam. Of course 99 percent of all these so-called black converts have never even read the Koran, and in fact can’t read to begin with. They joined just to be a pain in the ass and show other blacks that they reject the white man’s God and his lifestyle.

Never mind that we support these beasts with that lifestyle, they still hate us for it. In fact one black activist was recently quoted as saying that all white babies should be strangled with their own umbilical cords. The unreasoning hatred that all niggers have for us is bone deep, and Obama is no different. And because of this, he is the most dangerous monkoid alive.

History teaches the wise among us that there has never been a black man that could handle any amount of power, and that there has never been a black that willingly stepped down when his term was over. They’ve all had to be shot out of the chair. The problem with Obama is that those that run things behind the scenes have been quickly consolidating his power for him, until he is now the most powerful president we ever had..and the most ruthless. And once he declares martial law..and he will..he will start on a campaign of white genocide that will terrify the whole world.

I admit that McCain was almost as bad as Obama, and that the American people were set up by those that choose our candidates. They were forced to either pick Obama..an unknown, or that fat weasel McCain who is on record as pro-wetback and pro-NAFTA highway. As a person, McCain is a son of a bitch. He is just another arrogant elitist who is far more concerned about his own personal wealth and power than the welfare of this nation. A career politician.

Well, in a perfect world America would have rejected both candidates and wrote in a better man. But being the lazy, apathetic pricks they are, Americans voted for that turd Obama instead. Just as the enemies of this nation predicted they would. Obama is a tyrant in the making, and mark my words, he’ll go down in history alongside Lenin, Stalin, and Mao as one of the most evil, murderous men that ever lived. Remember, every one of those men were also Marxists, and murdered countless millions when they took over, through the mass executions of all dissenters. We’re next.

I get my insights from history. It will teach a person a great deal if he’ll only listen. And so far my predictions about leaders, movements and events over the twenty five years have been dead-on. My long time readers can attest to this. I’m not psychic, I’m simply using common sense and walking into this mess with my eyes wide open, trying to warn as many people as I can that all hell is about to break loose in this country. The tyrant will begin his reign of terror very soon now. God help us all.

-The Lone Haranguer