ulysses s. grant, former union general and potus, once said " Labor disgraces no man, but occasionally men disgrace labor." i think we have reached a point as a society where political correctness has disgraced the notion of right and wrong...
i have often attempted to have logical conversations with people who say that the "undocumented workers" do not take away from our society but add to it. i hate that term "undocumented worker". it ignores the entire reason that the person is "undocumented". they are "undocumented workers" because they are here ILLEGALLY. and if they are here ILLEGALLY then, by definition they cannot be GOOD people.
this is not an esoteric conversation like with my fourth amendment case, there is no question of whether or not they are legally in this country. if they did not come here in the manner prescribed by law, they are here illegally. and if they came here illegally, than they are teaching their kids that no law matters so long as you're trying make a better life for yourself. how can any good come of that for our society or our country?
today i received an email that broke it down so well, that i knew i had to share it. it was titled "joe legal vs. jose illegal" and it went like this:
You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal".
Both families have two parents, two children, and live in the same area of Southern California.
Joe Legal works in construction, has a legal Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.
Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".
Ready? Now pay attention...
Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax and now has: $31,231.00.
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year, pays no taxes and still has: $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year and now has: $24,031.00.
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year and still has: $31,200.00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare, so he pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year, and now has: $18,031.00.
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare and still has: $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year and now has: $9,631.00.
Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy, pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year and still has: $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 per year for insurance and now has: $7,231.00.
Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has: $31,200.00.
Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.
Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school.
Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch.
Joe Legal's children go home after school each day where Joe pays for child care out of that $7,231.00 he had left.
Jose Illegal's children have a FREE after school ESL program provided by the U.S. tax payers.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
Do you get it, now? If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens or amnesty for illegals then YOU are part of the problem!
this morning, via a fellow patriot i know fairly well, i was introduced to liuetenant colonel allen west (usa, ret.). this amazing man is running for the u.s. house of representatives for the 22nd district of florida. as districts go it's not huge, but it does include a portion of west palm beach, palm beach gardens, boca raton and fort lauderdale.
in october, west was featured in a fox news article by kelly vlahos titled "black republicans say 2010 will be their year" noting that lt. col. west "is one of a small but determined group of black Republicans running for
seats in the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives in 2010". sadly, i believe the author of the article is correct as she continues:
Eager to overturn the "conventional wisdom" that the GOP is mainly a
white bread party that offers few opportunities for minorities, these
black Republicans believe they can attract increasingly agitated
conservatives, as well as independents, to make 2010 their year.
They also conceded in interviews that the injection of race -- a
familiar theme since Obama's election last year -- has given them a
certain edge and authority when they speak out against the president's
agenda. Because they're black, they say, they can lead the charge
against Democratic policies without being called "racist." In fact,
they say, their skin color may make them more attractive candidates.
the story is the same across the country.
in colorado a councilman from aurora, ryan frazier, has begun his quest for a congressional seat for colorado's 7th district. he observes that his skin color will make it impossible for the democrats to use the racism as the reason he is speaking out against the president and his policies saying "I don't think they will be able to use that argument against me or
engage in those tactics against me -- I certainly don't hate myself."
in texas, michael williams hopes to succeed retiring senator kay bailey hutchinson when she retires after the primaries in march 2010. mr. williams is a four-time texas railroad commissioner regulating the oil and gas industry for the state. mr. williams says, when describing what makes him who he is "Most lives have defining moments. For me, it was the period between
1967 and 1971. I learned I could compete, could succeed and had value." in the fox news article he said "Our folks are saying they want a reliable conservative -- that happens
to be what's catching on with me," Williams told FOXNews.com. "It just
happens to be an added plus, me being an African-American."
but back to colonel west. this is the second time he's running against democrat incumbent ron klein for the representation of florida's 22nd district. last time he took 45% of the vote in this florida swing district, this time he's aiming to take the majority. and with the help of jimmy carter and the rest of the race baiters in the democrat party, he just might have a chance.
this man is incredible. talk about motivation!! he says some things in this clip that resonate especially well with me:
"...it's ok to get out here and cheer lead, but you better get your butts out there and understand it's a fight and you better be willing to fight for this country. the united states of america was founded by the original insurgents. a bunch of farmers, a bunch of people, men and women dedicated and said to the british 'we're not living under your tyranny.' now we've got to come back and do it again. we're gonna take saul alinsky's 'rules for radicals' and we're gonna turn it on 'em and we're gonna drive it through 'em and we're gonna take this country back.
in speaking to the military among the crowd he said "let me tell you something - god bless you all. but listen, we took an oath and that oath said we would 'support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and alliegance to the same.' there's so statute of limitations on that oath and tonight EVERY ONE of you needs to take that oath."
"this 2010 election is a defining moment for the united states of america. for the future and the legacy from which we go on."
"...'these are the times that try men's souls; when the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis shrink from his duties.' if you're here to shrink away from your duties, there's the door. get out.
"...bayonettes. charge this enemy for your freedom, for you liberty for the future and the legacy of that young lady right there because i will not go down and tell my children that i did not have the courage, the conviction, the committment or the character to fight for this country."
now is the time that we need to act. now is the time for all of us to (in the words of my friend laura boatright) "GO OUT ON A
LIMB....OUT OF *YOUR* "COMFORT ZONE"... IF WE DON'T 'SET BRUSHFIRES OF
FREEDOM IN THE MINDS OF MEN'... WE ARE DEFEATED ALREADY! BE INDIGNANT BUT *PEACEFUL/NON-VIOLENT*... TELL OUR GOVERNMENT TO 'LET OUR PEOPLE GO!' "
so says lloyd marcus about the president's "stimulus" policy in his 'tea party anthem' written for the tea parties. aside from being a great songwriter, mr. marcus is the president of the 'national association for the advancement of conservative people of color'. wow, now that's a group that i hope grows by leaps and bounds in the next few weeks, months, and years - i'm certain it's already happening.
it's a great piece of music and you can hear it in part above when he was on fox news just after the first orlando tea party. you can check out both of his songs (and videos), 'we the people' and the 'american tea party anthem' at his webiste. through these songs and his fox news interview you begin to get a good sense of what this man is all about.
last week, on 27 august 2009 to be exact, mr. marcus wrote an 'open letter to white liberals' which was published at renew america's website. it's a well written, extremely sarcastic letter from a black man who's clearly fed up with watching the liberal elite treating he and his brethren as if they are second class citizens. please follow the renew america link and read it in its entirety - it's worth the few minutes of your time.
his letter starts with:
Thank you very, very much. You see us poor helpless inferior blacks, oh forgive me, I must be politically correct, "African Americans," and you want to help us using your superior intellect. After all, we could not possibly succeed in this racist, homophobic and greedy country without your assistance.
and continues with:
So, now you former hippie boomers are in total control of government, colleges and public schools, still selling your Utopian message of peace and love. Thanks for getting rid of black dads in the home via your welfare programs. I mean, everyone knows dads are cruel chauvinists who beat and molest their kids.
and finishes with:
In closing, you libs, please keep up the good work. With your continued diligence, we minorities and most Americans will not have to work or be responsible for anything. Your president is in the process of confiscating the wealth from those greedy rich white SOBs and redistributing it to us. Right on!
Now, if I can just figure out how to tie my shoes all by myself. But if I can't, I know you libs are there for me. Fighting back tears of overwhelming gratitude, again, I thank you.
did i mention that he is a very proud black man who loves this country and he doesn't want a hand out? i'm certain he must be racially confused or something else he wouldn't feel this way - much like clarence thomas or condoleeza rice or michael steele or larry elders or star parker and so on and so forth.
i have never been able to understand how denigrating one group of people makes another group of people feel better. i will never understand how taking from those who are producing - regardless of color - and giving to "those folks who won't get out of their easy chairs..." is supposed to increase the prosperity of all. the only thing that accomplishes is to decrease the overall wealth and morale of the country as a whole.
i wish i knew this man and were able to thank him personally for being willing to speak out and say the things that he is saying. i can't help but think that his is precisely the type of voice that congress will seek to silence (along with we conservative bloggers) with rockefeller's 'cyber security' bill. so i find myself championing him and helping to make his voice heard in the only way i can - by sharing him with my readers. i hope y'all will do the same...
UPDATE - CHECK OUT THIS POST FROM DI AND MIRADENA. it's a a great tie-in for what marcus lloyd is saying and an extremely well written article in its own right.
wasn't it enough that the republicans allowed the democrats and the msm (is that redundant?) to decide who our nominee for potus was. isn't it enough that the attempt to appease liberals in all walks of life has netted the republicans the largest loss of seats since carter won in 1976? isn't it enough that the rockefeller republicans have turned the republican party into the democrat-lite party?
apparently not.
earlier this week i received an email from newsmax with the subject line of "Newt: Obama 'Magic Negro' Wrong; Rick Warren Invokes Christ?" of course i HAD to open it because i AM a glutton for punishment. in that regard i was not disappointed.
i want to point out that chip saltsman is not the man i want to become the new head of the rnc, personally i believe michael steele to be the best option at this moment in time. however, i don't dislike saltsman for rnc head because of any parody on the shanklin cd including (especially?) the "obama the magic negro" parody. i just believe steele is a better man to lead the party and get it back from the mercantilist who have been so firmly in control of the party as of late.
back to the email and the whole brouhaha over this parody and the authority of PC in the first place. the newsmax articlelinked to in the email starts like this:
"NEW YORK - A senior Republican's distribution of a song titled "Barack the Magic Negro" has triggered a nasty battle for the soul of the struggling party.
Furious debates filled political blogs Tuesday, deepening Republican splits as the party tries to chart a course out of the political wilderness."
and it goes on from there. a little further down:
Opponents say the joke proves the Republican Party is badly out of touch.
The song "is a racist, hateful, sophomoric act," one blogger posted on the Politico.com site. "I can't wait until all you ethnic puritan-maniacs are retired, voted out, or six feet under."
i'm sorry, but i would bet money (although i have no proof of it) that this same poster at politico.com suffered (suffers still?) from bush derangement syndrome. this ilk of this poster, and probably this poster him (her?) self, have made too many ACTUALLY derogatory comments about bush, condoleeza rice and every other member of gwb's staff to enumerate.
finally the article gets to the meat and potatoes of the argument:
An on-line commentator for the National Review magazine, a pillar of U.S. conservatism, attacked Saltsman, saying: "The use of the term 'Negro' in the song rubs me the wrong way."
Newt Gingrich, a former Republican House speaker, told the New York Times that the song was "inappropriate" and said the flap should disqualify Saltsman from consideration as party head.
excuse me mr. article writer (they don't list a byline for the piece) but i'd like to be able to decide for myself if the nr commentator is actually pillar of u.s. conservatism. which commentator are you referring to, please? and as for newt, based on his flip-flopping opinion pertaining to the bailout, i'm pretty sure that at this point he has nothing much to say that i think it worth my time to listen.
additionally, what about the word "negro" makes this nr commentator uncomfortable? i realize that mirriam-webster's dictionary has become totally pc, but there is nothing offensive about this word. well except that the liberal elites have decided it's offensive. when i go to their on-line site it returns the following when i search on "negro":
Main Entry: Ne·gro
Pronunciation: \ˈnē-(ˌ)grō\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): pluralNegroes
Etymology: Spanish or Portuguese, from negro black, from Latin nigr-, niger
Date: 1555
sometimes offensive: a member of a race of humankind native to Africa and classified according to physical features (as dark skin pigmentation)
— Negroadjectivesometimes offensive
interestingly enough, when i look at webster's dictionary (no mention of merriam anywhere) - i don't know the date because the front cover and several pages at the front are missing - for the word negro, it shows me the following:
Negro /nigro/nee-groh
noun
1. a member of the peoples who have traditionally been classified as the Negro race, especially those who have originated in sub-Saharan Africa.
2. being a member of the black races of peoples of humankind, especially those who originate in sub-Saharan Africa.
adjective
3. describing, pertaining to, or characteristic of any of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, generally marked by brown to black skin pigmentation, dark eyes, and woolly or crisp hair and especially including the indigenous people of the races of Africa especially those located south of the Sahara.
conversely, when i go to "dictionary.com" and look up the same word, negro, they return a response that is notably similar to the "old" webster's definition. however after giving the first definition, it says "technically no longer in use" or some such.
there is nothing wrong with the word negro. it is a perfectly valid word that describes, accurately, an entire race of people. and it's used liberally by black people (as is the other N word) with absolutely no thought or consequence. case in point is how paul shanklin came to write this particular parody.
in point of fact, as i'm sure most everyone knows, this parody came into being because of an opinion piece in the l.a. times written by david ehrenstein. and in case you've been sleeping or just really pay no attention to anything from la la land, david ehrenstein is a negro - i mean black- er um african american writer who regularly covers the hollywood and political landscapes. you can see what those two topics have in common, can't you? uh huh.
anyway, do you know what a magic negro is? if you had read ehrenstein's piece you would. the definition/description from his piece "obama the magic negro":
"..it's clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the "Magic Negro."
The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. "He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist," reads the description on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro .
He's there to assuage white "guilt" (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest."
this term has been applied primarily to men on the silver screen - think sidney portier or maybe will smith - but ehrenstein sought to apply it even to lakers' legend magic johnson. this is more than a stretch, it's an outright falsehood. earvin johnson got the nickname "magic" when he was a 15-year old high school sophomore because he was magical on the basketball court. read all about it here. really not that important, but i did want to set the record straight.
the final paragraphs of his piece are here:
The senator's famously stem-winding stump speeches have been drawing huge crowds to hear him talk of uniting rather than dividing. A praiseworthy goal. Consequently, even the mild criticisms thrown his way have been waved away, "magically." He used to smoke, but now he doesn't; he racked up a bunch of delinquent parking tickets, but he paid them all back with an apology. And hey, is looking good in a bathing suit a bad thing?
The only mud that momentarily stuck was criticism (white and black alike) concerning Obama's alleged "inauthenticty," as compared to such sterling examples of "genuine" blackness as Al Sharpton and Snoop Dogg. Speaking as an African American whose last name has led to his racial "credentials" being challenged — often several times a day — I know how pesky this sort of thing can be.
Obama's fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he's written in his two (count 'em) books, or even what he's actually said in those stem-winders. It's the way he's said it that counts the most. It's his manner, which, as presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden ham-fistedly reminded us, is "articulate." His tone is always genial, his voice warm and unthreatening, and he hasn't called his opponents names (despite being baited by the media).
Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him.
now as to the paul shanklin parody. a parody i might add that is done "as al sharpton" after reverend sharpton started joining the fray making statements that the illinois senator had done precious little to champion black causes. and that which obama had done just wasn't enough. this is not a slam on obama, it's a slam on al sharpton. and nicely done i might add.
yes, 'negro' is somewhat of an archaic term, but it is NOT a racial slur. if it were, why hasn't anyone demanded a change to the name "the united negro college fund"? i mean, it could easily become "the united african american college fund" couldn't it?
the people on the left need to get over themselves. the people in the rest of the country who are busy falling over one another to denounce this racist scourge need to chill. we need to stop kowtowing to the media idiots and doing what THEY think best for the republican party.
after all, this entire "scandal" has been created by the media to once again attempt to dictate what we non-liberals can talk, write or [apparently] now even joke about. it is simply another precursor to the war to end all conservative media in this country. it's just one more indication that the groundwork is being laid for PC regulations at the federal level - think 'fairness doctrine' or worse.
"we" cannot allow this attitude that is being presented by the media and the liberal elite to go unchallenged. we cannot pander to this or even negotiate; we must confront it and ridicule it across the country wherever and whenever it is encountered. otherwise we will lose it all. if talk radio is censored, how long will it be before conservative writers are censored and their books not published? and then when they are gone, do you think that conservative bloggers will be tolerated?
stand up and belittle the liberals who are calling this racist. if you don't we'll be wishing for the days when they merely decided who our potus nominee was.
We The People, in order to preserve a more balanced reality, are committed to learning the truth and uncovering the obscurity of a presidential candidate; a man long cloaked in a mysterious veil, and one that we presume hides the truth and distorts the true man who is Barack Obama. Our opposition to Mr. Obama is not a factor of race, ethnic identity, nor even his place of domicile (i.e., Chicago); it is rather about his past associations, his character, his judgment, and his vision for the future of the United States of America. We believe that these are valid questions and concerns, that the American press has failed to address them in an honest and forthright manner, and that the American people have the right to know the answers to several questions. Despite rhetoric designed to mislead and misinform the American voter, such as that Barack Obama is a political centrist; that he sincerely wants to change politics inside the beltway; and/or there is hope for a new day under an Obama administration, the issue of his past associations, statements, and activities demand greater scrutiny. We have learned that Mr. Obama’s associations have deep roots within the modern socialist movement, black separatist theology, known ties to anti-Jewish/Pro-Muslim persons, and Chicago-styled machine-politics. We believe that when combined these radical elements present a clear and present danger to American social tradition and every citizen’s quest for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The “A” list of Mr. Obama’s associates includes (but is not limited to):
William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, who by his own admission assures us that he did not participate in enough acts of terror to advance his cause properly, has achieve national attention. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose vile condemnations of “white America” entertained Mr. Obama for twenty years. Rev. Louis Farrakhan (born: Louis Eugene Walcott) who, as the leader of the Nation of Islam is a racist, a black separatist, a homophobe, and an anti-Semite. Barack Obama joined with Louis Farrakhan and Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi supporting Raila Odinga in his bid to become president of Kenya. Odinga’s political defeat resulted in Muslim violence, burning churches, murdering 1,000 anti-Odinga voters, and renewed demands for the imposition of Shari’ah Law. Abongo (Roy) Obama, the brother of Barack, is a former Christian now radical Muslim convert, supporter of Cousin Raila Odinga. Roy Obama wants to institute Shari’ah law, wants Barack Obama to convert back to Islam and, as an American president, adopt anti-Israeli policies. Moussa Marzook is a member of Hamas and author of the Hamas Manifesto, first published in the Los Angeles Times and later reprinted and sold by Jeremiah Wright from the vestibule of Trinity United Church of Christ. Mr. Marzook was indicted by the United States government on issues relating to foreign terrorist activities inside the United States of America. Hamas endorsed Barack Obama for the American presidency in April 2008. Tony Rezko gave financial backing to Barack Obama early in his to-date short-lived political career. Even though Mr. Obama plays down the association with Mr. Rezko, it is difficult to ignore that the facts prove differently. (See also: Allison Davis, below) Nadhmi Auchi is linked to Barack Obama through Tony Rezko. He is an Iraqi born billionaire who the U. S. government claims operated as a bagman for Saddam Hussein. He is a London-based financier, one of the world’s richest men. In 2003, he was convicted of fraud involving the “Elf Affair,” Europe’s largest scandal since the end of World War II. Allison Davis, former employer of Barack Obama, who later closed his law firm and became a partner of Tony Rezko. Davis assigned Mr. Obama to legal work on behalf of Mr. Rezko. Rev. James T. Meeks, whom Barack Obama regularly sought for counseling, who served as an Obama delegate at the Democratic Convention and is a long-time political ally, who aided Obama as an influential black supporter, received funding from Tony Rezko. Meeks is known for anti-Jewish and homophobic rhetoric. Rashid Khalidi, along with William Ayers and Barack Obama, is a former professor at Chicago University. He directs the Palestine Press Agency in Beirut, is an agent of the Arab American Action Network, and according to a top official of former-President George H. W. Bush and a former CIA intelligence officer, former Weather Underground leader William Ayers funneled money to Khalidi, who maintains ties with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Khalidi also received $70,000 from the Woods Fund, and held fund-raising events in his home on behalf of Barack Obama. Barack Obama is a former director of The Woods Fund, a non-profit organization that, in addition to its interests in “giving a voice to less advantaged people,” helped funnel money to Rashid Khalidi for the Arab American Action Network, which presumably includes Palestinian interests within the United States. The Woods Fund also helps to finance “community organizing, and public policy.” Created in 1995 to help raise funds to reform Chicago public schools, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge involved William Ayers as a leading founder, who in turn appointed Barack Obama to its board of directors. Mr. Obama served on the board for six years. According to investigative journalist Stanley Kurtz, writing for the Wall Street Journal, reforming Chicago public schools is a bid misleading: it was a program designed to radicalize students more than it was to educate them. According to Ayers, “Teachers should be community organizers, dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression.”
Astute Bloggers has illustrated additional past associations; it is a well-researched expose providing a clear view of what lays just beneath the surface of Obama’s deception. We understand why Mr. Obama would want to play down these associations; we do not understand why the American news media would assist him in doing so. Nevertheless, Astute Bloggers lifts the veil on two well-known groups: The New Party, and the Chicago Democrat Socialists of America. Let's take a closer look.
The New Party is an obscure, lesser-known political group. It practices a political strategy called electoral fusion, which entails placing a political candidate on several lines of the same ballot. An example of how electoral fusion works is located at this page; look for the lead “Vote your values,” two-thirds of the way down on the right-hand side of the page. Once a candidate receives the support of Democratic kingmakers, and if the New Party feels the candidate will serve their socialist cause, they will add the candidate's name more than once in order to gain votes that are more popular. From the above link:
The New Party is an umbrella organization for grassroots political groups working to break the stranglehold that corporate money and corporate media have over our political process. Our current work and long-term strategy is to change states' election rules to allow fusion voting - a method of voting that allows minor parties to have their own ballot line with which they can either endorse their own candidates or endorse the candidates of other parties. Through fusion, minor parties don't have to always compete in the winner-take-all two party system and can avoid "spoiling" - throwing an election to the most conservative candidate by splitting the votes that might go to two more progressive candidates (ours and another party's).
Not surprisingly, “community organizing” is the bedrock of The New Party; socialist progressivism is their ideology. The Chicago chapter maintains a close relationship to the Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). According to this
1996 publication, Barack Obama is clearly affiliated with The New Party
Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last spring and face off against Republican opponents on Election Day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate), and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary). Note: Readers familiar with Chicago politics will recognize the names of former Chicago mayor Danny Davis on that list also.
From this evidence, we begin to understand the role electoral fusion played in Mr. Obama’s rapid rise to political power. Chicago Democrat Socialists of America pursues socio-political programs implied by the title of their organization, but even this organization is more than meets the eye. Cornel West, while serving as an Honorary Chair to Chicago DSA penned a remarkably revealing essay entitled Toward a Socialist Theory of Racism. Chicago DSA and Dr. West were particularly interested in Barack Obama because of his New Party affiliation, his success in running for State senator, and the strategies he employed, to wit: “Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.” Well, so what if Barack Obama peaks the interest of the Chicago DSA? It is important because no one backs a dark-horse candidate unless there is a chance he will win, and/or there is a reasonable expectation for a return of political capital. In an article entitled, The End of Liberalism socialist author Daniel Cantor wrote, “A massive Times-Mirror poll registered 53% of the public in favor of a ‘major third party,’ so there's no doubt that the soil is fertile. Among the hopeful contenders is the ‘New Party,’ one of a handful of newly forming independent, progressive parties in the country. New Party chapters have backed 93 candidates in nine states over the last eighteen months and won 62 elections.” An index of New Party political propaganda is available, here. Daniel Cantor, of course, is the executive director of New York’s Working Families Party, another socialist group with chapters in Connecticut and Oregon. He urges socialists, “Vote Your Values.” This would appear to be good advice for everyone with values. John Nichols writes for The Nation, a politically progressive publication. Nichols is a well-established writer, perhaps best known for ad nausium demands for the impeachment of George W. Bush for war crimes and other frivolous reasons; so much for his credibility. Taken by themselves, none of these concerns will alter the course of human history. After all, as Americans, we encourage political and social discourse; we value the right of everyone to express an opinion, no matter how insane that opinion may be, and all of us have the right to associate with anyone we choose. Yet it is instructive to note that socialist radicals have completely infiltrated the Democratic Party, and we need no further proof than the inane rhetoric emanating from every Democrat in the House and Senate. The concern expressed in this essay is not that other ideas are unworthy of debate; it is rather that Barack Obama freely decided to associate with dangerously radical and disreputable influences and he now seeks to hide those associations. Why would he do that? Barack Obama wants to become our next president; he knows that most Americans repudiate Marxist/socialist ideology; he is aware that if most voters begin to see the real Barack Obama, John McCain will win the election. But we believe that Barack Obama has been dishonest with American voters who are capable of thinking. We believe he has taken advantage of Americans voters who are incapable of thinking. We believe that if Mr. Obama stepped up to a microphone and told us what he really believes, he would be lucky to win the post of an Animal Control Specialist. Honesty, truthfulness, clarity, judgment, motivation, patriotism, and common sense are all important attributes for the office of the President of the United States. We do not believe that Barack Obama has any of these qualities. And, if Mr. Barack Obama has been less than truthful about his associations, what makes anyone think we can trust his campaign promises, his vision for America? The fact is that every man is free to associate with whomever he pleases; but this does not protect any man from judgments about those associations. We believe that the sheer weight of Mr. Obama’s involvement with questionable individuals and organizations will lead a reasonable person to query both his judgment and motivation for nefarious associations. We the People of the United States, who are also a loose confederation of bloggers, categorically reject Barack Obama for president. He is a radical socialist, he is a black separatist, a racist, he harbors pro-Muslim/Anti-Jewish sentiments and associates, he identifies with homophobes, convicted swindlers, known terrorists, creative financiers, and he has already signaled his willingness to sacrifice National Security for a dialogue with Muslim fanatics. We cannot vote for this man. We urge you to join us in defeating Barack Obama. So say us one, so say us all.
CURRENT LINKS: Always on Watch; And Rightly So; Big Girl Pants; Cheese In My Shoe; Chuck Thinks Right; Confessions of a Closet Republican; Defending Crusader; Farmer’s Letters; Fore Left; GeeeeeZ; Has Everyone Gone Nuts?; Learn Something Today; Long Range; Palace for a Princess; Papa Frank; Mind of a Misfit; Paleocon Command Center; Political Yin and Yang; Pondering Penguin; Right Truth; Social Sense; The Amboy Times; The Bitten Word; The Crank Files; The Jungle Hut; The Logic Lifeline; The Merry Widow; TSOFAH
has anyone else been wondering "what happens if the obampalooza tour ends in failure?"
please understand, i'm not advocating a win for the obama camp, but it is something that has been on my mind. we all need to have this on our minds.
two nights ago, in what can only be described as a "farce" the dnc nominated barack hussein obama jr. to run for president of the united states of america. as z observed here, no states after new york were permitted to participate in the roll call for delegate counts.
one must wonder "why?" and come to some sort of conclusion. the conclusion i have come to is that the dnc could not afford to allow the general population to get a glimpse at how large hillary's delegate count actually was. after all, we are marching to the drum of HISTORY. everyone get in line, now!
in fact, there was so much pressure on folks to comply with the inevitability of obama's candidacy, even john r. lewis (of selma bridge fame) capitulated. previously mr. lewis was a full-fledged supporter of hillary's and vowed that he was not going to support obama at the convention. but he did.
42 +/- years ago our nation endured the long, long summer of selma, alabama. my fear is that we may head that way again.
think about it for a minute. nearly every black celebritard in the world is championing barack. black radio hosts, with very few exception, are part of the very large cheering section for bho.
black commentators such as larry elder, walter williams and thomas sowell might as well be voices in the wilderness. any ad against obama is automatically dismissed as racist. forget about anything hannity or limbaugh (either of them) or any other white conservative digs up - it's dismissable because they are racist.
if the people i'm with in maine are any indication of the liberals in general in today's america (and i believe they are very indicative), they aren't even considering that they might lose. his presidency is now inevitable.
bring up anything in corsi's or morris's book (or any other expose for that matter) and they will dismiss the information out of hand - even if they haven' even read it. at least i read obama's books - both of them - before i dismissed them as a bunch of fabricated malarky. these people simply believe he's the messiah.
every chance the left gets, especially since obama "became" the front runner, they bring up the question of race in this election. race tensions are higher now than nearly any other time in my lifetime. higher now than they were at the start of the election cycle nearly a year ago. and therein lies my concern.
the thought police are out in force. expose his radical connections and friends? you're a racist. expose his far left, dare i say marxist/socialist actions, words and thoughts? you're a racist. this election, at the behest of the left, has deterioriated into a contest of race.
we are told that the world is watching to see if america is FINALLY going to rise above it's racist tendencies and elect a man of color. nevermind that the black man (or woman for that matter) in general has a better opportunity for success in the united states of america than any where else in the world - including african nations. never mind that we didn't invent slavery and we don't practice it now and the fact that blacks not only owned slaves in this country slavery in and of itself was started by a black man in this country. read about it here in my blog.
we are told, by the liberals here and abroad, that the u.s. is a nation of racists. and apparently obama is our chance at redemption. sorry, i'm not buying it.
but if obama doesn't win what's going to happen? based on the media hype, i think that the blacks of america will take it as a total slam. i worry that the race riots of the 1960's will have nothing on what will happen if the whole thing ends in disillusionment. but what responsibility should the media bear should this sham of a candidacy end up on the losing side of the election?
in my mind they will bear the full moral responsibility of what follows, but they'll simply blame someone else - probably those of us who are unsophisticated and clinging to our god, our guns and frustrating racist views.
i see no good for the country if obama were to win the slot of potus. unfortunately, i fear what will happen when he loses, as i believe he is apt to do.
what say y'all - am i the only one worrying about this stuff?
over the weekend i attended a send off program for the daughter of my most liberal friend. her daughter, we'll call her holly (20-year old soon to be college senior), is every bit as liberal as her mother - possibly more - and she is heading to sierra leone to work with the school sisters of notre dame on their long-standing education mission to that country. i think this is a wonderful move for her and should be very humbling in terms of what we have vs. what "they" have.
holly and i had a long conversation on monday when she came over to get a long silk/linen scarf to take for her head covering (to help keep her hair out of her face and keep her cool) and a travel pillow. i love this girl for so many reasons, but one of the things i love most about her is her ability to debate logically. one of the things that so infuriates me is her ability to take a rational point in a debate and fail to see or understand how it can and should be applied. it's the liberal thing.
in our conversation we were talking about the places i've been and her previous two trips to italy and the places we'd both like to go. somehow (i'm not sure how) the talk turned to the "plight" of immigrants here, there and everywhere. because, let's face it folks, it is NOT just the united states that is having a tough time with illegal immigrants.
anyhow, holly said something fairly profound that really got me thinking. in talking about the instability all over africa, she said "do you know anything about tanzania and how it got things mostly stabilized?" to wit i had to answer "um, no, not really." so she told me to look it up because they had done something "so amazing" to help engender a feeling of nationalism that was working on a grand scale.
for those of you who don't know a whole lot about politics and stateism in africa, suffice to say that a great deal of the strife and fighting on that continent is caused by age-old tribal rivalries. the fact is that imaginery borders were put into place and countries named and tribes were told to "you now belong to this country or that country" with told disregard of the status of relations between the various tribes being sent to this country or that country.
many of these countries were "founded" in the 1960's or even later. a majority of people in those countries don't think of themselves as somalians or sierra leonians or even tanzanians but as members of the various tribes. for instance, tanzania is made up of more than 125 tribes and each has its own language and identity. not only that, it is actually two separate countries (tanganyika and zanzibar) combined into one with a unified republican government formed by the governments of the two countries.
there is quite a bit of interesting information here if you're interested. it talks of the differences between the tribes, between women and men, the economy and just about everything else you never wanted to know about tanzania. it also mentions a few times that the national language is kiswahili (go here to learn about it); english is the language of the government and higher level jobs. apparently the "amazing" thing they did in tanzania was to establish the national language to elevate a sense of country.
what a concept, eh? so i said to holly "this is the exact reason intelligent, logical people in our country are pushing for english to recognized as the official national language of the united states." and she said? "well our situation is a bit different and we need to honor the different cultures of those who immigrate here by not forcing them to speak the language of the majority."
huh? if there is anyone out there who can make sense of that convoluted statement, please comment and explain it to me. i surely don't get it.
but the whole conversation and my subsequent reading on tanzania got me to thinking about how similiar the united states is to those african countries. we're every bit as much of potpouri in terms of our cultural make up as any of those countries - the primary differences being that our states (and country on the whole) were self formed and the majority of the people here are here because they choose to be so.
think about it. we're a melting pot. we have people here from all over the world. each comes with his or her own language and cultural identity. each is looking to do more than merely survive - seriously folks, why would someone move to a new country if they don't have any hope to do better there than in his or her country of birth?
when this country was in its formative period as colonies, it was primarily a subject of england. thus the majority of people here spoke english as their first language. as new people moved here from germany, italy, china, japan, mexico, france, spain, greece, russia and so on and so forth they arrived speaking languages that were not english. but because the majority of people spoke english and business and government were conducted in english people learned english. this was true even BEFORE we became an actual independent country.
this doesn't mean that some of them didn't continue to speak spanish or german or italian or mandarin at home, but it wasn't a language they could use in the outside world of the united states (previously american colonies). they may have kept some of the traditions from "home" but they didn't expect the rest of the population to adopt their traditions or eradicate traditions that had come into existence (or accepted) here.
today, in the united states, the majority of people still speak english as their first language. business and government is primarily conducted in english. and yet english is not our official or national language. but why not?
in our schools we teach (or attempt to teach) those whose first language isn't english in their language. officially we call it "english as a second language" (or esl), privately i call it sheer stupidity. people can't learn a language by getting a new word each day ala sesame street. people learn a language by using that language.
but here in our country the pc crowd has determined that immigrants will do better if we help them to hang on to the national identity of their former country. huh? this is just illogical and devoid of all common sense.
nearly 100 years ago, in 1919, theodore roosevelt penned these words:
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
these are sage words even today. but too many think they are passe or ancient thinking or maybe it's simply that they are unapologetic in their sentiment that is good to be an american. one other thing that teddy said that sticks with me is this
"We want to make our children feel that the mere fact of being Americans makes them better off... This is not to blind us at all to our own shortcomings; we ought steadily to try to correct them; but we have absolutely no grounds to work on if we don’t have a firm and ardent Americanism at the bottom of everything."
and this statement emodies everything that is emotionally tied to being an american. we are better in that we welcome more people of more cultures and nationalities than ANY other country in the world. we recognize that there are things we need to work on and we do. we work at our weaknesses at the personal, local, national and international level. and we are, for the world's elite, the most reviled nation in the history of the world.
even the elite of the world want to come here. even they recognize the opportunity and freedom available here. so why do they want to change that?
i don't know anyone who is against all immigration into our country - i'm not saying those people don't exist, i just don't know any of them. i do believe that the media, some immigrant support groups and some of our friends on the left, are trying to portray those of us against illegal immigration as being against all immigration. but this is simply isn't the case.
i realize that it may be scary to come to a new country and leave behind all that you know and all that is familiar. but how much worse it must be to come to a new country and still try hold on to everything you knew at "home". i guess that is the primary motivation behind those who refuse to assimilate, but they are truly missing the point of coming to the united states.
people coming to this country - from anywhere else - and not becoming fluent in the language and the history of the country is a bad thing. it lessens the immigrant's chances for an excellent, successful life and it weakens the fabric of our country.
when i was halfway through this post, i found a post on this subject over at my good friend donald's place (american power) and asked if i could crosspost a portion of it here - thankfully he acquiessed. you can read his whole post here, and it's well worth the time to do so, but here are the important parts:
"The media offers up a steady diet of data about current immigration from Mexico, and much of it consists of "averages" regarding English-language skills, income, home-ownership rates, education and so forth. But while digesting these figures, it's important to keep in mind that Latino immigration is ongoing. These averages are snapshots of a moving stream and therefore of little use in measuring assimilation. To properly gauge assimilation, we need to find out how immigrants in the U.S. are faring over time. Only longitudinal studies that track individuals can provide that information.
"Just looking at averages can give you a very distorted view of who's learning English or dropping out of school or climbing out of poverty....
"The reality, however, is that the longitudinal studies show real socio-economic progress by Latinos. Progress is slower in some areas, such as the education level of adult immigrants, and faster in others, such as income and homeownership rates. But there is no doubt that both assimilation and upward mobility are occurring over time. With respect to linguistic assimilation, which is one of the more important measures because it amounts to a job skill that can increase earnings, the historical pattern is as follows: The first generation learns enough English to get by but prefers the mother tongue. The children of immigrants born here grow up in homes where they understand the mother tongue to some extent and may speak it, but they prefer English. When those children become adults, they establish homes where English is the dominant language. There's every indication that Latinos are following this pattern. According to 2005 Census data, just one-third of Latino immigrants in the country for less than a decade speak English well. But that proportion climbs to 75% for those here 30 years or more. There may be more bilingualism today among their children, but there's no evidence that Spanish is the dominant language in the second generation. The 2000 Census found that 91% of the children of immigrants, and 97% of the grandchildren, spoke English well."
donald also quotes from a u.s. news article, "mexican immigrants prove slow to fit in" which shows that the question maybe a bit more complicated than huntington purports:
In the heart of California's iconic Orange County—home to Disneyland and the bourgeois teens of MTV's Laguna Beach—is troubled Santa Ana. The county seat of 353,000, where nearly 6out of every 10 adults over age 25 lack a high school diploma, suffers from crippling poverty and an explosion in crime. In 2004, the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government placed Santa Ana at the very top of its Urban Hardship Index—officially dubbing it worse off than Miami, Detroit, Cleveland, and Newark, N.J. With 76 percent of its population Hispanic, mostly Mexican immigrants, Santa Ana is the poster child for the troubles of the country's immigration policies and of Mexican immigrants in particular.
Now, a new study lays bare what sociologists and others have long argued: Mexican immigrants are assimilating to life in the United States less successfully than other immigrants. Sponsored by the conservative Manhattan Institute think tank, "Measuring Immigrant Assimilation in the United States" by Jacob Vigdor, a professor of public policy studies and economics at Duke University, introduces a novel assimilation index that uses census and other survey data to measure how similar select immigrant groups are to native-born Americans. Using such factors as intermarriage, English ability, military service, homeownership, citizenship, and earnings, Vigdor assembled a 100-point assimilation index. The closer to 100, the more assimilated an immigrant group. Overall, the report shows immigrants are weaving into the American fabric at a remarkable clip, despite arriving poorer and knowing less English than immigrants of a century ago. And they are gaining speed, with new arrivals assimilating faster than those who came more than 20 years ago. With a score of 53, Canadians are the most assimilated, followed closely by Filipinos, Cubans, and Vietnamese. The main outlier: Mexicans, with a score of 13—followed by Salvadorans.
Why Mexicans are faring so poorly in the United States is complicated, experts say. But the root of the problem is no surprise: Many Mexicans are here illegally, depriving them of rungs on the economic ladder and the opportunity to gain citizenship. "There are certain jobs or certain services you just can't get [as an illegal immigrant]," Vigdor says. "There are plenty of indications here that for those Mexican immigrants who are interested in making a more permanent attachment to the United States, their legal status puts very severe barriers in that path."
this may explain why the actual immigrant is failing at assimilation into americanization, but what of their children - even the "anchor babies" who are american citizens? what of the children of the anchor babies? thanks to the vagaries of esl, we have second and third generation americans who do not speak english fluently - in some parts of the country even naturally born americans of hispanic (primarily mexican) origin speak poor english with a spanish accent!
how do you explain this with anything other than they value their association with mexico more than with the united states? how do you see theese results and still cling to the notion that esl is the best way to educate these people?
"Mexican immigrants tend to be segregated somewhat from the rest of US society; some 42% of Hispanics lived in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods in 1990 (Chiswick and Miller, 1999). This is probably because of choice; immigrants feel most comfortable living with those who speak their language and share their culture. However, in choosing to live with other Mexican immigrants, they are choosing to live with people who have, on average, relatively little education, low English language skills, and scant earning power. Thus, employers will be less likely to open businesses and stores in Mexican neighborhoods, and simply by choosing to live among other Mexican immigrants they are choosing to live in economically depressed neighborhoods. Even the best and the brightest of the Mexican immigrants may be “pulled back” towards the 'average' Mexican and may earn less than they might have had they not been Mexican."
however, further in the u.s. news article the author posits:
Indeed, in a unique multigenerational study spanning four decades, Generations of Exclusion, sociologists Edward Telles and Vilma Ortiz found that many immigrants and their children had made slow progress assimilating for cultural and economic reasons. A large community means a large dating pool: Only 17 percent of third-generation Mexicans studied had married non-Hispanics. The authors found adult Mexican-Americans in the third and fourth generations lived in more segregated neighborhoods than they did as youths, largely because of the many new immigrant arrivals. Educational levels, meanwhile, lagged behind the national average. However, English ability was nearly universal, even among first-generation immigrants, which should ease the concerns of some lawmakers who want to make English the natural language. Significantly, though, 36 percent of fourth-generation Mexican-Americans studied could still speak Spanish.
i have been unable to ascertain what standard is used by the sociologists, edward telles and vilma ortiz, to determine "...english ability was nearly universal even among first- generation immigrants..." i have been unable to find any other study or author who puts forth this notion.
still further in the u.s. news article:
Perhaps most telling: Of the approximately 1,500 surveyed in two distinct immigrant communities—Los Angeles and San Antonio—most identified as "Mexican" or "Mexican-American" even into the fourth generation. It's that kind of cultural signifier that has so many white Americans concerned that this is a group not interested in becoming American.
wow - ya think?!?
donald continues in his post that as santa ana's "city's population is 76 percent Hispanic with 53 percent foreign born - the city's literally a classic microcosm of the phenomenal sub-national trends in demographic diversity giving way to ethnic homegeneous-hegemonic dominance."
but, as donald observes, should just talking about this stuff get you branded as racist?
is not my favorite. He's a political opportunist and grandstander on immigration, and his "war on the middle class" segments are unhinged on issues of economic mobility and trade. But some of his reports on immigration are indeniably accurate in detailing the problems of local commuities around the country in tackling out of control immigration .
And because of reports like these, the nihilist left-wing of the open borders operation is up in arms about the media's "
This idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language, and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom. We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become a part of our society, learn the language!
The Velazquezes speak fluent English and cherish their middle-class foothold in America. Maria and Carlos each earn about $20,000 a year as a school administrator and a graveyard foreman, respectively, and they own a simple three-bedroom home. But they remain wedded to their native language and culture. Spanish is the language at home, even for their five boys, ages 6 to 18. The kids speak to each other and their friends in English flecked with "dude" and "man," but in Cicero, where 77% of the 86,000 residents are Hispanic, Spanish dominates.
The older boys snack at local taquerías when they don't eat at home, where Maria's cooking runs to dishes like chicken mole and enchiladas. The family reads and watches TV in Spanish and English. The eldest, Jesse, is a freshman at nearby Morton College and dreams of becoming a state trooper; his girlfriend is also Mexican-American. "It's important that they know where they're from, that they're connected to their roots," says Maria, who bounced between Spanish and English while speaking to BusinessWeek. She tries to take the kids to visit her parents in the tiny Mexican town of Valle de Guadalupe at least once a year. "It gives them a good base to start from."
based on the information further down in the article this is fairly typical of the mexican immigrants. it's a great article and one i highly recommend anyone concerned with the effects of unbridled/illegal immigration read.
essentially as mexican immigrants are coming into the states at an estimated 400,000 persons per year. i say estimated because we really don't know what the actual number is because of the illegals. additionally, they are reproducing at a rate of 3% per annum vs .8% by all other groups except muslims who are reproducing at a rate 5% - but that's a whole other discussion.
assimilation for mexicans and other hispanics is not really aided by the american society in general. from mandated esl classes in the public schools, to street signs to government forms (including voting ballots) to private industry "selling in spanish", we are enabling an entire segment of our society to "opt out" of being/becoming american.
america was not founded as a "nation of immigrants" but rather as a nation of freedom and independence and self-sufficiency. she (and we) have always welcomed those who yearn for freedom and want to be americans. but freedom isn't free - along with the rights afforded by our constitution, there is the duty of being a active and productive member of society.
how productive or active can you be as a member of american society if you have broken the law to get here? how productive or active can you be as a member of american society if primarily honor only the traditions of the country you left to come here to better yourself - from flying the mexican flag to eating primarily mexican foods to surrounding yourself with spanish speakers from your home country? how productive or active can you be as a member of american society if you don't actively seek out relationships with people outside of the hispanic community?
unless we act decisively and soon we will fulfill the words of one other thing that teddy roosevelt said:
"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, or preventing all possibility of it continuing as a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities."
yesterday, while playing blog golf i came across this post from patrick. patrick posted a few sections of the letter from africa and it got me thinking. and searching.
for those of you who are frequent visitors you know that i have pretty much sworn off the politics of this year's presidential elections. however, i have been watching, with no small degree of amazement, the circus going on between obama and clinton.
prior to this excercise in research that i have been engaged in since patrick's post got stuck in my craw, i was decidedly AGAINST voting for john mccain as potus. however, based on the information i have unearthed, i have decided that i absolutely must change my position if it is barack hussein muhammed obama who is handed the nomination by the dnc.
i apologize, in advance, for the length of this post; but not the content. quite simply this is information that we must get out there and we need to make this post go viral. the letter mentioned above, in its entirety, is here:
Thanks for sending out an alert about Obama.
We are living and working in Kenya for almost twelve years now and know his family (tribe) well. They are the ones who were behind the recent Presidential election chaos here.
Thousands of people have been displaced by election violence (over 350,000) and I don’t know the last count of the dead.
Obama under “friends of Obama” gave almost a million dollars to the opposition campaign who just happened to be his cousin, Raila Odinga, who is a socialist trained in East Germany. He has been trying to bring Kenya down for years and the last president threw him in prison for trying to subvert this country!
December 27th elections brought cries from ODM (Odinga Camp) of rigged election. Obama and Raila speak daily. As we watch Obama rise in the US we are sure that whatever happens, he will use the same tactic, crying rigged election if he doesn’t win and possibly cause a race war in America.
What we would like you to know is what the American press has been keeping a dirty little secret. Obama IS a Muslim and he IS a racist and this is a fulfillment of the 911 threat that was just the beginning. Jihad is the only true Muslim way. We have been working with them for 20 years this July! He is not an American as we know it.
Please encourage your friends and associates not to be taken in by those that are promoting him. It is world wide jihad. All our friends in Europe are very disturbed by the Muslim infiltration into their countries. By the way. His true name is Barak Hussein Muhammad Obama. Won’t that sound sweet to our enemies as they swear him in on the Koran!
God Bless you.
Pray for us here in Kenya. We are still fighting for our nation to withstand the same kind of assault that every nation, including America, is fighting. Takeover from the outside to fit the new world order. As believers, this means we will be the first targets.
Here in Kenya, not one mosque was burned down, but hundreds of churches were burned down, some with people in them, burned alive.
Jesus Christ is our peace but the new world order of Globalism has infiltrated the church and confused believers into thinking that they can compromise and survive. It won’t be so. I will send you a newsletter we sent out in February documenting in a more cohesive manner what I’ve tried to say in a few paragraphs.
Celeste and Loren Davis
celeste and loren davis are, indeed, missionaries serving in the kenya area. you canread about their missions here. in an email, mr. loren indicated to me that this was a personal email sent to a friend of theirs in response to some information sent to them on obama; they had no idea the information had begun to be disseminated to the world wide web.
yesterday i sent the following email to celeste and loren in attempting to verify the accuracy of the information in the posts.
recently there is a letter circulating the internet titled “a letter from africa” that is pertaining to barrack Obama and it is attributed to the two of you. is this a legitimate letter?
please advise, as if it is, I will be blogging on it in the near future…
thanks so much! and god bless you both in your endeavors.
This was a personal e-mail sent to a friend . It was in response to an email we had received regarding Obama. We did not know it would hit the worldwide web. Since it has, here is some more important information on Obama you won't find on the net.
ODM mentioned in the cartoon is the same party as Obama's cousin, Raila Odinga. Raila had the 100% backing of the Muslims and should he win would make Islam the only recognized religion in Kenya. This is an extension of the battle that is going on in Somalia, Sudan, Iraq and 9-11.
It appears Obama is using the same strategy as his cousin Raila used in America. We see the same thing happening here.
See google: Raila Odinga Barak Obama cousins, Dick Morris Raila Odinga, Muslims Back Obama
July 3, 2006 Houston Chronicle, an article was published by Jim Hoagland, a Pulitzer prize winning syndicated columnist who writes for the Washington Post.
The article is headlined: “THIS WORLD CAN’T TOLERATE MORE RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE”
Hoagland quotes Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into UNIVERSAL, rather than RELIGIOUS-SPECIFIC VALUES. “NOW THIS IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT FOR SOME WHO BELIEVE IN THE INERRANCY OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. But in a PLURALISTIC DEMOCRACY, we have NO CHOICE. Politics depends on our ability to persuade ea. Other of common aims based on a common reality…AT SOME FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL, RELIGION. DOES NOT ALLOW FOR COMPROMISE. It’s the art of the impossible. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policy-making on such commitments would be a DANGEROUS THING.”
Hoagland says, “Obama’s words could easily be adopted as well as guidelines for all gov’s in the Middle East and elsewhere”
the information provided gave me the places to look to find even more pertinent information. the article has a great deal of other "interesting" ideas but it seems it is no longer available at the houston chronicle unless i have an online subscription (i don't). a link to it in its entirety is here. the attachments referenced by mr. and mrs. davis are linked if you click on the title of each one above.
Kenya's defeated presidential challenger Raila Odinga has claimed to be a cousin of Barack Obama and said that they had discussed his country's post-election violence.
Mr Odinga, 63, said that the US senator's father, from western Kenya's Luo tribe, was his maternal uncle.
"He has called me to talk about the destabilising constitutional crisis in this country, despite being in the middle of the very busy New Hampshire primary," Mr Odinga said yesterday.
Mr Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs confirmed that the senator spoke to the Kenyan opposition leader on Monday afternoon for about five minutes before going into a rally in New Hampshire, according to Associated Press.
and then:
Mr Obama has not commented on the Kenyan opposition leader's claim to be a relative.
and finally:
Mr Obama's uncle, Said Obama, said that his village, Kogela, in western Kenya, had been spared the violence and expressed his excitement as his US relative led polls in New Hampshire's Democrat primaries.
"Ah, that's wonderful, but I don't want to jump just yet," Said Obama told AP.
listen to odinga making the claims with his own mouth. too bad he didn't decide to follow in the footsteps of another of his relations - check it out here - it seems that the esteemed dick cheney and obama are distant relatives.
from another story in the u.k. telegraph is this tidbit:
It is said there is a bitter joke among Kenya's Luo community that the United States of America will elect a member of their tribe as president before the East African country does.
not very funny to me. how about you?
writing for the conservative voice, michael gaynor had just a slew of interesting tidbits, a few of which are below:
"--Raila Odinga is of the Luo tribe to which Obama's late African-Arab Muslim father belonged. Obama's older brother still lives there; Abongo 'Roy' Obama is a Luo activist and militant Muslim who argues that the black man must liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture. He urges his younger brother, Barack, to embrace his African heritage. Barack Obama has a Kenyan grandmother [gaynor's note: according to Kenyan usage, not a biological grandmother] and several African brothers and sisters as well.
"--Odinga claimed the election was rigged when he lost, then there were riots and a sort of civil war, but it was the Christians who were getting killed by the Muslims. Christians were burned alive in churches and they were macheted in the streets. It is reported that 1,000 people were killed when all was said and done. Right now, Odinga is claiming the presidency and fighting to be sole president, and in a diplomatic effort, the powers that be allowed him to be co-president until the election is figured out.
"--Odinga also had an interesting political strategist help with his campaign, an American, who used to be a campaign employee of Bill Clinton's. It is the first time that an American political strategist has worked on any Kenyan campaign. Recommended by Barack Obama?
"--Raila Odinga's official presidential website is similar to Barack Obama's, and Odinga's main campaign message and slogan is: CHANGE. Vote for Change. Agent of Change. Look at his website: http://www.raila07.com/
there's so much more there and i encourage all of y'all to go read the whole thing. but how about odinga and obama both being "agents of change?" stop the aclu has a great post on this very thing, too.
a quick google search on 'muslims back obama' 827,000 items were returned in less than .19 seconds. hmmm, looks like there is some readily available information out there.
items like this article from the council on american-islamic relationship's (cair) website. in highlighting a convert to islam's (julia shearson) thoughts, the article says:
CAIR is not endorsing specific candidates, but she sees the move towards Mr Obama, by the young in particular, as part of a wider awakening.
i also liked this article and all its links. this article from the canada free press also got my attention and is well worth the read; one of the most salient nuggets is:
As a fledgling Christian, Obama didn't join just any church. He joined the United Church of Christ.
The United Church of Christ is very anti-Israel and supports divestment. It also sponsors speeches at its many functions by the Arab "Christian" pro-terror religious organization, Sabeel. Sabeel holds some of its biggest meetings in Chicago.
further
Is the "New Face" theory espoused in USA Today, New Face as in the "Portrait of Dorian Grey"?
What if Obama's into Pious Fraud Islam–Hudaibiyah treaty "kiss the hand of your enemy until you can cut it off"?. Not Obama? Remember the pictures of the little kids bobbing their heads up and down at the madrassas? They are all of the age Obama would have been in back in Indonesia.
judi mcleod finishes her article with:
Meanwhile hype notwithstanding, "the new face of change and reform for the democratic party" is no Abe Lincoln, but could be the most upwardly mobile Muslim of the millennium.
debbie schlussel certainly furthers the argument that obama is a muslim or at the very least is viewed as a muslim by the muslims. the good people over at frontpagemag.com agree with her. here. here. and here. but i think this is my favorite evidence that the muslims are supporting obama's run for potus. this picture really does say it all.
folks, the evidence is overwhelming. this is NOT a smear campaign. this is fact. and if you're not motivated to vote against obama by voting for mccain, then you are being just plain stubborn. please do not take this as an all out endorsement for john mccain; in fact if obama doesn't get the democrat nomination i still probably won't vote for mccain. but if he does, i'm voting for mccain. i hope all of you will join me.
i have diligently researched every statement and link within this post. it is my intention to not only inform, but also to inflame and motivate others out there who may be where i was.
btw, angel is blogging on how the fight to stop islam invading our country is racist. check out her post and let her know you were there.
and with those words justice antonin scalia opened his speech (lecture?) at the university of central missouri last night. already some 1200+ miles away (in the atlanta airport waiting for the flight that will take me to my friend in new jersey) and the wisdom he imparted is still with me...
justice scalia has long been on my 'most favorite people' list - i rank him right up there with james madison, thomas jefferson, teddy roosevelt, ronald reagan and william buckley (just to name a few). when president reagan appointed him to the federal appeals court is when scalia first popped on my radar.
i was still [mostly] in southern maryland at that point in my life and was well in tune to the happenings in d.c. long before anything [other than the presidential elections] on the national scene caught my attention. heck, it was 1982 and i hadn't even voted in a presidential election yet!
any how, back to last night. through a contact of dee's she was able to get highly unavailable tickets for herself, two personal friends of her and me. her first take on the whole evening is posted here and i'll try real hard to not rehash what she has written - or will write tomorrow - or the next day.
nearly 72 years on this earth (and nearly 50 years of marriage to the same woman) have shaped justice scalia into what he presented last night. i wonder, when he came from what most would think to be the most liberal of liberal areas (new york city) in this country, why he became known as one of the most conservative judges to make up the supremes.
there doesn't seem to be anything really 'telling' in his background that i can see. he has started life as the son of an immigrant who attended a jesuit high school in queens, went on to georgetown university, switzerland's university of fribourg, and ending his education with the magna cum laude graduation from harvard law school in the spring of 1960.
from there he went on to work as a practicing attorney in ohio and a law professor at another of the seven sisters (university of virginia) before entering public service during the nixon administration. after ford and until reagan he went back to teaching law - at the university of chicago, georgetown and stanford.
justice antonin scalia is a constitutional constructionist - or an originalist as he refers to himself. i have long maintained that one of that ilk (of which i count myself one) is neither conservative nor liberal as a matter of course and i was thrilled to hear justice scalia give voice to that same sentiment. another thing i have in common with the esteemed justice is that we are both social conservatives - i know, who would have believed that?!?!
but let's go back to the why of it, shall we?
currently EVERYONE discusses activist judges and EVERYONE believes that they are the bane of our society. only thing is, both sides have a differing viewpoint as to what and activist judge is.
those who believe in a "living constitution" think that originalists are the activist judges because they want to interpret the constitution in a fashion limited by what it says - or the dead constitution, as justice scalia called it. originalists believe that anyone who rules on constitutional issues with the idea that constitution means whatever they want it to mean today rather than on what it (and the supporting documentation for the constitution) SAYS is an activist judge.
seems to me that the latter, rather than the former, definition is more accurate. how can you be an activist if you are using the constitution as written. how can you be an activist if you're NOT trying to change anything in the constitution?!? how can you be an activist if you're not trying to legislate from the bench but rather only rule on those things that apply to the constitution (or is it to which the constitution applies?)?
during the course of his speech, scalia said that when he was coming up through the system, growing up and even before, the norm was that most everyone was a constructionist. he stated that it wasn't until the warren led supremes (1953-1969) when the tide started turning and the supremes started down the merry path of creating the living constitution. and based on what i know about u.s. history, i'd have to say that his viewpoint is an accurate one - big shocker there!!!
in talking with my friends on the left they often comment that the u.s. constitution MUST be a living document in order to make it flexible to the changes that happen as mankind evolves. i have long wrestled with an appropriate response to that argument and, thankfully, justice scalia handed one to those of us in attendance last night.
he put for the the notion that the u.s. constitution, as written, offers our citizens the MOST flexible of scenarios imaginable. further, he reminded all of us that it is the final word on what is to be the "law of the land". further, that no matter how stupid somethings are, they just aren't in the province of the constitution (he even joked that he wanted a stamp & ink pad that says "STUPID BUT CONSTITUTIONAL").
as for being flexible he offered the following arguments:
you think abortion should be legal? then get all of your fellow state citizens to agree with you and pass a law to ensure that it's legal. don't think it should be legal and it is? convince your fellow state citizens to agree with you and repeal the law in place. same thing goes for the death penalty - the supremes have no business ruling on either of these items; i agree.
james staab wrote a great book, The Political Thought of Justice Antonin Scalia: A Hamiltonian on the Supreme Court that i recently read. it's a great read even if i'm not sure i agree with all of staab's conclusions - to me scalia is more like thomas jefferson in that he believes in social conservatism (or liberalism in jefferson's day) so long as it "doesn't contradict the words the words in the constitution."
often times, justice scalia has gone with the side that is thought of as the "liberal reading" of the constitution; he hasn't gone "liberal" he is simply acting in concert with the words of the constitution. he has angered social conservatives with some of his votes - he mentioned flag burning (he vote it was allowed under the first amendment), for the confrontation clause (under the 4th amendment) and some others, that i can't remember right now.
all in all, i sit in awe of this man who thinks so fast on his feet, but makes no decisions without considering the full weight of the constitution and the tradition and history that surround the original words. i think the most important thing he said last night (and i paraphrase here) was that it is important to remember that those who believe in the living constitution seek not only to ADD rights but in some cases to remove them as well...
the people in this country don't want to believe that we are on a precipice between dhimmitude and our freedoms. there has been an islamic jihad declared against the west in general, and especially here in america. you can find the call to this jihad in site after site after site.
so many in our society say "it's only the radical muslims who buy into this crap". really? so where are all the moderate muslims speaking out against the jihad? where are all the moderates denouncing the world-wide dhimmification of non-muslims? where are all the moderates standing up for the christians in the community? where are all the moderates denouncing the fanatics among them who are honor killing their women, who are mutilating the genitals of their daughters?
islam was born in arabia, in the two cities of mecca and medina, where the prophet Muhammad, its founder, lived between 570 and 632. it is here that muhammad received his "revelation". after he died, his predication was given its final form in the book called the koran (or qur'an). in the three centuries that followed his death, muslim theologians and jurists elaborated the corpus of islamic jurisprudence on two main pillars, the koran and the hadiths. the hadiths being the acts and sayings (sunna) attributed to muhammad. the jurists used myriad interpretative principles to establish shari'a, the islamic law, to make it conform to allah's will expressed to muhammad in the koran and the hadiths.
according to dhimmitude.org, dhimmitude can only be understood from pov of jihad because jihad is the origination of dhimmitude. apparently, the way it works is like this: if you submit without fighting the islamic jihadists, you are given "a pledge of security" and essentially you are protected from the jihad laws against the infidels:
"...the jihad laws against infidels which command killing, slavery, ransom or deportation for the enemies. Peace and security for non-Muslims are recognised only after their submission. Protection status is provided through the Islamization of conquered lands."
yeah, yeah, we all know this. so what already. be patient! this stuff is important if we are to understand what we're up against.
all over the world, the islmaic jihadists are using our own freedoms against us to further their goal of subjugating we infidels. striking at the heart of ourselves, in the country that spawned us, the government is going after a blogger who's only crime is to have spoken the truth against what the islamists are doing to his community, his country. lionheart is currently in the u.s. and in order to avoid arrest in britain, he will be staying here awhile.
also in the u.k. authors and publishers are being sued for slander! this includes authors and publishers in the states if someone happens to be able to buy a copy of the publication and have it shipped to them in a foreign nation. and our courts are upholding the preposterous notion that the u.k. has jurisdiction over this matter. this is madness!
cair, that [supposedly] moderate islamic rights organization is an unindicted co-conspirator in the hamas funding trial. and still the current administration (and its accomplices in congress) treat cair as if they have some legitimate function in realizing peace between muslims and infidels.
now we have come to a point in this election cycle where we, the [supposed] conservatives, basically have a choice between a clinton-lite candidate and a wanna be reagan candidate. of course, we could also decide to vote for an actual clinton, or a former muslim. while i'm not wholly fond of any of my remaining choices, mitt seems to stink least of the options and i'm [sort of] supporting him. i will be voting for him on tuesday in lieu of forfeiting my right to bitch about the choice i have come november.
we are in a fight for our country, our liberties, our very way of life. the liberals around us call for greater and greater capitulation to the forces around us: amnesty for illegal aliens, appeasing the terrorists (and potential terrorists), u.n. control of the earth's seas, "free" healthcare for everyone, closing gitmo so as not to offend any more muslims and/or sensitive socialists, surrendering of our ability to defend ourselves, destroying our economy to appease the global warming wanks, the expansion of abortion on demand, the appointment of activist judges, and the list goes on (and on and on and on...)
of those items above, how do those things fall in line with the actions, words and history of our two remaining candidates? this pdf (Download romney_vs_mccain.pdf) gives you a pretty good idea - please feel free to distribute it to all whom you know. it appears there isn't much difference between the two of them, there is enough difference to make mccain squarely out of touch with who we are and where we should be heading.
but, although the differences are not huge, i find myself compelled to vote for romney come super tuesday. a few of the reasons: He did not actively campaign against republicans and republican positions - i also like that he has not given voice to a lot of kowtowing to islamists. not much i know, but this has come down to an election cycle of degrees.
maybe mitt will appoint constitutional constructionists. maybe john boy will support the people's right to bear arms. who knows. right now, i trust mitt more if for no other reason then he has a shorter history of screwing his constituents.
i believe he will keep gitmo open and allow "enhanced interrogation techniques" that will keep us and our servicemen and women in harm's way safer. i also think, because of this commitment, he will be less likely to bend over and give away our freedoms to the islamo-fascists then mr. mccain.
however, as i told goat tonight - it is my most sincere hope that the "republicans" lose this time around. maybe next time we'll be able to elect a grown up...
UPDATE: people across the conservative spectrum are coming out of the woodworks to denounce mccain. check out these links:
we should note that mccain finished up the 4th quarter 2007 with $4.5m in campaign debt and a total number of donors somewhere around 110,000. this is a train that can be stopped as it's not moving too quickly - regardless of what the lsm is trying to tell us.
mccain is NOT potus yet and there is nothing saying he has to be so. so climb on board and start pulling the emergency brakes to derail this thing. as defiant infidel has rightly noted, we did it with harriet miers, we did it with shamnesty and we can do it again. we must.
one more thing i have trackedback this article to angel's weekend post that ties right into this one. i heartily recommend you pop over and give her a read!
in my [way] old webster's dictionary at home - published well before 1950 - i looked up the word 'racism' and found this:
rac·ism(rā'sĭz'əm) n. the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races.
that's it - one line and it's pretty straightforward. as near as i can tell, it doesn't differentiate between "white racism" or "christian racism" or "homophobic racism". notably, neither does it say anything about "black racism" or "muslim racism" or "jewish racism" or "asian racism" and so on and so forth. presumably they are all the same and one is not worse than another.
but here in america, it seems that whites - read that as heterosexual, conservative, fanatics - are held accountable for all manner of things that have "stricken" those who are not the same as we. we're white america, we're awful and we deserve to be castigated.
after all, slavery was our invention, right? well no. but ok, we were the slave traders of note - we captured the slaves and sent them back here, right? well, no again. ok ok, but whites were the only ones who owned slaves in america, right? well, not quite. ok, but america was the only country that ever allowed enslavement, that one's true, right? um, no. but slavery was allowed for a longer period of time in america than any where else, wasn't it? nope. well, conservatives are against welfare which is the only way to help the poor ignorant blacks out of poverty (which in and of itself is another form of slavery), everybody knows that. wrong again bozo.
let's pick apart these arguments, shall we?
slavery has existed for as long as man has had civilizations. people of all races have been subjugated to the realm of slaves. and in some parts of the world, it still exists today. according to wikipedia (yes i know not the greatest source, but it jives with my hard paper encyclopedias and it's easier than retyping everything):
The evidence for slavery predates written records. It can be found in almost all cultures and continents. Slavery can be traced to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi in Mesopotamia (~1800 BCE.), which refers to slavery as an already established institution. The forced labor of women in some ancient and modern cultures may also be identified as slavery. Slavery, in this case, includes sexual services.
Historically, most slaves were captured in wars or kidnapped in isolated raids, but some persons were sold into slavery by their parents as a means of surviving extreme conditions. Most slaves were born into that status, to parents who were enslaved. Ancient Warfare often resulted in slavery for prisoners and their families, who were either killed, ransomed or sold as slaves. Captives were often considered the property of those who captured them and were looked upon as a prize of war. Slavery may originally have been more humane than simply executing those who would return to fight if they were freed, but the effect led to widespread enslavement of particular groups of people. Those captured sometimes differed in ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race from their enslavers, but often were the same as the captors. The dominant group in an area might take captives and turn them into slaves with little fear of suffering the like fate. The possibility always existed of reversals of fortune, as when Seneca warned, at the height of the Roman Empire, when powerful nations fought among themselves, anyone might find himself enslaved.
Brief sporadic raids or kidnapping could mean enslavement of persons otherwise not at war. St. Patrick recounted in his Confession having been kidnapped by pirates. In the Genesis, Joseph was sold into slavery by brothers who were jealous of him.
that effectively rules out the argument that slavery is a white on black phenomenon in general and specifically that it was a heinous act perpetrated by american whites against african blacks. that's not to say that white americans didn't own black slaves, however, it does show that we didn't start the process. nor were we the last ones to practice it, that would be the muslims who are still practicing the art of slavery today.
while it is true that white european males were the primary transporters of slaves (and other goods) from africa, it is NOT true that white european males were responsible for the capture of the peoples being enslaved. according to bill warner, director of the center for the study of political islam (cspi) and spokesman for politicalislam.com, white european (and 'american') males were purchasing their slaves for resale from muslim slave traders. from part two of a two part interview with jamie glazov of front page magazine, bill warner has this to say:
"History records around 11,000,000 Africans being sent to the Americas and about 13,000,000 being sent to Islamic countries for a total of 24,000,000 African slaves. To get one slave, many others have to be killed for the tribe to surrender to enslavement. The old, sick and children are left behind to starve. These collateral deaths are conservatively estimated to about 5 to 1. So that implies that over 1400 years, 120,000,000 million Africans have been killed to furnish Islam with its profits.
The accepted history of race in the U.S. is that white men captured Africans, brought them to the U.S. and sold them as slaves. This is wrong. When the white slavers showed up on the west coast of Africa, they didn’t capture Africans. They looked them over in the pens, gave the Muslim slave traders their money, took their bills of sale, and loaded their purchases into their boats.
The Muslims had been plying the trade of war, capture, enslavement, and sale for a thousand years. Mohammed was a slave trader. Long after the white slave traders quit, the Muslims continued their African slave trade. It still exists today.
And to put a fine point on it, many African slaves were castrated by removing both testicles and penis. Castrated slaves brought more on the slave block. Castrated blacks were the traditional keepers of Mohammed's mosque in Medina."
isn't it ironic, then, that black people who convert to islam do so with the belief that islam is the religion for blacks while christianity is the religion of the whites? muhammed considered himself white and he was a huge proponent of slavery. did you know that the arabic word for black slave and black person are the same "abd"; the word for white and asian slaves is "mamluk" - just something i found interesting. but that's a whole other blog post in and of itself. muslims take slaves now and they did then.
black people point the finger at white people, to this day, attributing to all whites all manner of evil for having owned slaves. i don't know about all of you reading this, but unless you're a muslim i can't believe that anyone reading this post is a proponent of slavery - black, child or other. personally, i believe that it is wrong and it saddens me that anyone in the human race would ever engage in the perpetration of it - including black people.
in the sudan and nigeria and mauritania - all of which have predominantly black populations - are still practicing slavery today. i won't include egypt and saudi arabia and the other muslim countries where it's still going on because the arabs consider themselves white so it's not necessarily a valid argument. but let's contain ourselves to the question of the united states, shall we?
a google search of "black slave holders" returns approximately 148,000 results - click on darn ear any one of them and you're welcomed into a world that you were never taught existed - at least not in the public school systems in america. i chose a few that i found interesting to share here.
back in 2001 the fine folks at free republic reposted a 1997 barnes review article by robert m. grooves. mr. grooms is a freelance writer of the highest caliber. in the article he sites several references to support his writings. an excerpt from the article is here:
The leftists who predominate in the mass media and the world of academe have refashioned the by gone world of slavery and black life in the Old South. Their agenda does not allow for a balanced view of a world they never knew.
In a society molded by highly skewed and agenda-selective presentations of history, the tightest censorship involves the fact that large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.
The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).
In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).
According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.
To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.
The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.
in point of fact, slavery in america was founded by a black man named "anthony johnson". anthony johnson was one of the first 20 blacks to arrive on the continent - as an indentured servant not a slave. check out this excerpt the 'virginia, guide to the old dominion, wpa writers' program' published by the oxford university press in 1940:
"In 1650 there were only 300 negroes in Virginia, about one percent of the population. They weren't slaves any more than the approximately 4,000 white indentured servants working out their loans for passage money to Virginia, and who were granted 50 acres each when freed from their indentures, so they could raise their own tobacco.
Slavery was established in 1654 when Anthony Johnson, Northampton County, convinced the court that he was entitled to the lifetime services of John Casor, a negro. This was the first judicial approval of life servitude, except as punishment for a crime.
But who was Anthony Johnson, winner of this epoch-making decision? Anthony Johnson was a negro himself, one of the original 20 brought to Jamestown (1619) and 'sold' to the colonists. By 1623 he had earned his freedom and by 1651, was prosperous enough to import five 'servants' of his own, for which he received a grant of 250 acres as 'headrights.'
Anthony Johnson ought to be in a 'Book of Firsts.' As the most ambitious of the first 20, he could have been the first negro to set foot on Virginia soil. He was Virginia's first free negro and first to establish a negro community, first negro landowner, first negro slave owner and as the first, white or black, to secure slave status for a servant, he was actually the founder of slavery in Virginia. A remarkable man." (emphasis is mine)
and it is true that conservatives are against welfare but at least it's because they want to end all forms of slavery. the dems know that welfare and other such entitlement programs don't do anything for the plight of the poor - black or otherwise. even hillary knows it - but don't take my word for it read what she wrote in her college senior thesis. the whole story behind the thesis and its being hidden from view is an interesting read in and of itself, but in this excerpt is hillary's acknowledgment that she KNOWS what she's doing with her social programs support:
In her paper, she accepted Alinsky's view that the problem of the poor isn't so much a lack of money as a lack of power, as well as his view of federal anti-poverty programs as ineffective. (To Alinsky, the War on Poverty was a “prize piece of political pornography,” even though some of its funds flowed through his organizations.) “A cycle of dependency has been created,” she wrote, “which ensnares its victims into resignation and apathy.”
i know this has been a particularly long post, but i couldn't figure out where to cut it. perhaps i need to hire an editor or something. this is information that everyone in this country should know. i'm positive that the reverends jesse and al know it. i'm certain that most of the leaders of the naacp and the aclu know it too. lord knows the muslims know it - well the bulk of it any way.
in parting, just a couple more questions that i am unable to divine the answer to: why is that we aren't teaching our children actual history but rather some fairytale that does nothing if not inflame the hatred of america even here at home. when did white americans of european descent become the be all, end all of racism and hatred?
debbie over at right truth brought this whole thing to my attention. truth be told, tantor let me know about the mosque in his post from 10 sept 2007 titled "the london markaz" but i had no idea that people were speaking out against in london. sorry for not grasping the whole situation, tantor - great work for bringing this to light, deb.
worried about the security impact of the mega-mosque, councillor alan craig spoke out against it's being built. the good folks over at god tube posted this:
the death threat video mentioned in deb's post is no longer available at you tube - i think this is the same one, but i'm not certain. i wonder why. perhaps they are worried that it will present the followers of islam, the religion of peace, in a bad light....
"A senior security source said that he was concerned about the proposed mosque, and expected ministers to use their powers to call in, and turn down, the planning application.
The move was confirmed by a senior Government source, who said there were fears that the giant mosque could damage community relations in the area, and added: "We are going to stop it."
There are clear planning grounds on which the development could be turned down. It is so close to the main Olympic venues that it may interfere with preparations for the Games."
and further:
"Tablighi Jamaat has hired a lobbying firm with a track record of supporting controversial planning applications, in an attempt to build political support for the project.
Indigo Public Affairs says that a formal planning application for the mosque will be submitted in the autumn, possibly with the size scaled back to meet some of the objections. A spokesman said: "Our client utterly refutes any links to terrorism. It is a predominantly apolitical organisation seeking to go about its faith in a peaceful way."
Tablighi Jamaat is a conservative and ultra-orthodox group with close links with the Wahhabi form of Islam practised in Saudi Arabia. Hundreds of British Muslims are sent by Tablighi Jamaat to madrassas in Pakistan every year, raising fears that some may be brainwashed. A leaked FBI memo alleged that al-Qaeda was using the organisation "as cover... to network with other extremists".
Mohammed Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, two of the July 7 suicide bombers, are believed to have visited the organisation's European headquarters, a mosque in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire. Supporters of Tablighi Jamaat point out that even if this were the case, the mosque would not necessarily be the place where the pair were brainwashed.
Muslims living near the site, in West Ham, have raised more than 3,000 signatures on a petition calling for the project to be halted. They want any new mosque to draw in all strands of Islam."
wow. so at that point even muslims were trying to stop the building of the mosque - if for, albeit, different reasons than mr. craig.
fast forward about six months. alan craig becomes more vocal in his opposition to the building of this mega-mosque. two months ago the telegraph ran a new article about the situation just after the death threat video aired. at that time, mr. craig did respond. from the article:
"Mr Craig, a councillor for Canning Town South ward in Newham borough, has upset some Muslim residents in the area with his resistance to plans for a 12,000 capacity "mega-mosque" at Abbey Mills, near West Ham tube station.
It is being proposed by the ultra-orthodox group Tablighi Jamaat, whose previous adherents include Glasgow airport bomber Kafeel Ahmed, shoe bomber Richard Reid and the July 7 bombers Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer.
Until yesterday there was a web link from the Abbey Mills mosque website to abdullah1425's YouTube mini website, where he identifies himself as Muhammad, 23, from Stevenage, Herts. Yesterday Mr Craig said he refused to be intimidated by the clip, which he described as "an open invitation to take me out".
He said: "It's either a sick joke or it's worse. Even if I don't worry about myself, to put my wife and two young children on there is particularly sick."
Mr Craig said he had no problem with Muslims, but did object to Tablighi Jamaat's plan on the grounds of its alleged terror links."
although never officially sanctioned or censured, this group is 'on the list', so to speak. also from the article:
"In 2003 Michael Heimbach, the deputy chief of the FBI's international terrorism section, was quoted in the New York Times as saying: "We found that al-Qa'eda used them for recruiting, now and in the past."
A French counter-terrorism official has also called it the "antechamber of fundamentalism", claiming it acted as a stepping stone to more extremist action."
of course the group denies any link to terrorism claiming they are a "peaceful, apolitical movement..." whatever.
this great video, if you can understand his cockney accent, is a great support for councillor craig. unfortunately, some others in the newham council can't scramble to appease the muslims fast enough. clearly they have no idea that they are going straight to dhimmi-hood on the fast train. to hell in a handbasket as it were.
i wonder, what sort of muslim participates in the olympics. surely no women - they can't possibly be able to participate in sports in a burka. sort of like other jobs they can't reasonably handle - ht to angel over at 'woman honor thyself' and be observant. i can see it now: iran represented in gymnastics by wht's no-ah in a stylish, black, burka. sheesh.
it saddens me that the uk is becoming completely and totally dhimmified. i will someday, possibly sooner rather than later, miss my trips across the pond to london town. i know it will come to that because i will NEVER wear a headscarf and i will never submit.
we need more people like councillor craig who are willing to speak out against the dark energy that is engulfing our planet. as i said over at right truth's post: "my prayers and heart go out to these people. we need to do whatever we can to promote their courage."
this is my contribution to spreading the word. won't you join me?
earlier this year jerry rivers, aka geraldo rivera, says that "...illegal aliens commit crimes at a lower rate than u.s. citizens..." however, shouldn't someone remind geraldo that if they came here without permission, then 100% of them have committed a crime? i'm sure all of you have seen the video, but here it is just in case.
i bring this up because i saw this on the back of a pickup truck on i-35 today: "don't worry, the king of england didn't like the minute man project either" and it got me to thinking about all this again. He also had "Support the 2nd Amendment; its the original homeland security act" but that's a whole other post...
recently due, at least in part, to public outcry dick durbin and harry reid's latest version of the "dream act" was defeated. i doubt seriously that it will finally die here. these people apparently don't understand that the good people of the united states simply DO NOT support their efforts to give amnesty to the illegal aliens in this country.
they will not admit that the amnesty push is simply a ploy to get more voters into the fold. and it seems that each the democrats and the bush "republicans" think that "they" will be the ones to garner the voters.
the proponents of "undocumented citizens" will tell you that at one point all of us entered the country illegally. whatever. if they really believe this, then why do they not oppose the immigration laws of mexico or canada or - well you get the picture. they don't believe this, it's just a convenient sound bite to justify support for breaking the laws of our country.
the people who are coming to our country illegally, are NOT coming here to become a part of our communities and our country. they demand that we change our culture to accommodate them. they demand that we speak their language. the fly the flag of the country they abandoned to come here. they demand the rights of citizens when they are NOT citizens.
but do they support the same type of treatment for immigrants to their countries? of course not. well, at least vincente fox doesn't. he believes that the u.s. borders should be open but that mexico has the right to keeps its borders closed.
but the worst is not the trash they are bringing to our country. it is not the increase in the cost of educational services, medical services, welfare services, crime and punishment or infrastructure. no, the worst is that these illegal immigrants take so much and contribute so little.
i had a conversation with some people i know who put forth the argument that these people who are working "without documentation" or with "borrowed documentation" are actually good for the country. see, the rationale is that they are paying all this money into the tax system and taking so little because they can't because they are "considered" illegal.
usillegalaliens blog had a great post (well one of many) where they analyze the impact of illegal aliens on our country. the article is long and has many references, but it is well worth the read; the information contained in it is simply amazing. the article also brings out a point i had not heard before:
Finally, another negative aspect of illegal immigration, that few realize, is the impact it is having on Congressional reapportionment. Remember, the Census Bureau counts all people for determining representative apportionment, not just citizens. As a result, there is a shift of political power going on from the states with lower illegal alien populations to states with higher illegal alien populations as noted in a Center for Immigration Studies article, Remaking the Political Landscape - The Impact of Illegal and Legal Immigration on Congressional Apportionment, as detailed in the chart to the right.
Note the 18 seat swing from mostly rust belt to sun belt? You can expect more of this after the 2010 census, if we continue counting foreign nationals for congressional representation - something I'm sure the founders did not intend when they put the enumeration requirement in the Constitution.
All this is massive collateral damage from a "victimless crime" so we can save ten cents on a head of lettuce.
additionally, as this article by daniel gonzalez of the arizona republic points out, the illegals spend as little as possible so that they can send as much as possible home. this allows the family members left behind to live a bit better than they otherwise would and it props up the mexican economy to boot.
i know, i know. not ALL immigrants who are here illegally are from mexico, but the vast majority of them are. i understand that there are others who are slipping in side door and it includes drug dealers and perhaps even terrorists. all the more reason we need to close the borders.
recently chris burgard released a new movie, border, paints a horrible but true picture of what the illegal immigration is doing along our border with mexico. according the film's website:
"Border takes you on a journey from state to state and exposes a failed system and a failed policy. Burgard's courageous journey includes powerful footage in the border crossing regions of America where dead bodies, armed Mexican military incursions, 'rape trees,' and drug traffickers are commonplace."
in an interview with frontpage magazine, chris burgard discusses the film and how/why he got started in making it. i think the most telling thing he said in the interview (and none of it was fluff) was:
Well I know that the problem will continue only as long as the Federal Government wants it too. After seeing a US Stryker unit completely close down one of the biggest drug corridors in New Mexico for a month, and after spending a great deal of time working with the rank and file US Border Patrol agents. I am convinced that we have more than enough tools in the shed to secure the border whenever we want to. It is a matter of choosing not to. If enough people pay attention and participate, keep up the same kind of pressure that shut down the phone system of the US Senate, only then when the politicians in Washington are afraid of losing their jobs and their power will you see real change.
i believe he's right. i believe it's time to shut this down NOW. any ideas of what the next step is?
this book has, apparently, been out since 2006, but somehow i have just learned about this today. according to the website hawking this book:
"Why Mommy is a Democrat brings to life the core values of the Democratic party in ways that young children will easily understand and thoroughly enjoy. Using plain and non-judgmental language, along with warm and whimsical illustrations, this colorful 28-page paperback depicts the Democratic principles of fairness, tolerance, peace, and concern for the well-being of others. It's a great way for parents to gently communicate their commitment to these principles and explain their support for the party.
Why Mommy is a Democrat may look like a traditional children's book, but it definitely isn't just for children. With numerous subtle (and not-so-subtle) satirical swipes at the Bush administration and the Republican party, Why Mommy will appeal to Democrats of all ages!
first of all, who knew the democrats had principles of fairness, tolerance, peace and concern for the well-being of others? second of all, how can you take satirical swipes, subtle or otherwise, using non-judgmental language?
let's examine these things shall we? in her post on monday, angel pointed out "One man’s 'hate speech' is another man’s Truth." generally speaking, anything a conservative says that a liberal disagrees with is "hate speech". conversely, anything a liberal says, no matter how ridiculous, illogical or hateful, is "truth". got it? so, if i, as a conservative, cannot say anything you, as a democrat, disagree with then for whom is there fairness?
when i look at the democrat party, i see that there is tolerance for illegal aliens. tolerance for islamists, regardless of how "radical". i see bashing of our men and women in arms - whether currently standing in harm's way or not. i see denial of the rights of christians. i see the bashing of conservatives. i see the embracing of homosexuals so long as they are not republicans. i see the promotion of children so long as those children are not espousing anything that is conservative in nature - otherwise the poor child is just mislead or ignorant.
i fail to see how this qualifies democrats as "tolerant". it is simply group think, which is very close to mob rules, to embrace everything that mirrors your beliefs while bashing and dismissing anyone who does not.nothing's going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch" just so the dems have right to say idiotic things promotes peace. or how bypassing the president to meet with the syrian president (and other leaders in the middle east) promotes peace. or how teaching our children that the war of northern aggression was about slavery and that we owe reparations forever more to all "persons of color" promotes peace. or tolerance. or fairness.
i also fail to understand how promoting tolerance towards people who want to kill us promotes peace. or how denigrating the people willing to stand on that ground and say "
as for "concern for the well-being of others" they can stuff it. government simply has no business taking care of me or mine. especially my children. or yours. ever notice that when it comes to abortion a "woman's right to choose" is sacrosanct, but once she's decided to keep the kid all choices must be sanctioned by the government?!? ever notice, as i have, that the majority of people who are vegetarians because of the idea of "cruelty to animals" is pro abortion? ever notice that, in democrat speak, concern for others only exists in so far as it can garner them votes?
it is my experience that democrats are none of these things. that democrats have only one goal and that is to establish a socialist utopia here in our country. well no thank you.
btw, did you happen to notice what the momma squirrel is protecting her young from? anyone else ever had the thought that democrats must wish that their party animal to be a mouse instead of a donkey?
did you know that we've painted the empire state building green!?!? well not paint, really, but it appears to be green to honor the end of ramadhan. angel has a great post and great imagery here and both defiant infidel and debbie over at right truth add to angel's information.
i have placed a call to their pr department - specifically a ms. melanie marsh - and left a message that i am appalled at the idiocy of honoring a group especially in new york where we should all still have such a violent recollection of what the muslim terrorists did to our nation. i am not going to hold my breath waiting for a return call.
the empire sate building's official internet site has an entire page devoted to the history of the lighting of the building and another for the upcoming schedule. it's important to note that several people are saying that this is the first time the building will be completely green, but clearly this isn't the case:
October 09, 2007
Green/Green/Green*
New York Restoration Project and NYC Parks Department - Million Trees NYC
wow, i wonder if they did it that way because they wanted to be able to say it wasn't the only thing that warranted an all green e.s.b.?!?!
please join us in calling and registering your dissatisfaction over this horrendous act of political correctness. i wonder what color they light the building to commemorate easter or jewish passover? perhaps the other jewish holidays?
and still has: $31,200.00.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school.
according to the website hawking this book:
