Category Archives: Liberals
Crack vs Power. Heroin vs Hate. No Difference. I’d Rather hang out with Drug Addicts than The Obamas.
From mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
Harry Reid and His Commie Friends are Evil and Enemies of our Great Nation. They are the Terrorists Within.
From mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
As reported yesterday, hundreds of federal agents are still at the Bundy Ranch and the area continues its status as a no-fly zone. Despite major media reports that the Nevada Bureau of Land Management is retreating, the remaining activity that still surrounds the ranch illustrates a different scenario.
Not only is the BLM not actually backing off of Cliven Bundy, Sheriff Richard Mack of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association has revealed stunning information: on Ben Swann’s radio program, Mack said that he has received intelligence from multiple, credible sources inside the BLM and the Las Vegas Metro that there is “no question” that the federal government is planning a raid on the Bundy home and the homes of their children who live on the property.
According to Mack, the so-called retreat was nothing more than theatrics. “It was a ploy to get people to back off, to get people out of the way. They weren’t expecting us to get this amount of people here. They were surprised by the numbers and so they wanted a way to get us out of here. This was a ploy to get us out of here and then they’re going after the Bundys.” Mack said that when he was at the Bundy ranch on Saturday there were an estimated 600 to 800 protesters present when federal agents were releasing the cattle.
“If they do that kind of raid, I don’t believe there’s any way that could happen without bloodshed,” Mack told Swann.
Mack spoke about the tactic that protesters could use by putting women at the front of the line facing the federal agents to make them think carefully before opening fire.
“I would’ve gone next. I would’ve been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here,” said Mack.
Mack said that he had been told by Bundy that the federal government is actively shutting down the ranching industry, specifically in Clark County. He also revealed that there used to be 53 ranches in Clark County. All of those ranchers have been put out of business, except for Bundy who is still trying to hold on. “Every American should be outraged by it,” said Mack. The ranch has been in Bundy’s family since 1877.
Mack decried Nevada governor Brian Sandoval for declaring this situation unconstutional while doing nothing to stop it. “He could have called in the state’s national guard, could have called in the sheriff’s office, could have called in highway patrol, and he’s done nothing except assail what’s going on. That’s easy, that’s cowardly.”
Sheriff Mack also called out media including radio host Glenn Beck who he says is siding with the BLM on this issue.
“I can’t believe that there are some Americans, and some media like Glenn Beck, that are supporting the BLM in this and it’s absolutely disgraceful.”
. ———————————————————————————————————————— .
Local rancher Cliven Bundy may have his cattle back, but his supporters say they are still preparing for an imminent threat.
Militia groups from all over the country say they are flocking to the Bundy ranch to protect the family from a feared federal government raid.
The Bureau of Land Management allowed Bundy to release his cattle Saturday, after they felt threatened.
Bundy now has a whole contingent of armed guards surrounding him 24 hours a day.
“They’re just there, trying to make sure something crazy doesn’t happen to him,” Bundy’s son Ammon Bundy said.
His security detail and family feel he is someone to be protected because of what the federal government could do.
“There were snipers on the hills and armed guards and you know, military forces with cameras all over.” Ammon Bundy said.
Cliven Bundy fears that the government could gather up again because they never reached a formal deal.
He is also trying to determine whether federal agents damaged any of his cattle before they released them.
The BLM only allowed the family to open up the gate of the pen where the animals were being held because officers were afraid of violence. As of now, no one has cleared him to take back his cattle for good.
Taking the stage to address supporters Monday, Bundy was quickly obscured behind his guards. The detail told 8 News NOW they are now patrolling the area 24 hours a day looking for federal snipers.
“You never know, you never know,” Ammon Bundy said.
According to the BLM, Bundy has allowed his cattle to graze public land illegally for the past 20 years. Following two court orders, the feds started rounding up the cattle last week.
The agency also says Bundy owes more than $1 million in grazing fees for trespassing on federal lands since the 1990s.
Saturday, the BLM agreed to pull out of the area but hundreds of protesters flooded a BLM holding station, aiming to release hundreds of Bundy’s cattle.
Monday, Bundy says he never told his supporters to flood a federal cattle pen, using weapons. Members of Bundy’s security details say more militia groups are on their way and will be there for weeks to come.
Ammon Bundy says he was awake last night fearful the feds were going to come in and arrest his family.
No law enforcement have talked about arresting anyone in this dispute, and there is still no clear resolution to the fact that Bundy is grazing cattle on federal land without paying fees.
Clive Bundy may have prevailed over the weekend in his standoff with the Bureau of Land Management regarding his Nevada ranch and disputed ranch, but that’s just the first phase, according to Harry Reid.
“Well, it’s not over,” he told Reno’s KRNV. “We can’t have an American people that violate the law and just walk away from it, so it’s not over.”
Last week, the BLM began rounding up Bundy’s cattle amid controversy over whether he owed the federal government millions in grazing fees for his cattle being on their land. Bundy and his supporters, who gathered in Bunkerville, Nev., say that the rancher and his family have had rights to the land for over a century.
With tensions high, the BLM and federal agents backed off on Sunday, prompting some to think Bundy had prevailed. Reid’s comments may mean the government’s withdrawal was temporary, or that it will take a different approach to addressing the situation.
From TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
The Bureau of Land Management: Nothing but Thugs Abusing Animals in the Name of the Government. Disgusting and Criminal.
EXCLUSIVE: Evidence of BLM’s Deadly Abuse of Animals Taken from Bundy Ranch
The US federal government might have just evoked the fury of animal right groups over their shocking treatment of cattle at the Bundy Ranch, and may soon face legal charges of severe animal abuse in Clark County, Nevada.
Federal agency’s treatment of residents at the Bundy Ranch this past week included tasering, beating, wrongful arrest, threatening residents with attack dogs, and mobilizing a federal paramilitary force whose barrels were trained on US citizens, all in all, spending at least $3 million of tax payer money in an effort to sell stolen cattle over state lines in Utah and California. A legal argument has also been made that the US Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is now guilty of racketeering under the federal RIC) statute (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations). If all that wasn’t enough, evidence is now emerging regarding pattern of extreme cruelty and abuse, and suspected culling of animals from the Bundy Ranch.
Nevada Assemblywoman Michelle Fiore has released new shocking information and images which document the horrors which BLM agents have inflicted on previously happy and healthy livestock.
The Bundy ranch Family. The Newest Endangered Species in America. They would Fare much Better as a Tortoise.
Sympathy for Cliven Bundy and his family.
Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy : They don’t have a chance on the law, because under the Endangered Species Act and many other federal statutes, the agencies are always in the right.
And their way of life is one that, frankly, is on the outs. They don’t develop apps. They don’t ask for food stamps. It probably has never occurred to them to bribe a politician. They don’t subsist by virtue of government subsidies or regulations that hamstring competitors. They aren’t illegal immigrants. They have never even gone to law school. So what possible place is there for the Bundys in the Age of Obama?
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
“A Russian fighter repeatedly buzzed a US warship in the Black Sea.”
— would once have prevented the Russians from trying this stunt. But it’s gone. And going to battle stations each time plane shows up is ruinously expensive. When the IRS shuts down Republican companies or when Harry Reid uses his political position to drive a rancher off his land the damage goes beyond the individual aggrieved party. It goes to the legitimacy of the system. Of all the values the “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” cohort have squandered, nothing has been more ill-spent than trust.Belmont Club » The Book of Numbers
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
From WRSA: http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/
From mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
If a government passes a law, and nobody obeys, what is that government to do?
. When Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) signed the “toughest assault weapons legislation in the nation” last year, his administration estimated between 372,000 and 400,000 firearms would be registered and about 2 million magazines that hold more than ten rounds.
The registration requirement kicked in on Jan. 1 – more than four months ago.
To date, about 50,000 “assault weapons” have been registered – less than 15 percent – and only 38,000 “high-capacity” magazines have been registered – or about 2 percent.
This has liberals – led by the leftist Hartford Courant – in a rage. In a Valentine’s Day editorial, the newspaper said state police should comb the state and federal background check databases to find those millions of scofflaws and… well, arrest them.
The Courant doesn’t say this outright, they argue that the state should find these people, but since violating the new law is a felony, and “felonies cannot go unenforced.”
“A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit,” they write. “if you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.
What the newspaper is afraid to call for outright is the imprisonment of tens of thousands of gun and high-capacity magazine owners in the state. Throw them in prison for merely owning a weapon or magazine.
Luckily, Gov. Malloy is a little brighter than the good people at the Courant. Sending state troopers descending on thousands of gun owners can not end well. Some folks – even folks in Connecticut – are inclined to believe their Second Amendment Right is inalienable and would react rather negatively if somebody attempted to disarm them.
So that’s out. What about threatening them with criminal charges? That’s out too. The new law already classifies them as felons and they don’t seem to mind.
So what is Malloy likely to do? Nothing. Pretend the law doesn’t even exist and try to move on. Of course, this just proves what we’ve already known: tyrants are toothless against an armed and educated populace.
From TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
. The media’s version of the end of the Bundy Ranch siege is that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) simply “left” the ranch and “returned” the cattle out of the goodness of their hearts. CBS News even outrageously reported that the BLM “released the cattle to help restore order and avoid violence“! This despite widely-seen video of BLM thugs tasing Bundy’s son and shoving a pregnant woman to the ground. And the protesters never threatened violence in any way during the nearly one-week siege.
The real story was that the BLM refused to give back the cattle, and would not leave the property or disarm, to which they had agreed. The result was an epic standoff that reporter David Knight described as being like “something out of a movie.”
Supporters of Bundy advanced on a position held by BLM agents despite threats that they would be shot at, eventually forcing BLM feds to release 100 cattle that had been stolen from Bundy as part of a land grab dispute that threatened to escalate into a Waco-style confrontation.
. ———————————————————————————————————————— .
. Here’s Judge Jeanine Pirro, proving once again that she’s not a part of the “mainstream” news media.
Turtles and cows have absolutely no relevance to the situation in Nevada. Does the Constitution make provision for the federal government to own and control “public land”? This is the only question we need to consider. Currently, the federal government “owns” approximately 30% of the United States territory. The majority of this federally owned land is in the West. For example, the feds control more than 80% of Nevada and more than 55% of Utah. The question has been long debated. At the debate’s soul is Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which is know as the “Property Clause”. Proponents of federal expansion on both sides of the political aisle argue that this clause provides warrant for the federal government to control land throughout the United States.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States…
Those who say this clause delegates the feds control over whatever land they arbitrarily decide to lay claim to are grossly misinterpreting even the most basic structure of the Constitution.
It is said the Constitution is “written in plain English”. This is true. However, plain English does not allow one to remove context. Article IV does not grant Congress the power to exercise sovereignty over land. Article IV deals exclusively with state-to-state relations such as protection from invasion, slavery, full faith and credit, creation of new states and so on.
Historically, the Property Clause delegated federal control over territorial lands up until the point when that land would be formed as a state. This was necessary during the time of the ratification of the Constitution due to the lack of westward development. The clause was drafted to constitutionalize the Northwest Ordinance, which the Articles of Confederation did not have the power to support. This ordinance gave the newly formed Congress the power to create new states instead of allowing the states themselves to expand their own land claims.
The Property Clause and Northwest Ordinance are both limited in power and scope. Once a state is formed and accepted in the union, the federal government no longer has control over land within the state’s borders. From this moment, such land is considered property of the sovereign state. The continental United States is now formed of fifty independent, sovereign states. No “unclaimed” lands are technically in existence. Therefore, the Property Clause no longer applies within the realm of federal control over these states.
The powers of Congress are found only in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. With the exception of the less than two dozen powers delegated to Congress found within Article I, Section 8, Congress may make no laws, cannot form political agencies and cannot take any actions that seek to regulate outside of these few, enumerated powers.
Article I, Section 8 does lay forth the possibility of federal control over some land. What land? Clause 17 defines these few exceptions.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is known as the Enclave Clause. The clause gives federal control over the “Seat of Government” (Washington D.C.) and land that has been purchased by the federal government with consent of the state legislature to build military posts and other needful buildings (post offices and other structures pursuant to Article I, Section 8). Nothing more.
Being a requirement, state permission was explicitly emphasized while drafting this clause. The founders and respective states insisted (with loud cries) that the states must consent before the federal government could purchase lands from the states. Nowhere in this clause will you find the power for Congress to exercise legislative authority through regulation over 80% of Nevada, 55% of Utah, 45% of California, 70% of Alaska, etc. unless the state has given the federal government the formal authority to do so, which they have not.
If a state legislature decides sell land to the federal government then at that point the Enclave Clause becomes applicable and the federal government may seize legislative and regulatory control in pursuance to the powers delegated by Article 1, Section 8.
In America’s infancy, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Founding Fathers’ understanding of federal control over land. Justice Stephen J. Field wrote for the majority opinion in Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1855) that federal authority over territorial land was “necessarily paramount.” However, once the territory was organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal ground, the state government assumes sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government retains only the rights of an “individual proprietor.” This means that the federal government could only exercise general sovereignty over state property if the state legislature formally granted the federal government the power to do so under the Enclave Clause with the exception of federal buildings (post offices) and military installations. This understanding was reaffirmed in Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845), Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the city of New Orleans (1845) and Strader v. Graham (1850).
However, it did not take long for the Supreme Court to begin redefining the Constitution and legislating from the bench under the guise of interpretation. Case by case, the Court slowly redefined the Property Clause, which had always been understood to regard exclusively the transferring of federal to state sovereignty through statehood, to the conservation of unconstitutional federal supremacy.
Federal supremacists sitting on the Supreme Court understood that by insidiously redefining this clause then federal power would be expanded and conserved.
With Camfield v. United States (1897), Light v. United States (1911), Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) and multiple other cases regarding commerce, federal supremacists have effectively erased the constitutional guarantee of state control over property.
Through the centuries, by the hand of corrupt federal judges, we arrive and the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. The Founding Fathers never imagined the citizens of a state would be subject to such treatment at the hands of the federal government. Furthermore, they certainly never imagined the state legislatures themselves would allow such treatment to go unchecked. The latest updates appear to show that Bundy has won his battle against the feds – for now. However, it remains a damn shame that the state of Nevada would allow for such a situation to arise in the first place.
What does Nevada’s Constitution say about property? Section 1, titled “Inalienable Rights,” reads: All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness (Emphasis added).
In Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution, eminent domain is clarified. The state Constitution requires that the state prove public need, provide compensation and documentation before acquiring private property. In order to grant land to the federal government, the state must first control this land.
Bundy’s family has controlled the land for more than 140 years.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is an agency created by Congress, claimed that Bundy was “violating the law of the land.” Perhaps the agency has forgotten that the law of the land is the Constitution, and the only constitutional violation here is the very modern existence of the agency’s presence in Nevada.
FROM TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Remember all those promises that were made to sell Obamacare? Like lowering premiums for a family of 4 by $2,500 a year, allowing people to keep their plans and their doctors, not adding a dime to the deficit, and all of that?
Well, let’s just see how much of a striking success “Obamacare” is based on the numbers so far. The Heritage Foundation created these charts based on the HHS’ own numbers, the CBO’s, and the Kaiser Family Foundation’s.
If you’re a young person, you’re pretty much screwed. Not only will you be paying higher premiums to subsidize your elders, you will be paying more taxes over your lifetime to pay back the loans we’re accruing just to pay for this boondoggle. You’re welcome, right?
So… Mr. Smooth was going to save a family of four $2,500 a year in premiums, as promised so many times it’s laughable. About that… a family of four is likely to get an increase in premiums, and in addition, basically anyone who wants to work and live the American Dream will be penalized with higher taxes.
Speaking of taxes, check out these bad boys. Not just one, but 18 new taxes lumped into one giant bill that should be called “Obamatax.” Hey, it’s not a tax! Oh yeah, well, now it is.
You would think from all the hysteria nowadays about Medicaid expansion to the states that this was the main purpose of Obamacare – to spread a huge soviet-style welfare program to as many homes as possible (and let those who are on it tell ya about the amazin’ service while they’re at it!) Anyway, let’s frame some of that left-wing hypocrisy by pointing out Obamacare’s massive cuts to another government program – Medicare.
Now, show him the deductibles, Bob! Average deductibles on the “Catastrophic,” “Bronze,” and “Silver” plans are going through the roof. (No worries if you live in Colorado or Washington, just light up a joint and forget you read this.)
Now here comes the biggie – cost. If you were one of the supporters of this law who thought it wouldn’t “add a dime” to the deficit, I want you to turn to your (theoretical) children and grandchildren and apologize. We’ll wait.
No, tell them the part how you’ll be sticking your kids with your generation’s bills, and how debt is the unpaid portion of the federal budget that gets passed on to someone else.
Still don’t feel guilty? How about realizing that all those taxes coming out of the private sector to pay for this disaster will limit your children’s future, as being evidenced in part by the half of college graduates who can’t find jobs in their fields? Oh, now you feel guilty.
And lo and behold, this healthcare “reform” boondoggle passed through procedural gimmickry with no bipartisan support whatsoever loaded with nonsense and unread in full by most of the nation’s “representation” in Washington still has very little support – beyond those Democrats who would support anything the party told them to.
Funny Thing: Coming Or Going—Gentrifying Or Fleeing—It’s Always Whitey’s Fault!
Spike Lee’s notorious February 25 lecture at Brooklyn’s Pratt Institute in honor of Black History Month., was an expletive-filled, overtly racial, hypocritical rant. During the supposed Q&A, Lee jettisoned the format and steamrolled the adoring liberal white attendees:
Here’s the thing: I grew up here in Fort Greene. I grew up here in New York. It’s changed. And why does it take an influx of white New Yorkers in the south Bronx, in Harlem, in Bed Stuy, in Crown Heights for the facilities to get better? The garbage wasn’t picked up every [bleepin’] day when I was living in 165 Washington Park. P.S. 20 was not good. P.S. 11. Rothschild 294. The police weren’t around. When you see white mothers pushing their babies in strollers, three o’clock in the morning on 125th Street [NS: highly unlikely], that must tell you something….
Then comes the [bleepin’] Christopher Columbus Syndrome. You can’t discover this! We been here. You just can’t come and bogart [steal]. There were brothers playing [bleepin’] African drums in Mount Morris Park for 40 years and now they can’t do it anymore because the new inhabitants said the drums are loud. My father’s a great jazz musician. He bought a house in nineteen-[bleepin’]-sixty-eight, and the [bleepin’] people moved in last year and called the cops on my father….
Nah. You can’t do that…. You have to come with respect. There’s a code. There’s people. …
And we had the crystal ball, mother [bleepin]’ Do the Right Thing with John Savage’s character, when he rolled his bike over Buggin’ Out’s sneaker. I wrote that script in 1988. He was the first one. How you walking around Brooklyn with a Larry Bird jersey on? You can’t do that. Not in Bed Stuy.
[Spike Lee’s Amazing Rant Against Gentrification: ‘We Been Here!’ by Joe Coscarelli, New York Magazine, February 25, 2014]
It’s important to note that the New York Magazine editor who called Lee’s rant “amazing” was not being ironic. Liberal whites must always re-define racist black behavior as something positive, anodyne, or just misrepresented and misunderstood, probably by white racists.
Of course, Lee’s position would only make sense if he still lived in the Fort Greene neighborhood he’d grown up in. In fact, he fled it back in 2000, to live far away from blacks in a $32 million mansion on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. [“Spike Lee’s Upper East Side mansion hits market at $32 million,” by Matt Chaban, New York Daily News, February 2, 2014]
But while Lee insists upon his own right to enter elite white neighborhoods, he simultaneously claims that whites should be banned from so much as wearing a Larry Bird jersey in a “black” neighborhood. Lee’s definition of “respect” isn’t English, but the black street thug version: submission to threats of physical force.
What Lee advocates is Politically Correct asymmetrical apartheid—blacks can live anywhere, but they can also maintain (through force) segregated black neighborhoods. [“Spike Lee and other sentimental segregationists,” by Harry Siegel, New York Daily News, March 4, 2014]
What’s worse is that Lee’s hypocritical tribalism is in line with what our rulers have been imposing on us for 60 years. Government at all levels moves with ruthless fanaticism to destroy any neighborhoods that are “too white.” Even Republicans get in the act—like Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead strategizing to culturally enrich his largely white state with Somali “refugees.”
Those pushing these policies live far away from the consequences they create. Like Lee, they say “Diversity for thee, but not for me.”
None of the nine white Supreme Court justices of the unanimous Brown decision lived among integration/diversity. Nor did the committee that helped federal judge Arthur Garrity “integrate” Boston’s public schools via forced busing during the 1970s. [“Busing’s Boston Massacre,” Hoover Institution, November 1, 1998]
Diversity-hustling white journalists typically live in virtually black-free areas in places like Bethesda and Potomac, Maryland. The journalists and Catholic Church functionaries who denounced Frank Borzellieri all live in lily-white areas—in one case, the same neighborhood as American Renaissance’s Jared Taylor.
The justification for sweeping government action on desegregation, busing, anti-white racial preferences, and demographic change is what the U.S. Supreme Court called in Bakke the “compelling state interest” of diversity. But the very people who push it seem the most eager to forgo its blessings.
What holds the whole scheme together is simply white guilt. While it is fashionable to sneer at white-driven gentrification, other propagandists condemn “white flight” for supposedly causing high black crime rates and economic collapse.
For example, former crime reporter David Simon created the TV show The Wire, a supposedly realistic look at crime and policing in Baltimore. During a documentary promoting the show, Simon asserted that social scientists had proved that when a formerly white neighborhood reached six percent black, the whites all pulled up stakes and left, as if whites said, ‘We won’t tolerate this level of black neighbors.’ Simon gravely nodded, after stating his pseudo-fact, as if to say, ‘You see how racist whites are?’
The simple truth: whites are fleeing the black violence, not causing it.
A revealing look at how “diversity” destroys communities is the 1998 book Left Behind in Rosedale, by sociologist Scott Cummings. This mainstream, academic work covers the destruction of Fort Worth TX’s formerly white, crime-free, University Heights neighborhood.
It’s a familiar tale. Middle-class blacks moved in, used the now desegregated neighborhood as a stepping stone, and moved on. They were followed by the underclass, who imposed a reign of racial terror on the aging whites who didn’t flee. Atrocities included the rape and murder of elderly women, in one case through shoving a broom handle down a woman’s throat.
The Fort Worth PD failed to protect the whites, the MSM ignored their plight and—as Cummings recounts—his academic colleagues positively reveled in the whites’ suffering.
But the reaction of liberal whites is far different if it is whites themselves who are changing neighborhoods. Usually middle/upper-middle class whitea buy up properties cheaply in depressed areas, and improve and profit off them. These “gentrifiers” often start out in working-class white neighborhoods, such as Brooklyn’s Park Slope, but soon run out of white areas, and have no choice but to wade into black communities, like Manhattan’s Harlem, Brooklyn’s Fort Greene, various parts of Baltimore, and other dilapidated, black-run cities.
Many urban dwelling gentrifying whites are socially liberal—which leads to awkward encounters once they actually encounter “diversity.” Recently, a lesbian Baltimore gentrifier, Tracey Halvorsen, came out of the closet about the black-on-white racial violence, in a searing personal essay. [“Baltimore City, You’re Breaking My Heart,” Tracey Halvorsen, Medium, February 6, 2014] Halvorsen inspired other Baltimore gentrifiers to recount their own harrowing experiences with blacks. But she also received the predictably hysterical blowback about how black crime is actually her fault, because of “inequality.” [“Some or All Fears: ‘Breaking My Heart’ Post Sparks Debate,” City Paper, February 7, 2014]. Suitably chastened, Halvorsen swiftly bent the knee, condemned those who had shown her support, and leapt back into the closet, pulling the door tightly behind her.
Even a liberal female homosexual, if she’s white, can do no right. Whites are racist if they move out of black neighborhoods because of black crime – or even notice black crime at all. But they are also racist if they move into black neighborhoods.
It’s a long drop from “for ourselves and our posterity” to public policy driven by the insecurities of people like Spike Lee.
Integration and diversity was never about improving the lives of blacks. It is about destroying the communities of whites—and creating a dysfunctional, dependent wreck in the place of the historic American nation.
Nicholas Stix [email him] is a New York City-based journalist and researcher, much of whose work focuses on the nexus of race, crime, and education. He spent much of the 1990s teaching college in New York and New Jersey. His work has appeared in Chronicles, The New York Post, Weekly Standard, Daily News, New York Newsday, American Renaissance, Academic Questions, Ideas on Liberty and many other publications. Stix was the project director and principal author of the NPI report, The State of White America-2007. He blogs at Nicholas Stix, Uncensored.
Some of my colleagues are celebrating. They call Eich a bigot who got what he deserved. I agree. But let’s not stop here. If we’re serious about enforcing the new standard, thousands of other employees who donated to the same anti-gay ballot measure must be punished.
More than 35,000 people gave money to the campaign for Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that declared, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” You can download the entire list, via the Los Angeles Times, as a compressed spreadsheet. (Click the link that says, “Download CSV.”) Each row lists the donor’s employer. …
Thirty-seven companies in the database are linked to more than 1,300 employees who gave nearly $1 million in combined contributions to the campaign for Prop 8. Twenty-five tech companies are linked to 435 employees who gave more than $300,000. Many of these employees gave $1,000 apiece, if not more. Some, like Eich, are probably senior executives.
Why do these bigots still have jobs? Let’s go get them. …
If we’re serious about taking down corporate officers who supported Proposition 8, and boycotting employers who promote them, we’d better get cracking on the rest of the list.
Remember that the people they are seeking out for destruction gave money years ago to a proposition that was passed by a majority of California voters, who were then overruled by the courts, starting with gay activist judge Vaughn Walker. Prop 8 is long dead; the liberals who control the judiciary have spoken. The explicit objective now is to hunt down people who have privately held views in the past that are currently considered inconsistent with leftwing ideology.
This isn’t about promoting homosexuality as an end in itself, or only the tiny percentage of Americans who are pushily homosexual would be driving it. This is a major battle in the Cultural Marxist war to replace America with a country where no thought crime (as defined by ultra-Left oligarchs) will be tolerated.
As you can see, anonymity is no longer an option. Neither is sitting on the sidelines. Either we fight these vermin, or they win. If they win there will be zero tolerance for anyone they deem to be ideologically incorrect, as they have clearly demonstrated.
On a tip from Shawn R.
I’m told the Slate piece is satire. I had considered the possibility, but judging by the way liberals went after Eich, could see no reason to believe that a piece in a leftwing publication calling for more of the same would not be on the level. Is it also satire when the author calls Eich a “bigot” for privately opposing the desecration of marriage? If not, where does the satire line start? Or is the satire claim just cover to hide behind when moonbats overstep?
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
Haven’t you learned anything from history?
‘Advancements’ earned through tyranny never endure. You can only win a debate by suffocating your opposition for so long.
Your strategy is doomed for failure, because it has always failed. In the name of ‘fighting for the freedom to love,’ you’ve utilized hate. For the sake of ‘tolerance,’ you’ve wielded bigotry. In order to push ‘diversity,’ you’ve been dogmatic. You are everything you accuse your opponents of being, and you stand for all the evil things that you claim they champion. You are exposed. We see you for what you are: a force of destruction and division. Hey gay rights fascists: in spite of your Mozilla victory, you will still lose | The Matt Walsh Blog
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
From Defend the Modern World: http://defendthemodernworld.wordpress.com/
(Emphasis mine, ZTW)
Although I write in favour of European self-rescue, it should be clarified that I am under no illusions as to the likelihood of the measures required being adopted, now or in the future.
The chances, to put the matter frankly, of persuading an indoctrinated population to do something they have been conditioned – often since childhood – to regard as sinful, are zero.
Europe’s rescue from Islamisation requires discrimination, on both national and local stages. At the national level, every government must realise that the needs of its historic majority are more its rightful business than the ‘rights’ of a swelling and hostile minority. At the local level meanwhile, people must learn to recognise human difference as something vital to their personal security.
Discrimination however, is – perhaps more than anything else – anathema to the liberal mind. Consequently, even if the thought of European Muslims being sent their deportation papers may thrill the imagination, that is almost certainly where it will remain.
Muslim immigration will probably be halted the first day after the collapse of the European Union, but that will only deal with a hypothetical inflow and will solve nothing as to those already settled. On this point, the most likely scenario is that those Muslims who already live here (and their posterity) will be part of Europe forever.
Sure, the natives will thrash and moan a bit as each demographic milestone is met with grim punctuality; 15%… 20%… 25% etc… But these will be mere imitations of self-confidence, and of those historic conditions that once permitted self-confidence. Much like the re-enactments of medieval battles on a wet Tuesday in Bosworth, these will be resistance-themed carnivals, hemmed in by police and finally dispersed by reality.
True, it is unlikely that Muslims will capture all of Europe, but it is now almost certain that they will conquer its capitals and other large cities. The demographic material is already in place for the Islamisation of London, Brussels, Stockholm, Oslo, Paris, Berlin, Duisburg, Leicester, Malmo, Marseilles, Luton, Strasbourg, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, the Hague and the urban parts of Switzerland.
These are all famous and historic places, decorated with treasures invaluable to world-history. What will happen to them when they are populated almost exclusively by Muslims?
Students of Asia’s modern history will be familiar with the fate of the Buddhas of Bamiyan; an ancient relic of pre-Islamic culture in Central Afghanistan. As is now notorious, the structure was exploded and the relics entirely destroyed by Taliban militants in 2001.
Just imagine that – the scene and all its details – for a moment. Picture it in your mind. Now – if you can – try to impose that image onto Rome, London, Paris or Berlin.
Instead of the Buddhas being demolished, imagine the Roman Colosseum, Buckingham Palace, Westminster Abbey, or the Eiffel Tower subjected to the same misfortune.
I can assure you these are not outlandish thoughts. Despite popular misunderstanding of the matter, the 9/11 hijackers did not target the Twin Towers out of hatred of American ‘economic power’. They were rather acting in line with the Qutbist condemnation of idolatry. In Wahhabi Islamism, any great man-made structure that attracts wonder or praise, and that is not built expressly for Islamic worship, is an idol. This is why the Twin Towers were brought low. This is also why the Saudi government – with the consent of the Wahhabist religious establishment – has demolished many ancient buildings connected with the life of Mohammad in Mecca and Medina. Mohammad, you see, is not regarded by Muslims as divine, and therefore any pilgrimage to, or veneration of artifacts associated with him is also considered idolatrous.
The Pentagon too, is an idol. It was built to symbolize the power of the American military – the power therefore of ‘men’, and was attacked for these reasons.
One cannot exactly estimate how many of the cultural treasures of Europe would also be considered idolatrous according to this same measure, but surely if the artifacts of Mohammad himself are not considered sacred, then why would the Brandenburg Gate be afforded any mercy?
A successful Muslim conquest of Europe will reset European history at year zero. History shall not be so much as changed, as removed entirely. Europe will be forced to forget itself; that it ever had a history to begin with; just as the Egyptians were made to forget their past, as were the Persians, the Phoenicians, the Babylonians and the Berbers, after they too fell to armies of Muslim conversion.
Away from cultural symbols, the mechanics of society will be greatly affected. Sharia courts will proliferate across Europe (whether governments allow them or not). Genital mutilation will continue in private. In the open, women will be assaulted on an increasing scale. Rape rates will skyrocket. Whatever pretentions a rational feminism ever had will be driven to extremism or else submission. Harassment will forbid native European women from urban centres and thus from commercial employment.
Elsewhere, shops selling alcohol will be vulnerable to attack and boycott. Terror-threats will paralyze subways. Every time Israel defends itself in the Middle East, anti-Semitism will become a violent reality.
There are potential military consequences too. The influential blogger Fjordman has commented on the dire possibility of French nuclear weapons falling into Muslim hands. I’m afraid it isn’t a fanciful idea. All it would take is one rogue Franco-Algerian general and Europe would be under a shadow of destruction.
All that for the false virtue of blind tolerance…
Pessimism like this is not an admirable trait, I know, but it is nevertheless appropriate to the situation Europe finds itself in. I see no sign of a popular movement able to achieve anything of substance on this issue. The EDL is all but finished. UKIP, the party in which so many good people invest their hopes, is practically neutral on the culture clash, preferring to badmouth Poles and Romanians than Pakistanis. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders was trounced in the national elections. Where now?
As I say, this is a depressing post, but I do believe it pays to periodically remind oneself of the stakes of doing nothing.
Minneapolis Lesbian Police Chief Dons Hijab for “Hijab Day”
There’s nothing like a lesbian feminist authority figure who boasts of being the first female police chief in Minneapolis
donning a symbol of male ownership in a patriarchal tribal society to express the deep schizophrenia of the left in its enthusiastic enabling of Islamists. In other news: Two women accused of having a lesbian relationship have been sentenced to death by a court in the self-declared autonomous region of Puntland in northern Somalia. In the first case of its kind in Somalia, a culturally conservative and Muslim nation. — FrontPage Magazine
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
The Leftist Environmental Whackos. Think They Want to Save the Planet? Wrong. They Want to Destroy You.
The idea that the way to protect insects, fish and animals is by preventing human beings from having children is part of an approach known as Population, Health and Environment (PHE) which integrates population control into environmentalist initiatives.
PHE dates back to the 1980s and is practiced by mainstream organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund. The Smithsonian’s Woodrow Wilson Center, which is funded partly by the US government, aggressively champions PHE eugenics and USAID funds PHE programs and distributes PHE training manuals derived in part from Wilson Center materials.
PHE had been baked into Congressional bills such as the Global Sexual and Reproductive Health Act of 2013 co-sponsored by Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and Sheila Jackson-Lee which urged meeting United Nations Millennium Development Goals by using birth control as, among other things, a means of “ensuring environmental sustainability”.
Obama’s budget is more open about its PHE eugenics agenda. While PHE backers usually claim that they want to reduce population to prevent famine and promote gender equality, the PHE budget request explicitly states that its goal is to reduce human population growth for the sake of the animals, without any of the usual misleading language about feminism and clean water.
The budget is a blunt assertion of post-Human values by an administration that has become notorious for its fanatical environmentalism, sacrificing people on the altar of Green ideology.
When Obama’s Interior Secretary Sally Jewell visited Alaska, she told the residents of an Eskimo village where nineteen people had died due to the difficulty of evacuating patients during medical emergencies that, “I’ve listened to your stories, now I have to listen to the animals.”
Jewell rejected the road that they needed to save lives because it would inconvenience the local waterfowl. When it came to choosing between the people and the ducks, Jewell chose the ducks.
Ducks don’t talk, but environmentalists do, and they had vocally opposed helping the people of King Cove. Jewell had received the Rachel Carson Award, named after an environmentalist hero whose fearmongering killed millions. Compared to the Carson malaria graveyards of Africa, nineteen dead Eskimos slide off the post-Human conscience of a fanatical environmentalist like water off a duck’s back.
The arguments against DDT often focused not on saving lives, but on taking them. PHE prevents children from being born, but environmentalists don’t stop with the unborn. Malaria was an even more effective tool for reducing populations than targeted abortion and birth control programs.
USAID, which played a key role in the war on DDT, has openly embraced PHE. “When couples can plan the number, timing, and spacing of their children, that helps the environment and the economy.” said Beverly Johnson, chief of the Policy, Evaluation, and Communication Division of the USAID Office of Population and Reproductive Health.
Environmentalist population reduction activists originally cloaked their real agenda in claims about worldwide famine. Paul Erlich, author of The Population Bomb, had predicted mass starvation by the 1970s and the end of England by 2000. Today Global Warming activists set empty dates for the destruction of mankind that they themselves don’t believe in.
The post-Human left seeks to maintain a perpetual state of crisis so that governments and corporations will be more inclined to accept even horrifying solutions as the alternative to the end of mankind. What it does not tell them is that its goal is the end of mankind.
In February, Population Action International and the Sierra Club sponsored a Congressional briefing on PHE post-2015. Population Action International was originally founded as the Population Crisis Committee in the sixties. Its preceding organizations included the Hugh Moore Fund for International Peace which claimed that population control was necessary to defeat Communism.
Like the Communists, the post-Human activists were adept at disguising their agenda in the concerns of the moment, shifting from national security, feminism, the coming Ice Age, mass starvation and now Global Warming. Environmentalists are even attempting to shoehorn the War on Terror into their agenda as the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program attempts to tie every terrorist conflict zone from Yemen to Mali to Global Warming. Environmentalists are even attempting to repeat their old trick by trying to shoehorn the War on Terror into their agenda. The Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program attempts to tie every terrorist conflict zone from Yemen to Mali to Global Warming.
Paul Erlich, whose book was prompted by the Sierra Club and carried the same title as Hugh Moore’s tract, wrote that, “We must use our political power to push other countries into programs which combine agricultural development and population control.” PHE jettisons agricultural development for its exact opposite, but otherwise it maintains the same formula of tying population control to a shifting collection of crisis agendas.
Typical of PHE’s intersection of environmentalism and eugenics,the Wilson Center cites a report which claims that “the effect of a 40 percent reduction in CO2 emissions per capita in developed countries between 2000 and 2050 would be entirely offset by the increase in emissions attributable to expected population growth in poorer countries over this period.”
The only way to fight Global Warming is Third World population control and eventually First World population control. Environmentalist fearmongering has never been about saving people. Its activists, like Sally Jewell, are too busy playing duck whisperer to care about people.
Green programs have yet to save lives, but they do cost lives. The elderly in the United Kingdom are dying of electric poverty after facing cold winters and shocking price increases due to sustainability mandates, asthma sufferers are dying because the affordable albuterol inhalers they used were banned by the EPA and people die in fires and floods, in natural disasters that could have been prevented, but are instead blamed on their victims by the environmentalists, who helped make them so lethal.
Not only do the environmentalists kill, but they profit from the deaths of their victims.
Elliot Morley, UK Labour’s Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, had directed that flooding in Somerset should be promoted because “wildlife will benefit from increased water levels”. Baroness Young, an environmental activist, who had become the chief executive of the UK’s Environment Agency, took steps to increase the possibility of flooding.
As she said, the formula was “for ‘instant wildlife, just add water’”.
When the flooding came, children were trapped on buses, 7,000 homes were flooded and many residents lost everything. Environmental activists blamed Global Warming and “careless farming” for the floods that they themselves had engineered.
Survivors of the Black Saturday bushfires in Australia which killed 173 people blamed environmental regulations for worsening the fires by preventing residents from clearing trees. The environmentalists blamed Global Warming and sent around an editorial suggesting that people “who don’t like to end up in flames” should read the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change report.
California’s drought was likewise engineered by environmental activists who then blamed their own handiwork on Global Warming.
Environmentalists wield unprecedented power over the lives of millions and yet they claim that each engineered disaster could have been averted if they had only been given even more power.
The left is not only becoming post-American or post-Western, but post-Human, applying the same tactics that they used to target majorities in Western countries to the human race as a whole. Class war and race war are giving way to species warfare. And since the ducks cannot talk, ultimate power rests with the duck whisperers, those who speak for the animals, the fish and the trees.
The post-Human left takes social justice to its natural conclusion, going beyond all the human categories to level mankind with the polar bear, the duck and the microbe. Total equality for the post-Human left is not the equality of the rich and the poor, of men and women, of blacks and whites, or even of the First World and the Third World, but the equality of man and microbe, of a pregnant woman in a small Alaskan fishing village with a duck and a hungry California child with the Kangaroo rat.
The post-Human left seeks to put the species in its place, to keep down its breeding and reduce it from the lords of creation to only another species of animal to be shepherded and culled by their masters.
Beyond all the lies, that is the final endgame of the environmentalist movement. It isn’t out to save mankind. It’s out to destroy it. It wants to treat it like any species of animal, to control its reproduction, control its food distribution and its living spaces. It wants to reduce its numbers to a manageable level so that it takes its place within the animal kingdom
Unsurprisingly, the parents have a problem with this.
COLUMBUS COUNTY, NC (WECT) – A parent is speaking out after she said her daughter’s teacher rejected a rough draft of her paper. The subject, her hero, Jesus.
Heather Watts said her daughter attends second grade at Cerro Gordo Elementary School in Columbus County. Watts said the teacher asked her 8-year-old daughter Ryleigh, “can’t you write about something different?”
“I think she should have freedom to write about what she wants to write about,” the disgruntled mother said. “If she wants to write about Jesus, she should write about Jesus.”
Watts said this question is threatening her daughter’s First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
From WZ: http://weaselzippers.us/
Yes, I will have a medium rare oppression please. With a side rack of honey glazed baby back oppression.
Meat. The tastiest oppression.
Now I dont even have to sit on public transportation with my legs apart to oppress the womynz. Just eating does that now.
It’s bacon wrapped around a turkey leg.