From WRSA: http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/
Found at mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
From mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
From mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
From mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
Maureen A. Craig and Jennifer A. Richeson
In all the Main Stream Media propaganda about the desperate need for an Amnesty/Immigration Surge bill, you never hear that the bill will speed up the day when whites are a minority. The research of Northwestern University psychologists Maureen A. Craig [Email her] (a white woman) and Jennifer A. Richeson [Email her](an African-American) shows why [On the Precipice of a “Majority-Minority” America: Perceived Status Threat From the Racial Demographic Shift Affects White Americans’ Political Ideology, Psychological Science April 3, 2014]. Shockingly, it turns out that the great majority of white Americans are not at all like neocon Ben Wattenberg who famously asserted that “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” [The Good News Is The Bad News Is Wrong, p. 84.] In fact, white Americans are afraid of becoming a minority. Being told about their impending minority status provokes whites to endorse attitudes linked to the political Right.
The title of the Craig-Richeson paper is itself interesting. The standard dictionary definitionof “precipice” is “the brink of a dangerous or disastrous situation”—which is exactly what Cassandras have been saying about the impending minority status of whites. Giving up majority status in a democracy has obvious grave implications. No ethnic group in history has ever voluntarily become a minority. Israel, for example, is fixated on Palestinian birthrates and absolutely opposed to a “Right of Return” for dispossessed Palestinians. Given that Palestinians are already a majority in the “de facto state of Israel,” a one-state solution would mean that, if Israel remained a democracy, the Palestinians would govern. And that would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
Being a minority is always problematic given the reality of ethnic conflict throughout history. This is particularly so when groups harbor historical grudges (e.g., slavery and Jim Crow for African Americans, anti-Semitism for Jews). It is especially worrisome in the case of America because the grievance industry promoted by elites in the MSM, the legal profession, and academe systematically blames “White racism” for all the problems of non-Whites.
Needless to say, despite Craig-Richeson’s use of the word “precipice”, they do not view whites’ impending minority status as problematic. Indeed, they are eager suggest ways to make Whites complacent about their impending status.
The theoretical framework for the Craig-Richeson paper emphasizes the general finding that people who feel threatened tend to adopt more conservative views. Studies show that whites adopt more conservative political views not only after terrorist events like 9/11, but also when they live closer to black Americans:
[A]n analysis of voter-registration data for Louisiana parishes revealed that the larger the percentage of Blacks in a parish, the greater the percentage of Whites who were registered as Republicans and the lower the percentage of Whites who were registered as Democrats.
But it’s still very easy for most Whites to avoid the costs of diversity and multiculturalism—”out of sight, out of mind.” The Craig-Richeson study reinforces this observation.
In their first experiment, subjects (all experiments used only whites) were told that California had become a “majority minority” state, while control subjects were told that there were now approximately as many Hispanics as blacks in the US. The experimental subjects reported they leaned more toward the Republican Party and toward more conservative opinions, and this effect was increased among subjects who lived closer to California.
From VDare: http://vdare.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/
Ann Barnhardt and Psychopathic Politicians
3. I am going to post the “Psychopathy Checklist” that has been going around for the past week or so. Read it and tell me that my characterization of politicians as psychopaths isn’t accurate. I’m telling you, these people are all psychopaths and you simply CANNOT deal with psychopaths as if they are normal people. They are playing a completely different game with a completely different rulebook, and unless you savvy to this and respond appropriately, they will lay waste to entire nations and civilizations without batting an eyelash. I think that the most critical point may be point 12 below – psychopaths are devoid of any sense of shame. They cannot be shamed, and thus things like “censures” or even public humiliation (think Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner) are useless against them because they genuinely do not care. They have to be physically stopped and restrained, sometimes permanently. This is why capital crimes must be punished as such. I know it is unpleasant to face this fact, but there is no escaping it.
I can’t help but comment on the last sentence in point 14. I look back at my life and recognize that one key indicator about people is how they treat waitstaff at restaurants. I know that sounds rather trivial, but it is so true. I remember meeting a couple when I first moved to Denver. We went out to dinner, and it was wonderful. HOWEVER, they were both extremely rude and dismissive to the waitstaff. When a waiter or busboy would come to the table this couple would ignore them – literally not look at them or respond, and would not look the waiter in the eye when ordering (ALWAYS watch the eyes). I alone spoke to the waitstaff, even though I was the “lowest ranking” person at the table by far. I noted the behavior because it was so egregious, but blew it off, which was pure weakness on my part. In retrospect, I could just kick myself a million times for that, and I have seen the same thing over and over again. Watch how people treat those in weaker or service positions. It is a highly reliable indicator.
This is from sources on the web, and is based on Robert Hare’s psychopathy checklist.
1. Look for glib and superficial charm. A psychopath will also put on what professionals refer to as a ‘mask of sanity’ that is likable and pleasant. It is a thin veneer.
2. Look for a grandiose self perception. Psychopaths will often believe they are smarter or more powerful than they actually are.
3. Watch for a constant need for stimulation. Stillness, quiet and reflection are not things embraced by psychopaths. They need constant entertainment and activity.
4. Determine if there is pathological lying. A psychopath will tell all sorts of lies; little white lies as well as huge stories intended to mislead. Psychopaths are gifted or dull, high functioning or low performing like other people. An untalented psychopath may harm a few; a highly talented psychopath may lay waste to nations. The difference between the psychopath and others lies in their organic lack of conscience and empathy for others. The sociopath is trained to lack empathy and conscience. The psychopath is a natural.
5. Evaluate the level of manipulation. All psychopaths are identified as cunning and able to get people to do things they might not normally do. They can use guilt, force and other methods to manipulate.
6. Look for any feelings of guilt. An absence of any guilt or remorse is a sign of psychopathy. They will often blame the victim.
7. Consider the level of emotional response a person has. Psychopaths demonstrate shallow emotional reactions to deaths, injuries, trauma or other events that would otherwise cause a deeper response. Other people are satisfaction suppliers, nothing more.
8. Look for a lack of empathy. Psychopaths are callous and have no way of relating to others in non-exploitative ways. They may find a temporary kinship with other psychopaths and sociopaths that is strictly utilitarian and goal-oriented.
9. Psychopaths are often parasitic. They live off other people, emotionally, physically, and financially. Their modus operandi is domination and control. They will claim to be maligned or misunderstood to gain your sympathy.
10. Look for obsessive risk taking and lack of self-control. The Hare Checklist includes three behavior indicators; poor behavior control, sexual promiscuity, and behavioral problems.
11. Psychopaths have unrealistic goals or none at all for the long term. Either there are no goals at all, or they are unattainable and based on the exaggerated sense of one’s own accomplishments and abilities.
12. Psychopaths will often be shockingly impulsive or irresponsible. Their shamelessness knows no bounds. You will ask, what were they thinking? And the answer was, they weren’t because they did not care.
13. A psychopath will not genuinely accept personal responsibility. A psychopath will never admit to being wrong or owning up to mistakes and errors in judgment, except as part of a manipulative ploy. They will despise and denigrate their victims once they are done with them. If they have any regret it is that their source of satisfaction supply has ended and they must seek another.
14. Psychopaths lack long term personal relationships. If there have been many short term marriages, broken friendships, purely transactional relationships, the chances the person is a psychopath increase. Watch especially how they treat other people in weaker positions and even animals.
15. Psychopaths are often versatile in their criminality. Psychopaths are able to get away with a lot, and while they might sometimes get caught, the ability to be flexible and adaptable when committing crimes is indicative.
If you should find yourself in a business or personal relationship with a psychopath, the best advice is seek counseling if you need, obtain assistance if you must, and run if you can. You are a diffused and multi-faceted person with many interests. A psychopath is powerfully focused on obtaining what he wishes from others, without many prohibitions or distractions. Avoidance is the best policy. Long term confinement is their best treatment.
I do not think the repetitive sociopathic behaviours and psychopathic tendencies of the Roman imperial leadership to be accidental. The mad emperors kept recurring because they were the creatures of what that culture had become, and they stood as emblems at its apex.
Men are social animals, and can go mad in groups, as well as alone. Psychopathy can be the black hole at the center of a whole galaxy of madness and sociopathy under the right conditions, and the results can be flamboyantly destructive, as we most recently saw in several places during the 20th century. The psychopaths can thrive anywhere that deception is an advantage, but their prime hunting ground is a system in crisis, a controllable chaos lacking a well defined rule of law.
From Ann Barnhardt: http://www.barnhardt.biz/
The rotors are spinning at full speed, the manure is loaded into the trebuchet and the slack is out of the firing trigger.
Nervous? Troubled? Afraid? Don’t be. There is Someone who is thoroughly in charge. And no, it ain’t Valerie Putin or Vladimir Jarret. (Yes, you should be laughing. It’s okay.)
Deep breath. Read this and remember it tomorrow and next week. Your sanity may depend on it.
And Jesus came and touched them: and said to them, Arise, and fear not.
There are 100,000,000,000 (100 billion) stars in our galaxy.
It is estimated that there are 100,000,000,000 (100 billion) galaxies in the universe.
That means that there are 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 sextillion) stars in the universe, or so I estimate.
Our sun, which we will consider an average star, burns 607,000,000 (607 million) tons of hydrogen per second in fusion reactions.
If we take the 10 sextillion stars in the universe multiplied by an average hydrogen burn of 607 million tons per star per second, we get a universal hydrogen burn of:
6,070,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (6.07 nontillion) tons of hydrogen per second.
1 gram of hydrogen contains 602,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (602 sextillion) atoms. Remember “moles” from chemistry class?
There are 454 grams in a pound.
There are 2000 pounds in a ton.
Therefore, there are 908,000 grams in a ton.
If we take the 602 sextillion atoms in one gram of hydrogen and multiply that by 908,000 grams per ton, we get:
546,616,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (546 octillion) hydrogen atoms per ton.
Multiply the 546 octillion atoms per ton by the universal hydrogen burn of 6.07 nontillion tons per second, and you get:
3,317,959,120,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (3.318 novemdecillion) atoms of hydrogen consumed every second in the universe.
Because every fusion reaction is fusing 2 atoms of hydrogen into one atom of helium (plus an energy yield), we divide 3.318 novemdecillion by 2 and get:
1,658,979,560,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1.659 novemdecillion) fusion reactions per second in the universe.
God is specifically and infinitely conscious of every single one of those fusion reactions because He is the cause, driver and sustenance of every single one of them. If He doesn’t will it or permit it, it doesn’t happen.
This is the same God that spends every nanosecond of your life in a state of burning, aching, consuming love for YOU. Correction. He didn’t start loving you when your life began. He has loved you FOR ALL ETERNITY. There has literally never been a “time” when He didn’t love you. This is the same God that is so desperately and – dare I say it – pathetically in love with you that He died for you. In fact, He let YOU kill Him, because that was the only way that His love could be consummated. It had to be. And He knew it had to be that way from all eternity. And He still willed you into existence and knit you together atom by atom, cell by cell, in you mother’s womb WHILE He was driving 1.659 novemdecillion fusion reactions per second – just so you could maybe look up into the night sky and see this:
The Perseus Cluster. Every point of light in this image is NOT one star, but one GALAXY.
From Ann Barnhardt: http://www.barnhardt.biz/
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.
Story of the Nevada Bundy Family Ranch and the Standoff with Our Out of Control Tryannical Government
. A two-decades-old battle between a Nevada rancher and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has resulted in officials armed with machine guns surrounding the ranch and forcibly removing the owner’s cattle, according to the rancher’s family.
Cliven Bundy, the last rancher in Clark County, Nev., has been fighting a “one-man range war” since 1993, when he decided to take a stand against the agency, refusing to pay fees for the right to graze on a ranch run by his family for centuries.
After years of court battles, the BLM secured a federal court order to have Bundy’s “trespass cattle” forcibly removed with heavy artillery, the family said.
“The battle’s been going on for 20 years,” Bundy told the Washington Free Beacon. “What’s happened the last two weeks, the United States government, the bureaus are getting this army together and they’re going to get their job done and they’re going to prove two things. They’re going to prove they can do it, and they’re gonna prove that they have unlimited power, and that they control the policing power over this public land. That’s what they’re trying to prove.”
Bundy said the government has brought everything but tanks and rocket launchers.
. “They’re carrying the same things a soldier would,” he said. “Automatic weapons, sniper rifles, top communication, top surveillance equipment, lots of vehicles. It’s heavy soldier type equipment.”
His wife, Carol Bundy, said that roughly 200 armed agents from the BLM and FBI are stationed around their land, located about 75 miles outside of Las Vegas. Helicopters circle the premises, and the airspace and nearby roads remain blocked.
“We’re surrounded,” Carol Bundy said. “We’re estimating that there are over 200 armed BLM, FBI. We’ve got surveillance cameras at our house, they’re probably listening to me talk to you right now.”
A National Park Service spokesman denied there were armed guards rounding up the cattle in a conference call on Tuesday. However, she confirmed that there was “security” in place, citing threats to the contractors who are removing the cattle.
“Contractors are here and they are in place to round-up the cattle and to bring them to the impound area,” Christie Vanover said. “As for security, there [is] security in place, but that is merely to protect the contractors.”
“As you know, we have received threats and the contractors have received threats,” Vanover said. “Our personnel here and throughout the park service and throughout the BLM have received threats, as well. So security is in place to merely protect the contractors so that we can complete this operation.”
As of Monday, officials have seized 234 of Bundy’s 908 cattle. Impounding the cattle alone could cost the government as much as $3 million.
“They just brought a load down today,” she said. “They kind of harass us as well. When we leave they follow us.”
This afternoon eight helicopters surrounded the family after they began taking pictures, according to Bundy’s daughter, Bailey. Their son, Dave Bundy, was arrested for taking pictures on state road 170, which has been closed, and is being held by BLM.
. The BLM said they took Dave Bundy into custody following his “failure to comply with multiple requests by BLM law enforcement to leave the temporary closure area on public lands.”
Carol Bundy said five officials took Dave and “threw him on the ground.”
“One put his knee on his head, the other put his boot on his head and pushed him into the gravel,” she said. “He’s got quite a bruised head. Just bruised him up pretty good.”
Environmentalists are praising the government’s forceful actions, which are being taken to protect the “desert tortoise.”
“We’re heartened and thankful that the agencies are finally living up to their stewardship duty,” said Rob Mrowka, a Nevada-based senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Gold Butte area has been officially designated as critical habitat for threatened tortoises – meaning the area is essential to their long-term survival as a species.”
“[Cliven] Bundy has long falsely believed that Gold Butte is his ranch,” added Terri Robertson, president of Friends of Sloan Canyon.
The BLM designated 186,909 acres of the Gold Butte off-limits for the “critical desert tortoise” population in 1998. Bundy had already lost his grazing permit five years earlier for refusing to pay fees for the land, which his family has ranched since the 1870s.
The “federal grazing fee” is $1.35 per “Animal Unit Month,” or the amount of forage needed per animal, each month. Bundy said he owes roughly $300,000 in back fees, while the BLM asserts he owes over $1 million. The BLM defended the removal because Bundy did not “voluntarily” give up his cattle.
“We’ve tried to do this through the legal and we’ve tried to do it through the political, and what we’re at right now, I guess we’re going to have to try to stand,” Cliven Bundy said. “We the people have to stand on the ground and get our state sovereignty back, and also take some liberty and freedoms back to where we have at least access to this land.”
“The story is a lot about the cattle, but the bigger story is about our loss of freedom,” Carol Bundy added. “They have come and taken over this whole corner of the county. They’ve taken over policing power, they’ve taken over our freedom, and they’re stealing cattle.”
“And our sheriff says he just doesn’t have authority, our governor says he doesn’t have authority, and we’re saying, why are we a state?”
“I’m a producer,” Cliven Bundy said. “I produce edible commodity from the desert forage, and all of these things are governed under state law. So, in other words, this type of government has eliminated all of our state law, eliminated our state sovereignty, and has took control over our public lands and even took control over our Clark County sheriff. They’ve taken the whole county over. The whole state, almost.”
“This is just about power of the government,” Carol Bundy said.
Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R.) voiced his concern about so-called “First Amendment Areas,” designated locations set up by the BLM where citizens can protest the removal.
“Most disturbing to me is the BLM’s establishment of a ‘First Amendment Area’ that tramples upon Nevadans’ fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution,” he said in a statement Tuesday.
“To that end, I have advised the BLM that such conduct is offensive to me and countless others and that the ‘First Amendment Area’ should be dismantled immediately,” he said. “No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans. The BLM needs to reconsider its approach to this matter and act accordingly.”
Sandoval also said his office has received numerous complaints about the BLM’s conduct, including road closures and “other disturbances.”
Found at TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Thanks for the compilation from MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
Boots on the ground seeing this post – please send pix and updates on .gov numbers/equipment/disposition on Twitter to #thisshitstopsnow and @WRSAblog.
Email is firstname.lastname@example.org.
Spread the word.
From WRSA: http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/
A court in Egypt sentenced four men to up to eight years in prison on Monday for practicing homosexuality, a judicial official said.
Prosecutors had accused the men of holding “deviant parties” and dressing in women’s clothes. Three were sentenced to eight years and the fourth to three years in prison.
Prosecutors have used a law banning “debauchery” to try homosexuals in the past.
Those accused of homosexuality are often forced to undergo medical tests to establish they are “habitual” gays, a practice rights groups have decried as abusive.
Homosexuality is not tolerated across the Middle East and much of Africa.
From WZ: http://weaselzippers.us/
Earth Hour stigmatizes human accomplishment as the root of all evils and treats the lack of accomplishment as an accomplishment. For all the pretense of activism, environmentalism celebrates inaction.
Don’t build, don’t create and don’t do– are its mandates. Turn off the lights and feel good about how much you aren’t doing right now.
Humanity is what is wrong with the world. It began with fire, then the wheelbarrow, the lever and the ax, the mason, the carpenter, the scientist, the visionary. It can end with you.
Just turn out the lights.
Environmentalism has degenerated from valuing how much the skies and the oceans, the butterfly and the beaver, the still lake and the blade of grass, enrich our humanity into a conviction that all human activity is destructive because the species of man is the greatest threat to the planet. Each death, each act of undoing and unmaking, each darkness that is brought about by the cessation of humanity becomes a profoundly environmentalist activity.
Kill yourself and save the planet. Put out the lights, tear down the city and let the earth revert to some imaginary primeval paradise free of all pollution; whether it is the carbon breath of men, dogs and cows or the light pollution of their cities.
Embrace the darkness.
While we take electric light for granted, being able to read and write after dark is a technological achievement that transformed our civilization. Animals are governed by day and night cycles. Artificial light made it possible for us to work independently of the day and night cycle. And that made our literature and our sciences, our civilization, possible.
Like all environmental gimmicks, Earth Hour is self-defeating as anything other than an assertion of identity and faith. Far more energy is consumed promoting it, than is saved by practicing it.
Websites switch to black, even though displaying black on television sets or monitors consumes more energy. Turning off electricity to entire buildings after working hours and then turning it on costs more than letting it run. And getting 90 million people across the country to turn their power on and off at a scheduled time is an energy savings disaster. And since power companies draw down on their more expensive ‘green’ generators first, Earth Hour actually shuts down ‘green’ power.
But its sponsors don’t claim that Earth Hour saves energy or prevents us from polluting the globe. Like every environmentalist stunt from flying rock stars around the world on jet planes to carving thousands of statues made of ice and then leaving them to melt in a public square, Earth Hour is described as spreading “awareness”.
Spreading awareness is the sole purpose of most environmental activism. Awareness spreading doesn’t improve anything, but spreads the ideology that humanity is evil to make people feel guilty, outraged, hopeful or some combination of the appropriate political sentiments in the face of an imminent armageddon that can only be fought by convincing everyone to be deeply concerned by it and disdainful of everyone who stands outside their Chicken Little consensus.
It is a religious ritual for a secular religion that has no god, but whose devil is the gear and the microchip, the milk cow and the imported banana, the skyscraper and the lathe.
The WWF, Earth Hour’s godmother, has learned that shrill attention seeking is a reliable fundraising method. One of the WWF’s more memorable fundraising methods was an ad showing hundreds of planes headed toward the World Trade Center, to highlight just how much more important their work is than fighting terrorism. Franny Armstrong of Age of Stupid, which was promoted by the WWF, ran a 10:10 campaign in the UK, whose ads featured environmentalists murdering dissenters, including a group of schoolchildren. The ads are just ads, but London’s leftist former mayor, Ken Livingstone had said of Age of Stupid, “Every single person in the country should be forcibly sat down on a chair and made to watch this film.”
That is the dark side of environmentalism. The most active non-Muslim domestic terrorist group is environmental. The undercurrent of violence finds easy purchase in environmentalism’s creed that the only real problem with the world is people.
No amount of turning off the lights is enough. Eventually you come around to having to turn off the people.
The Nazis were among the most enthusiastic environmentalists of their day, even the term ‘Ecology’ was coined by Ernst Haeckel, whose racial views served as precursors to Nazi eugenics. But while Nazi environmentalist believed that we were all animals, they insisted that some animals were better than others. Modern environmentalists believe that we are all worse than animals. In their view we are both natural and unnatural. Natural because we come from the ape and unnatural because we are intelligent. We live on the planet, but our intelligence excludes us from ever belonging to it.
Tools are our crime against nature. We make things. And we make things better. Earth Hour is our reminder to drop our tools and stop. Stop thinking. Stop doing. Just stop.
The incompatibility of productive man with the natural world is a fundamental tenet of the environmental movement. Everything we do is destructive because of what we are. We are tool builders, inventors and producers. And the environmentalist movement is aimed at convincing us to stop being these things. To turn off the lights, make do with less and march back to the caves with a few clever ad campaigns and a catchy tune.
Not only mankind must go, but all the animals that man has domesticated and bred– cows, dogs and cats. That is why PETA kills thousands of dogs and cats a year, promotes the euthanasia of wild cats and pet spaying and its staffers have even been known to kidnap animals and then kill them. It is why the Global Warming crowd has made cow emissions into their whipping bovine.
It’s not enough to kill man, tear down his cities and put out his lights. His cats and dogs and his cows and sheep must die along with him.
Environmentalism is not motivated by a love for all creatures, but by the fanatical belief in the purification of the earth from all traces of human civilization. The political leftist romanticizes the noble savage over the civilized man and its environmentalist arm romanticizes the jungle over the thousand acre farm. It prefers the the swamp to the garden, the wolf to the dog, and the tiger to the house cat.
This preference is not scientific, it is emotional, rooted in an antipathy to industrialization and human development. It wraps itself in the cloak of science, but it is a reactionary longing for a romanticized nomadic past that never existed. A way back to the lost eden of noble savages free from morality and guilt.
In the environmental bible– man is the source of all evil. The transition from the nomadic to the domestic, the village to the city, and the craftsman to the factory, is its version of original sin.
The environmentalist began with a distaste for human civilization and the fetishization of the rural farm life of the peasant. The champions of this “naturalism” were invariably urban artists and writers from the upper classes who were enthusiastic about being in touch with nature. After them came the “Nature Fakers” crafting myths about the high moral standards of wild animals. Domestic animals in such stories were always wicked and dumb, while wild animals lived deep and spiritual lives out in the woods. And so the animal kingdom was subdivided into the noble savage and the uncle tom.
The world was divided into two polar opposites, the green and the gray, in an apocalyptic struggle. Either man would drown the world in industry, or he would return to a natural way of life through a lethal virus (Mary Shelley, The Last Man, 1826), a devastating war (H.G. Wells), oppressive social policies (Edward Bellamy) or eco-terrorism (The Monkey Wrench Gang). The more civilization grew, the more apocalyptic the scenarios became culminating in the two great environmental myths; nuclear winter and global warming. These apocalyptic myths have served the same purpose for environmentalists as apocalypses do for all religions. They predict a time when the sinful order is overturned and the earth is renewed to make way for the faithful.
Man is the environmentalist’s devil. He must be beaten, broken and subjugated. Even the animals he has bred, who are the spark of his genius, must be taken out and killed. Take away his food and his power. Blame him for the natural cycles of the planet and the inevitable extinction of species that goes on whether he is there or not. Take away his technology and his inventions. Tell him that the humblest bacteria is better than him for it is dumb and follows its natural instincts while he insists on using his mind. Take away his primacy and his learning. And then leave him in the dark.
The environmental movement is tenacious, fanatical and deceptive. Its creed is the undoing of all human progress.
There is money to be made from that, as there is in all revolutions, but beneath the inconveniences of living under an environmental regime, from dirty clothes to high taxes, while being forced to listen to the hypocrisies and false pieties of the Gorean clergy of environmentalist activists heating their mansions while the poor freeze in energy poverty, is the darker reality that environmentalism is an anti-human movement with a vicious hostility toward man and the civilization he has built.
Whatever he has built, it must destroy.
The gap between darkness and light is a profound symbol in every civilization. The light of knowledge pitted against the shadowy dark of ignorance. The light reveals, but the darkness hides.
Civilization and the moral code exist in the light of awareness, but the darkness is home to unthinking bestial things. To call for a return to the darkness is a profound act of symbolism. A civilization that celebrates a return to the darkness for even a single hour is longing for a return to a deeper state of darkness.
A darkness of the soul.
From Sultan Knish: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
“It isn’t really guns that the gun controllers are afraid of; it’s a country where individual agency is still superior to organized control, where the trains don’t run on time and orders don’t mean anything. It’s afraid of individual power.”
Guns are how we misspell evil. Guns are how we avoid talking about the ugly realities of human nature while building sandcastles on the shores of utopia.
It’s not about the fear of what one motivated maniac can do in a crowded place, but about the precariousness of social control that the killing sprees expose. Every murder tears apart the myth that government is the answer.
The gun control issue is about solving individual evil through central planning in a shelter big enough for everyone. A Gun Free Zone where everyone is a target and lives under the illusion that they aren’t. A society where everyone is drawing peace signs on colored notepaper while waiting under their desks for the bomb to fall.
That brand of control isn’t authority, it’s authority in panic mode believing that if it imposes total zero tolerance control then there will be no more shootings. And every time the dumb paradigm is blown to bits with another shotgun, then the rush is on to reinforce it with more total zero control tolerance.
Zero tolerance for the Second Amendment makes sense. If you ban all guns, except for those in the hands of the 708,000 police officers, some of the 1.5 million members of the armed forces, the security guards at armored cars and banks, the bodyguards of celebrities who call for gun control, and any of the other people who need a gun to do their job, then you’re sure to stop all shootings.
So long as none of those millions of people, or their tens of millions of kids, spouses, parents, grandchildren, girlfriends, boyfriends, roommates and anyone else who has access to them and their living spaces, carries out one of those shootings.
But this isn’t really about stopping shootings; it’s about the belief that the problem is individual, not evil, and that if we make sure that everyone who has guns is following government orders, then control will be asserted and the problem will stop.
It’s the central planning solution to evil.
We’ll never know the full number of people who were killed by Fast and Furious. We’ll never know how many were killed by Obama’s regime change operation in Libya, with repercussions in Mali and Syria. But everyone involved in that was following orders. There was no individual agency, just agencies. There were orders to run guns to Mexico and the cartel gunmen who killed people had orders to shoot. There was nothing random or unpredictable about it.
Gun control is the assertion that the problem is not the guns; it’s the lack of central planning for shooting people. It’s the individual.
A few million people with little sleep, taut nerves and PTSD are not a problem so long as there is someone to give them orders. A hundred million people with guns and no orders are a major problem. Historically though it’s millions of people with guns who follow orders who have been more of a problem than millions of people with guns who do not.
Moral agency is individual. You can’t outsource it to a government and you wouldn’t want to.
The impulses, the codes of character, the concepts of right and wrong, take place at the level of the individual.
Organizations do not sanctify this process. They do not lift it above its fallacies or do a very good job of keeping sociopaths and murderers from rising high enough to give orders.
Gun control does not control guns, it gives the illusion of controlling people, and when it fails those in authority are able to say that they did everything that they could short of giving people the ability to defend themselves.
We live under the rule of organizers, community and otherwise, committed to bringing their perfect state into being through the absolute control over people, and the violent acts of lone madmen are a reminder that such control is fleeting and that attempting to control a problem often makes it worse by removing the natural human crowdsourced responses that would otherwise come into play.
People do kill people and the only way to stop that is by killing them first. To a utopian this is a moral paradox that invalidates everything that came before it, but to everyone else, it’s just life in a world where evil is a reality, not just a word.
Anyone who really hankers after a world without guns would do well to try the 12th Century which was not a nicer place for lack of guns. The same firepower that makes it possible for one homicidal maniac to kill a dozen unarmed people also makes it that much harder to recreate a world where a single family can rule over millions and one man in armor can terrify hundreds of peasants.
Putting miniature cannons in the hands of every peasant made the American Revolution possible. The ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would have meant very little without an army of ordinary men armed with weapons that made them a match for the superior organization and numbers of a world power.
Would Thomas Jefferson, the abiding figurehead of the Democratic Party, who famously wrote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”, really have shuddered at the idea of peasants with assault rifles, or would he have grinned at the playing field being leveled?
But the Democratic Party is no longer the party of Thomas Jefferson. It’s the party of King George III. And it doesn’t like the idea of armed peasants, not because an occasional peasants goes on a shooting spree, but because like a certain dead mad king who liked to talk to trees, it believes that government power comes before individual liberty. Like that dead king, it believes that it means this for the benefit of the peasants who will be better off being told what to do.
The question is the old elemental one about government control and individual agency. And tragedies like the one that just happened take us back to the equally old question of whether individual liberty is a better defense against human evil than the entrenched organizations of government.
Do we want a society run by kings and princes who commit atrocities according to a plan for a better society, or by peasants with machine guns? The kings can promise us a world without evil, but the peasant with a machine gun promises us that we can protect ourselves from evil when it comes calling.
It isn’t really guns that the gun controllers are afraid of; it’s a country where individual agency is still superior to organized control, where the trains don’t run on time and orders don’t mean anything. It’s afraid of individual power.
Evil finds heavy firepower appealing, but the firepower works both ways.
A world where the peasants have assault rifles is a world where peasant no longer means a man without any rights. And while it may also mean the occasional brutal shooting spree, those sprees tend to happen in the outposts of utopia, the gun-free zones with zero tolerance for firearms. An occasional peasant may go on a killing spree, but a society where the peasants are all armed is also far more able to stop such a thing without waiting for the men-at-arms to be dispatched from the castle.
An armed society spends more time stopping evil than contemplating it. It is the disarmed society that is always contemplating it as a thing beyond its control.
Helpless people must find something to think about while waiting for their kings and princes to do something about the killing. Instead of doing something about it themselves, they blame the freedom that left the killer free to kill, instead of the lack of freedom that prevented them from being able to stop him.
From Sultan Knish: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
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.
Cleveland Indian fans should be saddened to learn that the beloved Chief Wahoo is on his way out, having been designated as politically incorrect by liberals who revel in their ability to ban anything they please on any foolish pretext. In cowardly response to moonbat tantrums, the cheerful cartoon Indian is getting replaced by a boring block C as the team’s primary logo.
Chief Wahoo isn’t going away. At least not yet. He’ll still have a home on the Indians’ jersey sleeves.
But the Chief is well on his way to the reservation. From there he will vanish entirely, rendering our culture just a little more drab, and a little more monochromatically politically correct.
For now Chief Wahoo is still on the home caps too…
In that sense, the impact of the logo redesignations would be more symbolic than practical.
But symbolism matters, especially when discussing Chief Wahoo…
[T]he logo redesignations would have ripple effects because media outlets — including “SportsCenter” and newspapers — would start using the block-C, instead of Wahoo, as their visual shorthand for the team.
Wahoo set off on his Trail of Tears a few years ago:
The franchise removed Wahoo from its road cap in 2011 and from its home batting helmet in 2013. At last summer’s All-Star Game FanFest — a merch-fest where teams generally slap all their logos on every product imaginable — Wahoo was nowhere to be found. Go to the Indians’ website and you’ll find the block-C near the top of the home page with Wahoo less prominently used. Several reporters have noted that the block-C has a much larger presence than Wahoo at the team’s spring training facility too.
The priggish liberals at ESPN unsurprisingly want the Chief banned immediately on the grounds that “ethnic caricatures such as Wahoo are harder and harder to defend in a modern, diverse society.” Next they will demand the team change its name.
Why should anyone care what logo is on the hat of a dying city’s baseball team? Because every time the totalitarian Left takes an inch, they move on to take the next inch. No matter how absurd the battles are, if normal Americans keep losing them, we will wake up one day soon to find our culture no longer exists.
On a tip from Shawn R.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
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/