The British State vs. The BNP—The Post-Modern Tyranny of “Human Rights” – “Nic Careem, [Email him]a former Labour activist from Camden in north London, who is now with the Conservatives, said he originally argued that black and Asian people should join the BNP en mass [sic] to cause chaos and expose the extent of racism inside the party of Nick Griffin.” In other words, the BNP is to be flooded with non-whites, who will then use further legal action—assuming the internal structures of the party are insufficient—to destroy it.

The British State vs. The BNP—The Post-Modern Tyranny of “Human Rights”

[Peter Brimelow writes: The U.S. may shortly have “Hate Crime” legislation, which will of course immediately metastasize into an attack on “hate speech”. Wanna bet that what is happening in the U.K., described below by a distinguished British libertarian, can’t happen here?)

By Sean Gabb

Also by Sean Gabb: England: The Peasants are Revolting

On Monday, August 24th 2009, the British Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) began legal proceedings against the British National Party (BNP). Its cause of action is that the BNP restricts membership to white people—"indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’" plus "those we regard as closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the European race also resident in Britain.".[Constitution Of The British National Party Eighth Edition, published November 2004(PDF)] (Which is interpreted to include Jews—thus one BNP elected official, Pat Richardson, a local councilor, is Jewish).  

The BNP rule is said to be illegal under the Race Relations Act 1976 as amended in 2000. If successful, the court action will force the BNP to open its membership to all applicants regardless of their colour.

This is a politically-motivated prosecution. The BNP has long upset the people who now rule Britain. Its denunciations of mass-immigration and of multiculturalism disrupt what would otherwise be an almost smooth wall of praise—or at least of caution—by the other parties.

Despite universal condemnation in the media, the BNP has made considerable gains during the past few years in local elections, and managed to win two seats in June this year to the European Parliament. It may win a seat in the British Parliament at the next general election. Stopping the BNP is high on the agenda of the powers that be.

This being said, shutting down a political party simply because it dissents from the established multicultural faith is not something that is yet done in Britain. It is too openly an attack on freedom of speech. It may also be illegal under the Human Rights Act 1998, which enacts the European Convention on Human Rights into British law.

Nevertheless, the party stands to be ruined partly by the costs of legal action, and partly by the effects of losing the legal action.

These effects have been clearly spelled out by some of the BNP’s enemies. According to the Blog of Operation Black Vote,

“Nic Careem, [Email him]a former Labour activist from Camden in north London, who is now with the Conservatives, said he originally argued that black and Asian people should join the BNP en mass [sic] to cause chaos and expose the extent of racism inside the party of Nick Griffin.”

In other words, the BNP is to be flooded with non-whites, who will then use further legal action—assuming the internal structures of the party are insufficient—to destroy it.

This attack on the BNP is abhorrent for a number of reasons.

  • First, it is indirectly an attack on freedom of speech.

We in Britain are endlessly told nowadays that freedom of speech does not involve the right to preach hatred and “intolerance”. But it does. Freedom of speech means the right to say anything at all on any public issue, and to make any recommendation on what the law should be.

I was born into a Britain where this understanding was broadly accepted. I live now in a country where it is not. Thus Simon Woolley [Email him] of Operation Black Vote dismisses freedom of speech as an almost sacred cow. He even appeals for support to the majesty of the British Constitution:

“Over centuries our unwritten constitution has given us a framework for our democracy. From Magna Carta to the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, our democracy has evolved to reflect our changing times. This framework gives us a democracy which, for all its limitations, seeks to balance individual freedoms with fairness and tolerance.”

In the technical sense, Woolley may be right. Being unwritten, the British Constitution is whatever the authorities decide it to be.

But his claim is irrelevant. A constitution does not legitimise oppression. Rather, it is legitimate so far as it protects rights. If the British Constitution no longer guarantees freedom of speech, so much the worse for the Constitution.

  • Second, as said, the authorities are frightened to make a direct attack on freedom of speech. Instead, they are relying on laws that abolish freedom of association.

But this is barely less important within the liberal tradition than freedom of speech. The two rights complement each other. Freedom of speech is the right to say anything. Freedom of association involves the right to propagate what is said. It means the right of people to come together for any purpose that does not involve aggression against others.

Obviously, it also means the right not to associate. Laws imposing equal access to employment, or paid services, or membership of private associations, are not an extension of rights, but a denial of rights. By forcing people to associate with persons whom they would otherwise reject, anti-discrimination laws are a form of coerced association. They also allow dissident organisations to be taken over and destroyed.

  • Third, if the form of the attack is hypocritical, so is the substance. The BNP is not the only organisation that seeks to confine its membership to members of a particular race. But it is the only organisation the EHRC is taking to court.

The Lincolnshire Black Police Association, for example, declares on its website —rather, it declares on its section of the official web site of the  Lincolnshire Police Force—that

“Membership applications for the LBPA are invited from everybody. Full Membership is available to all Black Minority Ethnic staff of the Lincolnshire Police. Associate Membership is open to ALL members of the Lincolnshire Police and outside agencies who wish to support the work of the LBPA.”

I am told that these confessions of racial discrimination are being hurriedly taken down from the Internet. However, the BNP has published a selection of screen shots from the Lincolnshire and other branches of the Black Police Association. The EHRC has so far refused even to acknowledge complaints of this racial discrimination.

And even if the Black Police Association should take down the offending words and open its full membership to all, there is no chance of its being flooded by hostile whites. There are no white equivalents of Operation Black Vote or other ethnic advocacy groups.

Any whites groups that did form would soon be prosecuted or harassed out of existence. Any individual whites who joined would themselves be evangelists of the multicultural faith. If not, they would be chased out with violence or threats of violence that the modern Politically Correct British police—memorably described by  purged National Review editor John O’Sullivan as “the paramilitary wing of the Guardian, the leading left-wing newspaper—would now do nothing to investigate.

  • Fourth, it is at least interesting to see how the language of rights has been perverted into a cover for oppression. The Equality and Human Rights Commission promotes equality by discriminating against whites, and protects human rights by attacking freedom of association as a means of neutering freedom of speech.

It is also interesting that the EHRC Commissioner overseeing the BNP prosecution is John Wadham. He was once Director of Liberty, which is supposed to be the main independent guardian in this country of civil and political rights.

At a public meeting in 2001, I accused Mr Wadham of not caring about the liberties of anyone perceived to be on the political “right”. This sent him into a rhetorical frenzy. A few weeks later, I felt almost guilty at how roughly I had treated him when I read this in a letter of his to The Daily Telegraph:

[H]uman rights are primarily about limiting the power of the central state in its dealing with the individual citizen.”

According to the accounts of the body that the EHRC replaced, Mr Wadham’s salary in the year to the 31st March 2008 was £78,548. [VDARE.COM: roughly $127,735 US] I will limit my comments on this fact to observing that his salary—and it has probably risen by a third in the past 18 months—is at least three times his probable worth in any market-based employment.

By way of a conclusion, I feel I ought to give my opinion on the BNP. This is that I fear its success.

The next Conservative Government will fail to reverse the disasters that Labour has brought on the country. This is because the Conservatives do not even intend to try for a counter-revolution. When the failure has become manifest, people will turn to the only alternative party that has forthrightly denounced the Labour revolution and has an existing electoral base. This will be the BNP.

I fear that the BNP will, by default, become the only viable champion of counter-revolution.

Now, I am not frightened that the BNP is a party of national socialists, and that its leaders are counting the days till they can rip off their business suits, to show the black and red uniforms beneath. Under its present leader, Nick Griffin, the BNP has become a white nationalist party. The party believes in the expulsion of illegal immigrants, an in some voluntary repatriation of non-whites who are legally here, and in dismantling the Equal Opportunities police state from which people like Mr Wadham benefit. Other than this, a BNP Government might easily show more respect for the forms of a liberal constitution than have the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown—after all, this would not be difficult.

The problem is that the BNP and much of its leading personnel used to be national socialists. There are too many published statements in praise of Hitler or denouncing the Jews.

Of course, people change their opinions over time. Middle-aged men are not necessarily to be judged on what they said or wrote in their late teens.

That excuse has been made and accepted for the Ministers in the Labour Government. Many of these in their younger days were Trotskyite street bullies. Peter Mandelson, who is effectively deputy Prime Minister, joined the Young Communist League three years after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, and used to sell the Communist Morning Star. John Reid, who was a Home Secretary in the Blair Government, was a member of the Communist Party in his late twenties, and was noted for his admiration of Josef Stalin. It would be easy to fill an article with the disreputable pasts of those who have ruled this country since 1997.

If there were any fairness in politics, they would be regarded as no less disreputable than the leaders of the BNP.

But there is no fairness in politics. A man can deny the Soviet holocaust—or even admit that it happened but try to justify it—and remain in good standing with the media and educational Establishments. The slightest whisper of approval for the lesser horrors of National Socialism, and a man is tainted for life.

This is unfair, but it is a fact that must be accepted. I can easily imagine how the BNP might replace the useless Conservatives as main opponents to what has been done to this country. I can also imagine how the movement then led by the BNP might be smeared and discredited out of existence.

Even so, if I can have no longing for a BNP breakthrough at the next but one general election, neither can I regard the legal proceedings against it as other than a classic illustration of how to run a post-modern tyranny.

The British State has no Gestapo, no KGB. But why would it need one when it has the Equality and Human Rights Commission?

Dr. Sean Gabb [Email him] is a writer, academic, broadcaster and Director of the Libertarian Alliance in England. His monograph Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back is downloadable here. For his account of the Property and Freedom Society’s 2008 conference in Bodrum, Turkey, click here. For his address to the 2009 PFS conference, “What is the Ruling Class?”, click here; for videos of the other presentations, click here.

Why is California Burning? Because It’s Importing Poverty

Why is California Burning? Because It’s Importing Poverty

According to California state department of education figures, half (49.7%) of students participate in the federal lunch program. That means they are poor. Half (51.5%) of California students attend schools which get Compensatory Education funding (Federal Title 1 and State Impact Assistance Grant) for underachieving, low income students. Half of California’s students are Hispanic and 11 percent are Asian/Pacific Islander. Of the English-language learners, 85 percent are Hispanic and of the Hispanic students 43% are non-English speaking.

California finally has a budget deal, through accounting maneuvers and budget cuts (including the release of convicted felons). But California’s budget is toast—whether or not the economy turns around.

The cause: Millions of low-income, unskilled immigrants (not just illegals) with lots of children have moved in. And lots of high- and middle- income Americans have moved out. [Golden State losing folks as old Dust Bowl beckons, By Phillip Reese, June 14, 2009]

Immigration’s highest cost is the public education of the immigrants’ children. That falls on state and local taxpayers—not on federal taxpayers. Therefore, states with the largest number of immigrant and immigrant-descended students pay the most for over-immigration—although it is the result of failed federal policies.

In the fall, schools across America report average daily attendance (ADA) which is a measure of classroom hours of instruction. In the spring, schools collect data for students by race and ethnicity. The National Center for Educational Statistics data shows race and ethnicity as a percentage of students. For the tables below, ADA is multiplied by percentage of students by race and ethnicity. Calculations are my own.

U.S.

Total

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian/PI

Native Am

1986

36,863,867

25,952,162

5,935,083

3,649,523

1,032,188

331,775

2006

45,931,617

25,951,364

7,854,307

9,415,981

2,158,786

551,179

Change

9,067,750

(799)

1,919,224

5,766,459

1,126,598

219,405

Source: National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES).

Overall, in twenty years, the increase in Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander children in the U.S. made up three quarters of the enrollment increase for U.S schools.

In California in the same period, enrollment of White and Black children declined by 1.4 million. But enrollment of Hispanic and Asian students increased by 2.5 million students. Therefore, the increase in Hispanic and Asian students in California made up 132 percent of California’s enrollment increase (and an incredible 28 percent of the enrollment increase for the entire country).

California

Total

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian/PI

Native Am

1986

4,429,792

3,118,5774

713,197

1,218,193

124,034

39,868

2006

6,349,270

1,917,480

495,243

3,142,889

742,865

50,794

Increase

1,919,478

(1,201,094)

(217,953)

1,924,696

618,830

10,926

In most of the country, K-12 education is funded by local governments. But in California, K-12 education is funded directly by the state government. Reason: In 1978, voters passed Proposition 13 which capped assessed property values and limited the rate at which property taxes could rise. When a property sells, the assessed valuation rises to the sales price and the rate of growth is then capped again. This is not as much as a problem as opponents claim, because most properties have changed hands.

House passes Obama economic stimulus plan President: America is officially DEAD, 30% of bill contains pork spending.

House passes Obama economic stimulus plan,

America is officially DEAD.  No Republicans supported

it. When it fails, you will know who is to blame.  Lock

and load people, when the riots begin, one shot one

kill, remember Katrina.

President: ‘Perilous moment’ requires swift action to kick-start economy.  30% of bill contains pork spending.

WASHINGTON – The Democratic-controlled House approved $819 billion in spending increases and tax cuts at the heart of President Barack Obama’s economic recovery program Wednesday evening, despite Republicans’ charges that the bill is wasteful.

“We don’t have a moment to spare,” Obama declared earlier Wednesday at the White House as Democrats hastened to do his bidding.

A mere eight days after Inauguration Day, Speaker Nancy Pelosi heralded a new era. “The ship of state is difficult to turn,” said the California Democrat. “But that is what we must do. That is what President Obama called us to do in his inaugural address.”

The stimulus package passed by a vote of 244-188. Eleven Democrats voted against the measure, while no Republicans supported it.

With unemployment at its highest level in a quarter-century, the banking industry wobbling despite the infusion of staggering sums of bailout money and states struggling with budget crises, Democrats said the legislation was desperately needed.

“Another week that we delay is another 100,000 or more people unemployed. I don’t think we want that on our consciences,” said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the leading architects of the legislation.

Republicans said the bill was short on tax cuts and contained too much spending, much of it wasteful and unlikely to help laid-off Americans.

The party’s leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, said the measure “won’t create many jobs, but it will create plenty of programs and projects through slow-moving government spending.”

The legislation includes an estimated $544 in federal spending and $275 billion in tax cuts for individuals and businesses.

Included is money for traditional job-creating programs such as highway construction and mass transit projects. But the measure tickets far more for unemployment benefits, health care and food stamp increases designed to aid victims of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Click for related content

Tens of billions of additional dollars would go to the states, which confront the prospect of deep budget cuts of their own. That money marks an attempt to ease the recession’s impact on schools and law enforcement. With funding for housing weatherization and other provisions, the bill also makes a down payment on Obama’s campaign promise of creating jobs that can reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil.

The centerpiece tax cut calls for a $500 break for single workers and $1,000 for couples, including those who don’t earn enough to owe federal income taxes.

The House vote marked merely the first of several major milestones a for the legislation, which Democratic leaders have pledged to deliver to the White House for Obama’s signature by mid-February.

Already a more bipartisan — and costlier — measure is taking shape in the Senate, and Obama personally pledged to House and Senate Republicans in closed-door meetings on Tuesday that he is ready to accept modifications as the legislation advances.

Rahm Emanuel, a former Illinois congressman who is Obama’s chief of staff, invited nearly a dozen House Republicans to the White House late Tuesday for what one participant said was a soft sales job.

This lawmaker quoted Emanuel as telling the group that polling shows roughly 80 percent support for the legislation, and that Republicans oppose it at their political peril. The lawmaker spoke on condition of anonymity, saying there was no agreement to speak publicly about the session.

In fact, though, many Republicans in the House are virtually immune from Democratic challenges because of the makeup of their districts, and have more to fear from GOP primary challenges in 2010. As a result, they have relatively little political incentive to break with conservative orthodoxy and support hundreds of billions in new federal spending.

getCSS(“3088874″)

INTERACTIVE
President-elect Barack Obama
Stimulus plan
Details of the $825 billion stimulus plan proposed by House Democrats working with President Barack Obama.

Also, some Republican lawmakers have said in recent days they know they will have a second chance to support a bill when the final House-Senate compromise emerges in a few weeks.

That gave an air of predictability to the proceedings in the House, as Democrats defended the legislation as an appropriate response to the specter of double-digit unemployment in the near future.

Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, sought to strip out all the spending from the legislation before final passage, arguing that the entire cost of the bill would merely add to soaring federal deficits. “Where are we going to get the money,” he asked.

Obey had a ready retort. “They don’t look like Herbert Hoover, I guess, but there are an awful lot of people in this chamber who think like Herbert Hoover,” he said, referring to the president whose term is forever linked in history with the Great Depression.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

I want Obama to win. We must allow everything to occur as it is intended.

I want Obama to win.  I may die during the conflict, but we will fight when the time comes, and we will win.

Here is how we win this new conflict with an old history.  We must allow everything to occur as it is intended.

I want Obama to do everything he and his anti-white communist elites have planned, I want them to break the economic back of this nation with massive spending, I want him to fire all white heterosexual males currently working within the government and only hire minorities, I want Obama to push every liberal agenda to mainstream and break the moral and linguistic heritage of this nation.  I want this nation to die, a slow and painful death.  I want Obama to weaken our nation militarily, I want Obama to break down our central intelligence agency, making it easier for terrorists to infiltrate this nation.  I want communist and islamists to run freely over the landscape, I want the islamists terrorists to detonate a nuclear bomb in ten major metropolitan cities.  I want Obama to declare our constitution illegal, and no longer needed in the brave new world order.  The left in the west are moving towards the creation of a communist block federation of nations once called the western world.  I want them to open the borders and allow every illegal alien to enter this nation from all over the world, and bankrupt and destroy the local and state economies.

Why do I want these things?  Because these events will destroy this nation, economically first, riots and crime will skyrocket. Second they will destroy this nation socially, education will collapse, madness and insanity will reign supreme. The left will destroy this nation there is nothing we can do about, only when whites realize that non-white males must go, will we even begin to wake the hell up, and I have one thing to fall back on, my 12 gauge shot gun, my 6.8 spc AR-15 assault rifle, other planned weapons, and my various home made weapon systems.  Not to mention multiply levels of body armor, and other homemade defensive systems.

This nation must die politically, socially and economically, so that the white males who own 95% of the fire arms in this nation can do something about it.  The nation must die so when can rebuild, 1 in 3 of us must sacrifice our lives, we must embrace the destruction of the west, only then will the white males rise up and destroy our enemies, take back what’s rightfully ours, and kill everyone who moved against us.  A world wide race war is what’s needed, and America is the lynch pin of the liberal democracies within the west, when America goes, the west will follow, and then the rise of white Nationalist is all but assured.

White Nationalist government will come to power after the collapse of the west!!!  Think about it, don’t fight it, buy guns and ammo, buy food and water, buy body armor and NBC gear for you and your family, get ready and be prepared, and when the time comes my brothers, I will see you on the battlefield from the streets of L.A. to New York’s Central park, it will not occur in the next 4-5 years, but soon afterwards, we will retake what is ours, allow the world to see the first African Dictator of America, allow this nation to die, be joyful when terrorist attack us, allow this nation to die, and then and only then will we rise to power.  Many of us will die, but the West will be reborn, and our constitution will be reborn in our image, it will protect the ethnic nature of our nation and that of the west, and we must make ready for time is coming when you will no longer be able to purchase what you need to survive.  Be ready, buy plenty of guns and ammo, our organization will come when it is intended to occur, when we need it to save our people, and not a moment sooner.  Obama will fail, liberalism will fail, you cannot defy human nature for very long, until you face the consequences of your defiance.

Black Locust

Obamas new Deal – reveal the new anti-white, anti-middle-class agenda

Reich and Rangel reveal the new anti-white, anti-middle-class agenda

Thanks to Bo for this video of Robert Reich and Charles Rangel at an Economic Recovery Plan meeting on 7th January.

Today the $825 billion economic stimulus package was marked up by the House Ways & Means Committee.  It includes money for infrastructure, health care and education projects.  But little to none of it will be coming your way if you are white or middle-class.

Virginia Takes Constitutional Convention Stage – should a new Constitutional Convention be called, it would be the end of the United States of America as we know it

Virginia Takes Constitutional

Convention Stage

By Chuck Baldwin

As I noted in this column a few weeks ago, proponents of assembling a new Constitutional Convention are a scant two states away from achieving that monstrous reality. (Please review my column on this subject here.)

At that time, the state of Ohio was in the crosshairs. Fortunately, enough people from that good state inundated their state representatives with objections, and the matter was tabled (for how long, no one knows). Now it appears that the Commonwealth of Virginia is going to be the next battleground state.

In all likelihood, the Virginia legislature will be the next state government to take up the Con Con issue. It is imperative, therefore, that the citizens of Virginia begin contacting their various representatives, demanding that they not authorize the call for a new Constitutional Convention.

As I noted in my previous column on this subject, “If called, a modern Constitutional Convention could declare the U.S. Constitution to be null and void, and could completely rewrite the document. For example, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once declared, ‘There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.’”

Since 32 states have already approved the new Con Con, only 2 more states are required for the enactment of this debacle.

For clarification, Virginia already passed a Con Con resolution, but in 2004 rescinded that resolution. Therefore, the debate this year will be whether to reverse the bill to rescind. Simply put, the state legislature in Virginia may again take up the matter of issuing their call for a Constitutional Convention very soon, and citizens in that good state need to rally against it now!

To give readers a simple tally, the following states have never voted to ratify a new Constitutional Convention: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

These states voted for a new Constitutional Convention but later rescinded their resolutions: Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, Arizona, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia.

If you do not see your state listed above, it means your state indeed voted to call for a new Constitutional Convention and has not rescinded its vote. I strongly suggest that citizens of these states demand that their legislatures rescind their previous votes calling for a new Con Con. Start now!

Of course, the problem is, it is not clear whether the court will allow states to rescind their votes after having passed a Con Con resolution. Article. V. of the U.S. Constitution is vague on the subject, and there is no case law precedent on the matter. As far as I’m concerned, however, the Tenth Amendment settles the issue, and states should be regarded as fully qualified under the Constitution to determine their own fate in the matter. Since there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting rescission, states are duly authorized to rescind their votes, as they please. But I don’t expect the powers that be in Washington, D.C., to see it that way. Does anyone remember that little skirmish known as the Civil War? This, in essence, was the same view of the Confederate States: they voted to rescind their decisions to join the Union. The tyrant, Abraham Lincoln, determined that states have no such sovereignty (thus nullifying the Tenth Amendment, among several others) and sent the entire federal army to force the southern states back into the union. If history is any teacher, therefore, no state will be allowed to rescind their votes, and we are only two states away from a new Constitutional Convention being assembled.

There is no question in my mind that, should a new Constitutional Convention be called, it would be the end of the United States of America as we know it, and our current Constitution and Bill of Rights would be forever altered beyond recognition. The globalists who currently control Washington, D.C., and Wall Street are, no doubt, salivating over the opportunity to officially dismantle America’s independence and national sovereignty, and establish a globalist North American Union—in much the same way that globalists created the European Union. A new Constitutional Convention is exactly the tool they need to cement their sinister scheme into law.

I urge readers to contact their state representatives regarding this critical matter.

Welcome to the Liberal Socialist Police State: 20,000 uniformed troops inside U.S. by 2011

The Elites will do whatever is necessary to remain in power then face what must occur.


And it will be an Orwellian Police State, too: Thoughtcrime is already subject to ostracism and vilification, and what with the UN ready to codify it, and Obama signaling that he wants to increase the importance and influence of the UN, how long will it stay out of the U.S.? And why is this necessary? Primarily “to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack.” Of course, to call the Muslim community in America to account and compel it to stop teaching Sharia supremacism and hatred of Jews and Christians — that would be “bigoted.” Of course, to halt Muslim immigration in light of the impossibility of distinguishing peaceful Muslims from actual and potential jihadists — that would be racist. Of course, even to institute some kind of screening of Muslims who enter the country in order to determine their adherence to Sharia principles and to make agitation for Islamic law (stonings, amputations, no free speech, no freedom of conscience, etc.) in this country grounds for deportation — that would be “Islamophobic.”

So if we can’t do all that or even anything close to those things, what is left? What can we do? Why, become a Police State, with armed troops roaming the streets. After all, the next terror threat could just as easily come from the local Methodist church as from the local mosque. Better have that Wesleyan Center adequately covered.

“Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security,” by Spencer S. Hsu and Ann Scott Tyson for the Washington Post, December 1 (thanks to Anne Crockett):

The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.

The long-planned shift in the Defense Department’s role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.

There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military’s role in domestic law enforcement.

But the Bush administration and some in Congress have pushed for a heightened homeland military role since the middle of this decade, saying the greatest domestic threat is terrorists exploiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, dedicating 20,000 troops to domestic response — a nearly sevenfold increase in five years — “would have been extraordinary to the point of unbelievable,” Paul McHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, said in remarks last month at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But the realization that civilian authorities may be overwhelmed in a catastrophe prompted “a fundamental change in military culture,” he said….

LNN:  This will undoubtedly lead to a renewed push by white populations towards the far right wing movement, this unprecedentedly use of military forces BY THE FAR LEFT, to control the Untied States population is in violation of the constitution, and our only response is REVOLUTION!

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU WAITING FOR!  WHITE AMERICANS, YOU KNOW THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE PARTY OF THE MINORITIES AND OF COMMUNISM, THEY DON’T WANT YOU , THEY DON’T LIKE YOU, JOIN THE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT!