Friday, January 29, 2010

Health Care: Let's finish the fight!

An interesting post from www.ncpa.org about finishing the fight against healthcare. This follows this article about Barack Obama possibly losing his upcoming midterms. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.


LET'S FINISH THE FIGHT!
We've come along way together in the last eight months and for the first time we've got a fighting chance to stop government-run health care. We didn't start this fight, but now it's time for us to finish it. Here's how:
The First Punch: Contact the Stupak Supporters. Sixty-four House Democrats supported the Stupak (abortion) amendment - legislation that doesn't exist in the Senate version and is unlikely to make it through on reconciliation. As such, these House members might vote against government-run health care if convinced.
The Shot to the Body: Write the Disloyal Opposition. Sixteen House Democrats opposed the overall bill but voted for it on partisan lines. They're ripe for well-placed letters, phone calls, emails and member visits.
The Knock-Out Blow: Collar the Blue Dogs. Eleven House Democrats are self-described moderates. While they supported the bill during Round 1, Round 15 is getting close-and they may be ready for a change we can believe in.
To implement this three-prong strategy, however, we need your support. You've taken us half way there; now we need the rest so that we can beat back government-run health care!

Remember: IT AIN'T OVER! The headlines are encouraging, but the proponents of government-run health care still have power and are trying to convince their colleagues that the American people really aren't as upset as all that. Congress needs to hear your voice:
Go to Free Our Health Care NOW!
Enter your personal information and click TAKE ACTION!
You can write a letter or make a phone call. You can do either; both are important!
Thank you for your continued support of the NCPA.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Black History Month Reading:Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America


An interesting book which to read for Black History month and encourage your schools and libraries to display. This book shows how some Black "leaders" lead Black people down a road of destruction. You can continue to get interesting posts like this by subscribing here and you can get the book here from your library or by clicking the title of the article to get it from amazon.




This review is from: Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America (Hardcover) In the early 20th century, Booker T.Washington had a premonition:"There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs - partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose their grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."Sounds like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, and Louis Farrakhan to me.Thus opens the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson's new book, "SCAM: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America" (WND Books). Peterson, founder and president of the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny (BOND) and author of "From Rage to Responsibility," lays into the modern day civil rights establishment in ways that would make even Rush Limbaugh wince. He shows the ways in which this "other class of coloured people" profits from black misery and racial strife just as Booker T. Washington described almost a century ago. In exposing modern day black "leadership" for what it truly is, the author's main thesis is that the problems of the black community are due to a lack of moral character and not racism. In other words, we no longer need leaders - we need change.Peterson devotes an entire chapter on the abysmal failing of the NAACP and why that organization should be boycotted, showing how "the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization" is completely out of step with the needs of black America. Over 90% of black homicides in America are committed by other blacks, but instead of addressing the root causes of black-on-black crime, the NAACP absurdly blames gun manufacturers. The average black public high school graduate has in reality only an eighth-grade education, yet the NAACP vehemently opposes school choice - a policy overwhelming supported by black parents. Over 70% of black babies in America are born out of wedlock, yet Julian Bond and Kweisi Mfume would prefer to tackle "more important" issues - such as the supposed lack of minorities on popular television shows. Peterson sums up his critique by concluding "If the NAACP were truly concerned about black issues, it would focus most of its attention on black-on-black crime, restoring morality in black men, and supporting policies that strengthen black families... But as these moves would increase the real-world welfare of blacks... the NAACP wants nothing to do with them." Ouch!"SCAM" addresses how the fear of publicly being labeled "racist" causes many whites to hold their tongues when they see things run amuck in the black community (yet black liberals are given virtual carte blanche to publicly spew all manner of invective at whites and/or black conservatives). This fear prevents Americans from engaging in honest dialogue about race (think of the recent fallout over Rush Limbaugh's comments about NFL quarterback Donovan McNabb and you'll get the idea), and serves the interests of self-appointed black "leaders" and their liberal white sympathizers. As the average white person would rather be labeled a child molester than a racist, Peterson urges whites to no longer fall prey to such psychological bullying. (To wit, there is nothing wrong with the word "niggardly.")BOND puts on the annual National Day of Repudiation of Jesse Jackson, so it is no surprise that the author saves the lion's share of his venom for the self-proclaimed "heir-apparent" to Dr. Martin Luther King. Citing investigative reporter Kenneth Timmerman's best-selling tell-all "Shakedown" (I still can't believe Jackson was brazen enough to take his pregnant mistress with him to the White House for a photo-op with then-President Clinton!), Peterson rips into this improperly ordained minister like a buzz saw. The author also discusses why he is presently suing Jackson and his associates for an alleged assault in December 2001 in Los Angeles. Peterson is not afraid to publicly challenge the black establishment, sometimes at considerable risk to his own safety.To be sure, "SCAM" is more than just a stinging indictment against the modern-day civil rights establishment. The book is also a critically compassionate look at what is really plaguing the black community, in particular the plight of the black family, and what can and must be done to reverse the downward spiral in which many black men, women, and children find themselves. Peterson's concluding ten-point plan on how the black community can truly realize its full potential and achieve true spiritual freedom is worth of a full-length book in and of itself.


Direct and to the point,
By content_of_character "content_of_character" (Mid-Atlantic) -


This review is from: Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America (Hardcover) First off, I am black and proud to be so. Rev. Petersen's book is a breath of fresh air. He exposes black "leadership" as being in it for themselves. The past civil right leaders made sacrifices and weren't concerned about themselves, but looked to the future. Petersen points out how the current "leaders" really put their own self-interests first. My dad taught me that "you don't pull yourself up by putting someone else down" -something these "leaders" have not learned.He is gives strong evidence for stating that the lack of real leadership by black men is one of the key reasons for the problems in the black community (which unfortunately may be a foreshadowing of general American society). He identifies that racism, though it exists (and frankly will never go away) is not the cause of the black man's plight, but rather used as an excuse for our moral failings. I'm tired of seeing these leaders rush to defend criminals, and define bad behavior as part of "black culture", while putting down blacks who have achieved leadership but have different political views. I always though that a true sign of how black people have advanced is our ability to be believe in different things and respect each others beliefs.The writing style, while not outstanding, is easy to read. Petersen may seem too repetitive on some points, but many of them need to be repeated. In summary, I think Petersen makes a strong case for not only exposing the hyprocrisy of these "leaders", but showing how we as a people can better improve our lot by first taking responsibility for our own actions, and then working to improve them.

In-state Illegal Alien Tuition Challenged In Texas

A timely article from www.vdare.us about illegal students Texas, which follows this previous post on this topic, this about the election in Massachusettes, and this about the coming governor election in Arizona. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.


In-state Illegal Alien Tuition Challenged In Texas
By Peter Morrison
Many Texans aren't aware of it, but public colleges and universities in Texas are required by law to treat illegal aliens better than American citizens who live in other states
Back in 2001 the legislature passed a law letting illegal aliens pay the same tuition as legal Texas residents pay, as long as they've been in the country for at least three years, and promise to apply for permanent residency. Meanwhile, a young man or woman who is an American citizen, but grew up a few miles across the Oklahoma or Louisiana state line, has to pay thousands of dollars more than the illegal alien to attend the same Texas university.
There are certainly good reasons to charge out of state residents higher tuition at public universities than Texans pay. State funded colleges and universities are set up primarily to educate Texans. In-state tuition rates are subsidized by Texas taxpayers, and so if out of state students want to attend one of our schools they're more than welcome to, but they'll have to pay extra for the privilege and don't get the Texas taxpayer subsidy. This is standard operating procedure in almost all states, and has been going on for decades. There's nothing unfair about it.
It becomes extremely unfair, however, when people who are in the country illegally are given in-state tuition, which is subsidized by the taxpayers of Texas, while American citizens from other states have to pay thousands of dollars more per semester. We are now becoming second class citizens in our own country. American citizens from out of state are treated worse than people who shouldn't even be here in the first place, people who are breaking the law every day they remain in America.
Liberals and RINOs like to claim that giving illegal aliens in-state tuition at taxpayer expense is a good "investment." According to this theory, because the illegal must promise to seek permanent residency, it encourages them to assimilate and become legal citizens, and in turn they become role models for other illegals to emulate. They also say that it's far better for them to go to college and get employment training so they can become productive members of the economy, which justifies the massive tax subsidies they receive.
They're wrong on all counts. Illegal aliens shouldn't be "assimilating" in the first place. They should be returning to their country of citizenship, not freeloading here. As far as the "role model" argument, all we do when we give illegal aliens tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer subsidies for college is to encourage even more illegal immigration. That's Economics 101—what you subsidize, you get more of. Compounding this is the fact that legal immigrants who respect our nation's laws don't qualify for the lower tuition. We're rewarding illegal immigrants and punishing the ones who follow the rules. Their third argument is also faulty. If we need more productive workers in the Texas economy, we could simply quit charging higher tuition for out of state Americans.
It's an outrage that this law was ever passed, as it's blatantly unconstitutional. Finally, a patriotic organization is stepping up to the plate to do something about this injustice. The Immigration Reform Coalition of Texas (IRCOT) has filed a lawsuit to put a stop to this practice. In-state rates for illegal immigrants attacked By Susan Carroll, Houston Chronicle, December 15, 2009,
IRCOT spokeswoman Rebecca Forrest spoke to the Lone Star Report about the lawsuit:
"We believe Texas is in clear violation of federal law by giving cash grants to illegal aliens. Texas is currently treating illegal aliens better than it treats legal residents and American citizens, and we obviously want our leaders in Texas to change this situation...we want people to come legally, obey our laws, speak our language and assimilate."[PDF]
IRCOT is a fine organization working hard to reverse the invasion of illegal aliens, and deserves your support. Former Texas Supreme Court Justice Steven Wayne Smith is also a party to the lawsuit, which speaks well of the solid legal argument the suit is based on. Several states have passed similar laws, but there's a growing groundswell of opposition from outraged Americans fed up with their government coddling illegal aliens. Oklahoma recently rescinded its law, and even in liberal California, the state appeals court ruled their version unconstitutional (although it's been appealed to the state Supreme Court).
Texas' in-state tuition law is not only unconstitutional; it's also extremely expensive. No government office tracks the figures, but The Lone Star Foundation estimated that in-state tuition for illegals cost Texas taxpayers approximately $18 million in 2003 and nearly $35 million in 2005, nearly doubling in just two years! If that rate of growth continues, it won't be long before its costing Texas over $100 million per year. As long as our government refuses to get serious about stopping illegal immigration, that figure is going to keep going higher every year.
We've got high hopes that the IRCOT lawsuit will be successful, and that the expensive, unjust practice of granting illegal in-state tuition benefits will be officially declared unconstitutional. It's a travesty that IRCOT has to even take this to court, because our legislature could rescind the law at any time. There's no excuse for it ever being passed in the first place, but in today's economy, it's even more indefensible. We can't afford to be giving tens of millions of dollars every year to illegal aliens who shouldn't even be here in the first place, while legal immigrants and American citizens have to pay their own way to attend Texas universities.
We should all support IRCOT and their efforts to nullify this unjust and wasteful law, but we shouldn't stop there. Contact your legislators today and demand that they repeal the in-state tuition law. They have the authority to do so, and there are no good reasons why they shouldn't. When it comes to illegal immigration, it's often the federal courts that impose these liberal policies, and there's little we can do about it. That's not the case this time. It's our own elected officials in Texas who passed this law, and it's time we demanded they repeal it.Peter Morrison (email him) is businessman living in Lumberton, Texas with his wife and four children. He currently serves on the Lumberton ISD School Board and as treasurer of the Hardin County Republican Party. He says “I believe deeply in the principles of limited constitutional government, the sanctity of life and that our state and nation should be run under Thomas Jefferson's principle of ‘Equal Rights for All, Special Privileges for None.’"

This is from his free newsletter, which features commentary about current events of interest to Texans—sign up here.

Jamestown—America’s First Experiment in "Assimilation"


A timely article from http://www.vdare.com/ about the original story of the colonists at Jamestown. Click here to get the book.This is an interesting article to read in regards to the Avatar movie. See also here for the original,parallel story at Plymouth rock.For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.


Jamestown—America’s First Experiment in "Assimilation"



The 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown occured this Monday, May 14,2007.The "commemoration" festivities ("celebration" has been banned as politically incorrect) focus a great deal of attention, as VDARE.COM’s Allan Wall recently noted, on the wickedness of the colonists and the victimization of the natives. Perhaps, it is implied, if the English had been less ruthless and intolerant, the races could have avoided bloodshed and learned to live together in harmony. Sounds familiar? It should—because it’s not much different from what the Open Borders Lobby claims about our immigration disaster. The Left is convinced that "racism" is the source of all problems and that we’d all be holding hands if only those wicked white "racists" would simply dematerialize. Meanwhile, on the Respectable Right, neoconservatives, libertarians and Country Club Republicans tell us not to worry because we’ll "assimilate" all the newcomers and make them just like us. The true story of Jamestown, however, ought to cool this optimism. Most of it can be found in David Price’s Love and Hate in Jamestown: John Smith, Pocahontas, and the Heart of a New Nation, which presents a story very different from the one described above. The truth is that when 105 English colonists arrived in Virginia on April 26, 1607, they had no intention of murdering and exploiting the natives. On the contrary, they knew of the brutal treatment native peoples had received at the hands of the Spanish and were convinced that they could do better. Nor did the colonists did not come with any preconceived notions of racial superiority. "The English," according to Price, "did not believe that white people like themselves were innately superior and the natives innately inferior." Some even believed that Indians—unlike Africans or Moors—were originally born white and attributed their darker skin to excessive use of body paint. On the whole, the English saw the Indians as very much like their ancestors had been before they received the civilizing influences of the Roman conquest and of Christianity. They were determined to bring these things—civilization and salvation—to the Indians as well, and to make the poor, benighted natives as much like themselves as possible. Their vision for Virginia was that of an integrated society where the natives would adopt "English ways" and live together with their benefactors in peace. Of course, this was not the colony’s top priority. Making money was. The colonists had orders from their employer, the Virginia Company, to look for gold and a passage to the Pacific. Yet whatever their financial motives, the idea that the colonists were hell bent on wiping out the natives from the very beginning is simply false. You can call their intentions "cultural imperialism" if you like. But they certainly weren’t genocidal. After some initial incursions, the English established friendly relations with the local Indians and set to work building their base at Jamestown. They were careful to choose a site located on unoccupied ground. The leader of the colony, Edward-Maria Wingfield, ordered his men not to train in the use of weapons or to build any fortifications. Such precautions were unnecessary, he believed, for he and his men had come in peace. Wingfield was soon forced to change his mind. Hundreds of Indians attacked the settlement a few days later and killed several colonists. Only cannon fire, which terrified the Indians, saved the day. One man who did not have any romantic illusions about the Indians was John Smith, a hard nosed adventurer who had spent most of his life fighting and exploring. In the winter of 1607, he set out with a handful of men to explore. On the way, his party was ambushed by Indians. These supposedly innocent creatures subjected one of his men, George Cassen, to a grim fate. According to Price:
"The natives prepared a large fire behind the bound and naked body. Then a man grasped his hands and used mussel shells to cut off joint after joint, making his way through Cassen’s fingers, tossing the pieces into the flames. That accomplished, the man used shells and reeds to detach the skin from Cassen’s face and the rest of his head. Cassen’s belly was next, as the man sliced it open, pulled out his bowels, and cast those onto the fire. Finally the natives burned Cassen at the stake through to the bones." To avoid meeting the same end, Smith told the Indians that he was a chief. They took him to their leader, Powhatan, who ruled over most of the region’s tribes (collectively known as the Powhatans). On the way, Smith learned that Powhatan’s brother, Opechancanough, wanted to wipe Jamestown off the map. So he bluffed about the colony’s defenses and said that if any harm came to him his men would come to avenge him. But when he was finally brought before Powhatan, he made the same bluffs, but to no avail. The great chief ordered his head to be smashed between two rocks. It was then that Powhatan’s favorite daughter, Pocahontas, intervened on Smith’s behalf and saved his life. When Smith finally returned to the colony, he found everything in disarray. Less than half of the original colonists were left, most having either died or returned to England. Smith assumed command. He appears to have understood that the Indians were not gentle creatures yearning for civilization and Christianity, but a dangerous threat to the survival of the colony. Force, he believed, was the best way to deal with them. Thus, when Indians stole some of the colony’s tools and weapons, Smith captured a few thieves and told Powhatan he would hang them if the stolen property was not returned. The Indians captured some of the colonists and proposed a prisoner exchange. Smith, however, decided to launch an attack instead. He didn’t kill any Indians, but he did burn down some of their villages. Powhatan reluctantly freed the captive colonists. In the end, Smith never got back the stolen goods, but his actions did frighten the Indians into an uneasy peace. In the months that followed, Smith continued his hardheaded, practical approach. His good sense was evident in other areas as well. In the spirit of St. Paul, he told shirkers that if they didn’t work, they wouldn’t eat. He also encouraged the colonists to abandon their search for gold, and urged the Virginia Company to send farmers and fishermen instead of lackeys looking to get rich quick. Yet the low-born Smith never won the affections of his employers. In 1609, the company called him home. His replacements were mostly upper-class incompetents. Once Powhatan met them, he resumed harassing the colony. By the spring of 1610, starvation and Indian attacks had killed all but 100 of the 500 colonists Smith had left behind.Just in time, a fleet of ships arrived with new settlers and fresh supplies. Slowly but surely, the colony began to grow and prosper. Price tells the familiar story of how Pocahontas was captured and converted to Christianity, how she married John Rolfe and went to England, how her husband began planting tobacco and how that disreputable plant made the colony profitable.He also recounts how a Dutch ship arrived in 1619 with a cargo of African captives, marking the beginnings of slavery in America. The English, however, do not appear to have ever entertained any illusions about Africans being white. In contrast to the natives, there were no recorded attempts to convert them to Christianity. "Notions of black racial inferiority", Price writes, "seem to have been firmly in place in the colony from the start". Yet efforts to civilize the Indians continued. Price writes that, even after all of the troubles it had encountered, "[t]he company in London still believed in winning the natives over to English ways, with the ultimate result of an integrated society in Virginia, one rooted in Protestant Christianity and English culture." The colonists even set aside 10,000 acres for the purpose of building a Christian college for Indians. The man put in charge was George Thorpe, perhaps the first diversicrat in American history. Although his official title was "deputy of the college lands" and he reported to the governor of the colony, he conceived of a much larger role for himself. As Thorpe saw it, the failure to convert the Indians was due to the bigotry of the colonists. What was needed, he believed, was Christian kindness and understanding. "Thorpe came to believe", Price explains, "that the veterans of the colony wrongly viewed the natives as antagonistic and untrustworthy . . . It was time, he said, to put these preconceptions aside, and to make the natives feel loved". As Thorpe wrote:
"In my poore understandinge if there bee wronge on any side it is ours who are not soe charitable to them as Christians ought to bee, they beinge (espetiallye the better sort of them) of a peaceable and vertuous disposition." He went on to recommend that the company should provide the natives with gifts, especially English clothing, and should make a public declaration of their love and affection for the Indians and their intent to convert them to Christianity. Thorpe did have some basis for his theories. One of the Indians who had come to England with Pocahontas had lived for a few years in his house in London as a servant, and even elected to stay after Pocahontas’s death. Thorpe taught him to read and write, and eventually converted him to Christianity. His success led him to believe that the problem must be with the colonists. In other words, Thorpe was exactly like modern-day immigration enthusiasts, liberal and conservative, who base their opinions about immigrants on the limited contact they have with their Mexican housekeepers and gardeners. Like Thorpe, they believe that a little affection (usually imagined, I find) between them and their subservients makes them qualified to dispense advice to the rest of us, who have to deal with all of the problems that their housekeepers and gardeners, and their offspring and relatives, bring. Thorpe set to work putting his theories into practice. With the governor’s backing, he had powers that today’s diversicrats would envy. To make the natives feel as welcome as possible, he reversed earlier practices and allowed them to roam throughout the colony freely. He also made sure that anyone who harassed the Indians or made them feel uncomfortable was promptly disciplined. When a few Indians complained to him of being frightened by some dogs that had barked at them, Thorpe had the dogs publicly hanged. "He thought of nothing too deare [costly] for them", Price quotes one chronicler as writing, "and as being desirous to binde them unto him by many courtesies, hee never denied them any thing that they asked him."Not everyone approved of these new policies, but most eventually accepted them. Tellingly, as Price explains, this probably had more to do with money than anything else. "Smooth relations with the natives", he writes, "meant unhindered profits and an extra source of labor." Thus most colonists embraced the changes and even began inviting the Indians into their homes and feasting them at their tables. The Indians’ new leader was a particular object of Thorpe’s interest. Powhatan had been succeeded after his death in 1618 by his brother Opitchapam. But real power lay in the hands of another brother, Opechancanough, the man who years earlier had wanted to destroy Jamestown. Thorpe lavished attention and generosity on Opechancanough. He built him an English-style house, and discussed with him the possibility of sending Indian boys to come and live in the colony and receive an English education. No doubt he hoped that separating the boys from their families would make them easier to convert and civilize. During their conversations, Opechancanough hinted that he was considering converting to Christianity. Everything, it seemed, was working as planned. Then, late in 1621, a few colonists received word from some disaffected Indians that Opechancanough was planning an attack. This caused a brief panic, but the chief of the Powhatans denied everything. The English took him at his word. "It was more appealing", Price writes, "from the colonists’ point of view, to assume the best than to assume the worst, since the lookout duty was an unwelcome diversion of energy from more lucrative pursuits." And so everything continued as usual—until the morning of Friday, March 22, 1622. It began like any other. The Indians traded and bartered with the settlers, worked along side them, ate at their tables, smiled and laughed and interacted with them in all of the ways that the English had come to expect. There was not the slightest indication that anything out of the ordinary was going to happen. Then, all of the sudden, the natives began their attack. As Price writes, the Indians "slaughtered men, women, and children with the colonists’ own swords and work tools—axes, knives, saws, and hammers. In an instant, hundreds of English were lying lifeless." According to one contemporary report, the Indians:
"Not being content with taking away life alone . . . fell after againe upon the dead, making as well as they could, a fresh murder, defacing, dragging, and mangling the dead carcasses into so many pieces, and carrying some parts away in derision, with base and brutish triumph." As for George Thorpe, the objects of his affection subjected him to a special fate. Isolated on his plantation, he received no news of the attack. One of his servants found the natives’ behavior suspect and warned his master, but Thorpe brushed his fears aside. The servant wisely fled. Shortly thereafter, the natives fell upon the plantation and stabbed Thorpe to death. Then, it was reported, they "cruelly and felly [fiercely], out of devilish malice, did so many barbarous despights and foule scornes after to his dead corpse, as are unbefitting to be heard by any civill eare." So much for Christian charity. Fortunately, Jamestown itself escaped harm. One colonist had found out about the attack beforehand and rushed to inform the governor, who quickly prepared for defense. The outlying farms and plantations, however, were not so lucky. By the end, as many as 400 people were dead—roughly one third of the entire colony. When the news reached England, the poet urged that the colony stay true to Thorpe’s ideals. But few paid any attention. The attack had sparked a seismic shift in opinion. Now, Price reports, the English began" target=_blank elimination and expulsion. After several years of fighting, a peace treaty was signed in 1632. Years after the March 22 attack, the colonists were still observing and commemorating it. More than twenty years later, in 1644, Opechancanough launched another surprise attack. He killed even more people, but the colony had grown so much larger that the impact was far less. The English struck back. Eventually disease and warfare whittled away the Indian population to the point that by the end of the 17th century, a historian could write that For most of the next three centuries, Americans remained true to Smith’s practical approach to race relations. Only recently have they reverted to the naiveté of Thorpe. The colonists at Jamestown spent years trying to turn Indians into Englishmen, only to find that, lo and behold, the Indians preferred their own culture and their own ways. I am entirely confident that in the years to come, assimilationists will be similarly disappointed (except for those who never really believed in it anyway) to find that Mexicans, Arabs, Asians and others stubbornly remain what they are. What happens then is anyone’s guess. If there is anything else to be learned from the Jamestown experience, it is that Anglo-Saxon naiveté is not a permanent condition. Let us hope, however, that it will take something other than bloodshed to awaken Americans to what is happening to their country.

Kevin Carter [email him] lives in the Washington D.C. area.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Urban Sprawl


A timely article from http://jewishworldreview.com/ about incorrect development of cities in the modern era. There is a new trend to make it more difficult for the free flow of automobiles in an attempt to force people to use different means of transportation - bicycles and busses mainly. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.




A book that debunks much organized hysteria is "Sprawl" by Robert Bruegmann. If you or someone you know happens to believe the "open space" and "smart growth" advocates — or even take them seriously — the plain facts and no-nonsense analysis in this book will make the hysteria collapse like a house of cards.

Action needed in your district!Now that the political mood has shifted our way, it's time for us to come out swinging!

A timely article from http://www.numbersusa.com/ about faxes to send to your House and Senate members because of the election of Scott Brown as described in this post about the election in Massachusettes, and this about in-state tuition for illegals in Nebraska and Texas. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Now that the political mood has shifted our way, it's time for us to come out swinging!
Time for Congress, including your Rep. , to support our Top Five Bills
Press to Donate Now
Jim here, writing with several Action Steps you can take today to take advantage of our new opportunities and bring immigration under control.
Remember my prediction a few months ago? I said health care benefits for illegal aliens would be kept out of any health care bill.
Time is proving me right! After a earth-shaking election in Massachusetts, Congress has apparently gotten the message. No health care bill will include illegal aliens.


Why Senator-Elect Scott Brown Gives Us an Opportunity
Last Tuesday, the come-from-behind, impossibly-outgunned, pro-enforcement Scott Brown won a special election and takes the seat of the late Sen. Kennedy, champion of high immigration. As you'll recall, Kennedy wanted to make practically every illegal alien a U.S. citizen! Kennedy was the person most responsible for quadrupling immigration levels. I'm guessing Massachusetts had enough of that.
Turns out Scott Brown agrees with many NumbersUSA positions! He wants E-Verify, interior enforcement, strong border controls--and opposes amnesty!
The winds of change are finally blowing our direction. There's change in the air. Can't you feel it? Don't you feel energized and more hopeful? I know I do!
Bri, this is the time to pour gasoline on the fire! If you've never had a chance to donate to NumbersUSA, this would be a great time to invest. Just $10 would really help us push Congress the right direction!
Our opponents in the Open Borders coalition are very, very depressed in the aftermath of the Massachusetts special election. Any kind of health care bill that would cover illegal aliens is dead. And I predict that Amnesty for Illegal Aliens is now dead for this Congress. (Yes, we'll be watching every minute, but this is my prediction now.) The other side has simply lost heart!
Press to Donate Now
Ready for some Good Legislation? Here are Several Actions You Can Take TODAY To Control Immigration
It's time to make sure every Member of Congress co-sponsors the Five Great Immigration-Reduction Bills that have been introduced in the House of Representatives.
Bad News. Your House Member, so far has not co-sponsored two very important immigration-reduction bills.
The first bill is the SAVE Act, which would make the E-Verify employment verification system mandatory for every employer.
The second bill is H.R. 1868, which would finally put an end to "birthright citizenship" for illegal aliens. Under this bill, children born in this country to illegal aliens would no longer be granted automatic U.S. citizenship.
Again, your Rep. has not co-sponsored either of these bills as of yet.
Send this fax demanding that co-sponsor both the SAVE Act and H.R. 1868 (to eliminate Birthright Citizenship for illegal aliens). It's critical that we hold your Rep. accountable.
Next, go to your NumbersUSA Action Board to see where your Rep. stands on the other three top immigration-reduction bills. Send all the faxes we suggest there. You will find several new things to do on the board--so look right now.
Obviously we are at the crossroads of opportunity. Please make a donation today to help us take advantage of our new opportunities. $25 would help us a lot just now as we labor to deliver 500,000 faxes this month alone.
Bri, you stuck with us during the hardest time, when we were always on the defensive. Now that the political winds are shifting our direction, let's redouble our efforts, and then redouble them again!
Press to Donate Now
KEEP THE FAITH, AND NEVER GIVE UP!

Three Cheers for Tim Tebow (& CBS): Heisman Winner Who Wasn’t Aborted

An interesting post from www.debbieschlussel.com/ about the a choice against abortion. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.


Three Cheers for Tim Tebow (& CBS): Heisman Winner Who Wasn’t Aborted
By Debbie Schlussel
If Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow’s mother, Pam Tebow, got an abortion in 1987–as doctors recommended–he wouldn’t be here today. He heads for the NFL draft later this year. That’s the subject matter of an ad Tebow (a Florida Gator grid-iron phenom) and the conservative group, Focus on the Family, created to air on CBS during the upcoming Superbowl match-up between the Indianapolis Colts and the New Orleans Saints.
Tim Tebow & Mom, Stars of Supe Ad
Feminists and the NOW hags are up in arms about it and want CBS to censor it. Kudos to the network that, so far, it hasn’t buckled. On the other hand, this is the first year in which Superbowl ad prices have fallen, and the network, frankly, can’t afford to turn it down. Times are tough.
“View” idiot Joy Behar (wait, they’re all idiots on that show, including the faux-conservative) said about Tebow, “He could just as easily become some kind of a rapist pedophile.” You stay classy, Joy (and you stay stupid, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who per usual had zero intelligent response). I’d personally rather see the Tebow Family’s inspiring ad than more silly Go Daddy blow-up doll ads. Unfortunately, we’re in for more o’ those, this year, too. Here’s Tim Tebow defending the ad:
More:
Paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, the ad tells the story of Bob and Pam Tebow, who was pregnant with their fifth child when the couple travelled to the Philippines on a missionary trip.
While there, Pam contracted amoebic dysentery and the medicines used for her recovery threatened her unborn fetus. Doctors advised her to abort the fetus. Pam ignored their advice and gave birth on Aug. 14, 1987, to a baby boy. That boy was Tim Tebow.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Farouk Shami: Muslim Texas Candidate Dons Anti-Israel Keffiyeh @ MLK Fest; Dad Led Pogroms Against Jews

An interesting post from www.debbieschlussel.com/ about the Texas governor's race. This follows this article about Barack Obama's mid-term House and Senate elections. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Farouk Shami: Muslim Texas Candidate Dons Anti-Israel Keffiyeh @ MLK Fest; Dad Led Pogroms Against Jews
By Debbie Schlussel
I’ve been at the forefront of exposing Farouk Shami–multi-millionaire haircare magnate who is running for Governor of Texas as a Democrat–for the extremist, terrorist-supporting Muslim that he is. And for that, I’ve been attacked by the Texas mainstream media. But, as I’ve noted, Shami not only won’t specifically condemn Hezbollah, HAMAS, and Islamic Jihad terrorist groups, but he was honored by the American Task Force on Palestine, a pan-terrorist group that claims that all of Israel is “Palestine.” And I’ve noted that, through his foundation, he funds an extremist school in the so-called West Bank. Shami, Yasser Arafat’s and the Saudi’s fave former hairstylist, is the owner of Farouk Systems, which produces and sells the BioSilk, CHI, and Sunglitz hair products (don’t buy them!).
Since my work on Shami has been getting exposure all around the world–including and especially in Texas–Shami has resorted to claiming he’s not a Muslim. That’s actually not true–he is, indeed, a Muslim and his father, Mohammed (a “Quaker” name?), is a sheikh, which you can’t be if you’re not a Muslim. But, whatever he’s calling himself, this photo of Shami at a Monday Martin Luther King, Jr. Day rally, tells us all we need to know. Shami is wearing a keffiyeh scarf that says, “Palestine: Jerusalem is Ours.” This is the scarf of hate, similar to the one Ricky Martin wore in 2005 and for which he apologized profusely. Shami’s scarf shows a photo of Masjid Qubbat As-Sakhrah–the Dome of the Rock mosque–which is built on top of the holiest part of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. (Given what Martin Luther King, Jr.’s staunch pro-Israel and philo-Semitic sentiments–read about it here and here–it’s doubly offensive.)
Even Neil Aquino of Texas Liberal, who took the photo with Shami, was alarmed. And, in case you didn’t know, here’s some other info about Farouk Shami, which he doesn’t want you to know:
* Shami traveled as a hairdresser for members of the Saudi Royal family, and in order to make some extra money, he purchased merchandise from the stores and then re-sold them to the female members of the traveling party at a significant mark-up.
* Suha Arafat, the “wife”/beard of the late P.L.O. terrorist-in-chief Yasser Arafat, is from Shami’s home town, Beit Ur Al Tahta, and Farouk makes a point to visit her whenever he is in Paris.
* Shami’s father, Sheikh Mohammed Shami, had a very close association with Palestinian Liberation Army (part of the PLO), and before that, organized Arabs to brutally murder Jews for the entire decade before Israel became a state:
Shami was commissioned to organize the Palestinian paramilitary under the name of the Palestinian Scouts. . . . The Scouts were the main figures in the fight against the establishment of Israel in the land of Palestine. . . .
Mohammed Shami commanded all the Arab troops west of Jerusalem, who desperately fought the . . . Jewish forces. For his resistance work between 1936-48, Mohammed was recognized in 1995 by the Palestinian Authority as Dean of Palestinian Veterans.
Since I’ve been exposing Farouk Shami, he’s gotten at least two high-paid Jewish execs of his to write me ridiculous “court Jew” e-mails telling me what a saint this terrorist-lover and -enabler is. I told them where to go, and since they’re Jewish, 72 virgins won’t be greeting them.
But their religion was not relevant to me, and it was patronizing of them to think that it would be. Terrorism and support for Islamic terrorist groups isn’t a Jewish issue. It’s everybody’s issue.
There was a day, not too long ago, where a guy like Shami would be considered a kook, a fringe candidate. Sadly, we’ve passed that day as Muslims like him reach critical mass in America and make a ton of money off of our system.
All Americans need to work against Farouk Shami to make sure his chances of ever reaching public office are similar to a halal snowball’s chance in jehenim (Arabic for hell).
It’s not just a matter of, “Don’t Mess With Texas.” It’s, “Don’t Mess With America.”

If Republicans run as strongly as Brown, only 103 House Dems are safe.

An interesting post from www.hughhewitt.com/ who referneces Michael Barone about how the midterm House and Senate races may go. This follows this article about Barack Obama losing a key swing vote. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.


If Republicans run as strongly as Brown, only 103 House Dems are safe.
By: Michael Barone


Senior Political Analyst


Republican Scott Brown won 52%-47% in Massachusetts, which voted 62%-36% for Barack Obama in 2008. How did he do in each of Massachusetts’s 10 congressional districts, all of which are represented by Democrats who have been reelected without much opposition this decade?


Blogger Fred Bauer has attempted to calculate the results, omitting results in cities or towns which are split between congressional districts. Bauer shows Coakley winning 80%-20% in Michael Capuano’s 8th district (which voted 84% for Obama), 54%-46% in Ed Markey’s 7th district (65% Obama) and 51%-49% in John Olver’s western Mass 1st district (64% Obama). He shows Coakley narrowly trailing in Barney Frank’s 4th district (63% Obama), where I think the Fall River precincts he didn’t count would have put Coakley narrowly ahead, and in Stephen Lynch’s 9th district (60% Obama) he shows her well behind but doesn’t include the Boston wards and precincts which may have put her ahead, although I rather doubt it.
Anyway, there’s a pattern here: Coakley carries districts where Obama got 65% or more of the vote and runs essentially even in the district where he got 64%, and Scott Brown runs ahead in districts where Obama got less than 64% of the vote.


Let’s extrapolate those numbers to the nation as a whole and assume that a district that voted 64% or more for Obama is safe for Democrats even under the most dire of circumstances. How many such districts are there? Answer, according to this source: 103. The other 332 districts voted 63% or less for Obama. Interestingly, there are more 64%+ Obama districts in the West (36) than in the East (27) and more in the South (21) than in the Midwest (19).
All but two of the 103 Obama 64%+ districts are represented by Democrats. The two exceptions are Louisiana 2, where Republican An Joseph Cao beat Democrat William “Cold Cash” Jefferson in a December 2008 runoff, and Florida 19, whose incumbent Robert Wexler resigned and a special election will be held in April. And, yes, it will be amazing if this heavily Jewish district in Palm Beach and Broward Counties elects a Republican; heavily Jewish Brookline and Newton voted heavily against Scott Brown in Massachusetts.
So that means that 101 of the 256 House Democrats represent 64%+ Obama districts and that 155 House Democrats represent districts which might, according to the Massachusetts metric, be vulnerable in some circumstances to Republican capture. No wonder so many House Democrats refused to vote for the Senate health care bill—enough to prompt Speaker Nancy Pelosi to say publicly that “unease would be a gentle word” to describe their attitude toward doing that.
Who represents the 103 Obama 64%+ districts? By my count, 36 are represented by members of the Congressional Black Caucus and 11 by members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; three (CA 5, HI 2, LA 3) are represented by members of Asian descent) and 53 by members who are white. I have previously characterized 36 of these last 56 districts as “gentry liberal” districts and 12 as “working class/ethnic” districts.

Where are these 64%+ Obama districts? Here’s a list by metro area:

EAST
New York (NY 6, NY 7, NY 8, NY 10, NY 11, NY 12, NY 14, NY 15, NY 16, NY 17, NJ 10, NJ 13)
Philadelphia (PA 1, PA 2, NJ 1)
Washington (MD 4, MD 5, MD 8, VA 8 [technically I count the last in the South)
Boston (MA 7, MA 8)
Baltimore (MD 7)
Pittsburgh (PA 14)
Buffalo (NY 28)
Hartford (CT 1)
Providence (RI 1)
Rural New England (MA 1, VT 1)
MIDWEST
Chicago (IL 1, IL 2, IL 3, IL 4, IL 5, IL 7, IL 9)
Detroit (MI 12, MI 13, MI 14, MI 15)
Cleveland (OH 11)
St. Louis (MO 1)
Minneapolis (MN 4, MN 5)
Milwaukee (WI 4)
Indianapolis (IN 7)
Flint (MI 5)
Madison (WI 2)
WEST
Los Angeles (CA 27, CA 28, CA 29, CA 30, CA 31, CA 32, CA 33, CA 34, CA 35, CA 36, CA 37, CA 38, CA 39, CA 43)
San Francisco (CA 6, CA 7, CA 8, CA 9, CA 10, CA 12, CA 13, CA 14, CA 15, CA 16)
California North and Central Coast (CA 1, CA 17, CA 23)
San Diego (CA 53)
Sacramento (CA 5)
Seattle (WA 7)
Portland (OR 3)
Denver (CO 1)
Phoenix (AZ 4)
Las Vegas (NV 1)
Honolulu (HI 1, HI 2)
SOUTH
Atlanta (GA 4, GA 5, GA 13)
Miami (FL 17, FL 19, FL 23)
Houston (TX 9, TX 18)
Dallas (TX 30)
San Antonio (TX 20)
El Paso (TX 16)
Tampa (FL 11)
Jacksonville (FL 3)
Birmingham (AL 7)
New Orleans (LA 2)
Jackson (MS 2)
Charlotte (NC 12)
Columbia (SC 6)
Memphis (TN 9)
Richmond (VA 3)


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/If-Republicans-run-like-Brown-then-only-103-House-Dems-are-truly-safe-82360422.html#ixzz0dkgwxr1I

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Yes, Wyclef Jean’s Haiti “Charity” is a Self-Serving Rip-Off

This is an interesting post from www.debbieschlussel.com about the telethon that was on many of the networks on Friday night.
As we have noted here, there are plenty of good places to send charity to help the Haitian earthquake victims.
However,this post here shows the possibilty that many Haitians may end up fleeing or being relocated to the United States.An interesting book which showed a similar result is called Camp of the Saints which you can get from Amazon by clicking here or your library here.
For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.


Yes, Wyclef Jean’s Haiti “Charity” is a Self-Serving Rip-Off
By Debbie Schlussel
Pop singer and native Haitian Wyclef Jean came under fire for his Wyclef Jean Foundation, Inc. a/k/a the Yele Haiti Foundation. Yesterday, Jean held a press conference to defend himself against charges made by The Smoking Gun. And Rush Limbaugh defended him on his nationally syndicated radio show.
Wyclef Jean & His “Charity”: Pimpin’ Out the People of Haiti
While I agree with Rush on most issues, he’s completely wrong on Jean. I’ve looked at his foundation’s tax forms for 2005, 2006, and 2007, and there is not only a lot of self-dealing, but not enough of the money he raised actually goes to charity in Haiti. In fact, the vast majority of the money goes to pay consultants and himself.
And, frankly, TSG was soft on Jean and his charity. Here’s my analysis:
Normally, a charity is considered to be an illegitimate charity if more than 25% of the money raised goes to expenses. That’s the standard guideline. But more than 50% of Jean’s charity’s money goes to pay consultants and caterers at parties, etc. In fact, only 47% of the money went to charity at most. In 2007, the last year for which taxes were filed (in summer 2009), the charity spent $569,050, and only $270,000 of it went to “program services” in Haiti. In 2006, it’s even worse, with the charity spending $1,038,528 in total, and only $324,500 going to charity in Haiti. That means that only 31%–or less than a third–of the money spent that year went to charity.
But the biggest joke is 2005, in which only $1,281 (a tiny fraction of one percent) went to charity in Haiti, out of $549,991 spent on “expenses”–consultants, catering, travel, office expenses, etc. A “hurricane relief benefit” held that year in New York raised $50,000, but cost $40,301 to put on, netting less than $10,000 in revenue for the charity.
And you wonder–since Jean has had a lot of fundraisers attended by the likes of Gwyneth Paltrow and other movie stars–how much of the $79,126 the charity raised in 2007 was contributed by him. Even if he contributed the whole thing, it’s peanuts, since the foundation pays him and his partner, Jerry DuPlessis –they are both officers of the charity–$31,200 in rent, each year, in 2006 and 2007, for using office space in a building they own through their company, Platinum Sound, which owns and operates recording studios. Their excuse is that they are renting the offices “below market value.” But why aren’t they donating that space–you know, the same way they are asking all of us, who aren’t wealthy pop stars, to donate to Haiti?
And, then, there’s an additional $100,000 paid to Platinum Sound in 2006, which isn’t explained at all. Add to that the $250,000 Jean’s foundation paid to Telemax, S.A., in which, the 2006 tax form says, Jean and his partner DuPlessis own a controlling interest, to buy airtime and production services. If you add it all up, Jean and his partner made more money from the charity in 2006–a total of $381,200–than the actual intended recipients (the people of Haiti) did–or $324,500. Again, they use the excuse that the price paid was “below market value.” Uh-huh. Sadly, that excuse doesn’t hold water when, in fact, 37% of the money spent by the charity that year went to line Wyclef Jean’s and his partner, Jerry DuPlessis’ pockets.
Oh, and by the way, in each of those three years for which tax forms were available online, a good deal of the money spent on “charity” went to “Hip Hop En Sante – Hip Hop Musicians Promoting HIV/AIDS Awareness to Rural Youth.” Hmm . . . how helpful do you think that was in a country where their houses were so fragile, they pancaked upon an earthquake?
Clearly, Mr. Jean’s “charity” is a scam and a waste of money. Best to give elsewhere if you’re planning to donate to Haiti relief. And sometimes, even radio hosts with the best of intentions and who are usually right on target, are misinformed.
Look at a charity’s tax forms and get the information for yourself. You don’t need to be a forensic accountant to figure it out, and all it takes about 15 minutes on a site like Guidestar.
By the way, if you think this is bad, you should see the paltry amount of money Sean Vannity and his Freedom Concerts give to their intended recipients. Vannity makes Wyclef Jean look more generous than Santa Claus. Stay tuned.

Conservatives: Beware of McCain Regression Syndrome

An interesting post from www.vdare.com/ about how John McCain is diffusing the momentum against Barack Obama. This follows this article about Scott Brown's pickup truck. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Conservatives: Beware of McCain Regression Syndrome
By Michelle Malkin
Pay attention: In the afterglow of the Massachusetts Miracle, there are flickers of peril for the right. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but like Paul Revere’s midnight message, consider this warning "a cry of defiance, and not of fear." Conservatives have worked hard to rebuild after Big Government Republican John McCain’s defeat. But McCain isn’t going gently into that good night.
Red Flag No. One: A reader from Arizona informed me the day after the Bay State Bombshell that he had received a robo-call from Massachusetts GOP Sen.-elect Scott Brown. "He basically wanted me to vote for John McCain in November," the reader said in his description of the automated campaign call supporting the four-term Sen. McCain’s re-election bid. "No wonder [Brown] said he hadn't had any sleep. … He was busy recording phone messages!"
Red Flag No. Two: Also in the wake of the Massachusetts special election, the nation’s most popular conservative political figure Sarah Palin announced she would be campaigning for her former running mate
in Arizona in March. Palin told Facebook followers that she’s going to "ride the tide with commonsense candidates" and help "heroes and statesmen" like McCain.
Facing mounting conservative opposition in his home state and polls showing him virtually tied with possible GOP challenger and former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, McCain welcomed the boost: "Sarah energized our nation and remains a leading voice in the Republican Party."
Savor the irony: After a career spent bashing the right flank of the party, McCain is now clinging to its coattails to save his incumbent hide.
And pay attention to the hidden, more troubling irony: While he runs to the right to protect his seat, McCain’s political machine is working across the country to install liberal and establishment Republicans to secure his legacy.
In Florida, McCain’s Country First Political Action Committee is supporting the Senate bid of fellow illegal alien amnesty supporter and global warming alarmist GOP Gov. Charlie Crist, whose crucial 2008 primary endorsement rescued McCain from disaster. Grassroots conservatives support former GOP state House leader Marco Rubio—who is hitting Crist hard for lying to voters about his embrace of President Obama’s pork-laden, fraud-ridden stimulus package.
In Colorado, McCain and his meddlers infuriated the state party by anointing former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton to challenge endangered Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet. She’s a milquetoast public official who has served on a lot of task forces and GOP clubs—and who happens to be the sister-in-law of big Beltway insider Charlie Black. An estimated 40 percent of her coffers are filled with out-of-state money (and much of that is flowing from the Beltway).
The mini-McCain of Colorado claims to oppose "special interests," but has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from D.C. lobbyists at McCain’s behest—stifling the candidacies of strong conservative rivals led by grassroots-supported Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, an amnesty opponent whose aggressive illegal-immigration prosecutions have earned him the rage of the far left and big-business right. A recent Rasmussen poll showed Buck and GOP candidate Tom Wiens beating Bennet—despite the huge cash and crony advantage of frontrunner and blank-slate Norton.
In California, McCain’s PAC supports former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina—a celebrity name with deep pockets of her own, massive media exposure and a checkered business record. Fiorina served as the economic adviser to McCain, who supported the $700 billion TARP bailout, the $25 billion auto bailout, a $300 billion mortgage bailout and the first $85 billion AIG bailout. As GOP rival and grassroots-supported Chuck DeVore’s camp notes, Fiorina has also vacillated publicly over the Obama stimulus. With taxpayer "friends" like this, who needs Democrats?
With all due respect to McCain’s noble war service, it’s time to head to the pasture. As the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, he was wrong on the constitutionality of the free-speech-stifling McCain-Feingold campaign finance regulations. He was wrong to side with the junk-science global warming activists in pushing onerous carbon caps on America. He was on the wrong side of every Chicken Little-driven bailout. He was wrong in opposing enhanced CIA interrogation methods that have saved countless American lives and averted jihadi plots. And he was spectacularly wrong in teaming with the open-borders lobby to push a dangerous illegal alien amnesty.
Tea Party activists are rightly outraged by Palin’s decision to campaign for McCain, whose entrenched incumbency and progressive views are anathema to the movement. At least she has an excuse: She’s caught between a loyalty rock and a partisan hard place. The conservative base has no such obligations—and it is imperative that they get in the game (as they did in Massachusetts) before it’s too late. The movement to restore limited government in Washington has come too far, against all odds, to succumb to McCain Regression Syndrome now.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Michelle Malkin [email her] is the author of Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s review. Click here for Michelle Malkin's website. Michelle Malkin is also author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild and the just-released Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies.

Has Obama Lost White America?

An interesting post from www.vdare.com/about how Barack Obama is driving the mainstream of America away from him. This follows this article about Scott Brown's pickup truck. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Has Obama Lost White America?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
If Republicans will study the returns from Massachusetts, then review the returns from Virginia and New Jersey, light will fall upon the path to victory over Barack Obama in 2012.
Obama defeated John McCain by winning the black vote 24 to one, the Hispanic vote two to one and taking a larger share of the white vote, 44 percent, than did John Kerry or Al Gore. As the white vote was three-fourths of the national turnout, Obama coasted to victory.
Now consider Massachusetts. In the 2008 election, no less than 79 percent of the voters were white, and Obama carried them by 20 points, winning the state 62 to 36.
How did Scott Brown turn that 26-point deficit into a six-point victory? By winning the white vote as massively as did Obama. While there are no exit polls to prove it, we do have exit polls from Virginia and New Jersey, which tend to corroborate it.
Bob McDonnell won the Virginia governor's race by 17, while McCain lost Virginia by six. As McDonnell did equally poorly with African-Americans, losing the black vote 90 to nine, while McCain's lost it 92 to eight, what explains his Virginia landslide?
The white vote. McDonnell won Virginia's white vote 68 to 32, though his opponent was a downstate Democrat more conservative than the Northern Virginia candidates he beat in the primary.
In New Jersey, same story. McCain won 8 percent of the black vote. Gov. Chris Christie won 8 percent of the black vote. How did Christie turn a McCain loss of New Jersey by 16 points into a five-point victory?
The white vote. McCain won the white vote in New Jersey 50 to 49, but Christie won the white vote 59 to 34, almost two to one.
Republicans have won three major races—two of them upsets and one a Massachusetts miracle—because the white share of the vote in all three rose as a share of the total vote, and Republicans swept the white vote in Reagan-like landslides.
What explains the white surge to the GOP?
First, sinking white support for Obama, seen as ineffectual in ending the recession and stopping the loss of jobs.
Second, a growing perception that Obama is biased. When the president blurted that the Cambridge cops and Sgt. James Crowley "acted stupidly" in arresting black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates—a rush to judgment that proved wrong—his support sank in white America and especially in Massachusetts, where black Gov. Deval Patrick joined in piling on Crowley. Deval is now in trouble, too.
Then there was Obama's appointment of Puerto Rican American Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Her militant support for race and ethnic preferences and her decision to deny Frank Ricci and the white firefighters of New Haven a hearing on their case that they were denied promotions they won in competitive exams because they were white caused 31 GOP senators to vote against her.
While Massachusetts is Democrat over Republican three to one, Reagan carried the state in 1984 and Hillary Clinton clobbered Obama in the 2008 primary, though the Kennedys were in Obama's corner. The Scott Brown Democrats were the Hillary Democrats were the Reagan Democrats.
But if McDonnell, Christie and Brown could roll up large enough shares of the white vote to win in three major states McCain lost, why did McCain lose all three?
Answer: In 2008, the working and middle class had had a bellyful of the Bush-McCain Republicans. They were seen as pro-amnesty for illegal aliens and pro-NAFTA, when U.S. workers had watched 5 million manufacturing jobs disappear in a decade—and reappear in China. They were willing to give Obama a chance because Obama had persuaded them by November he was not just another big-spending utopian liberal.
So what have Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi been doing for a year? Crafting a federal takeover of health care with a vast plan that provides coverage for the uninsured—most of whom are minorities—while sticking it to Medicare recipients, 80 percent to 90 percent of whom are white.
Immigrants are 21 percent of the uninsured, but only 7 percent of the population. This means white folks on Medicare or headed there will see benefits curtailed, while new arrivals from the Third World, whence almost all immigrants come, get taxpayer-subsidized health insurance. Any wonder why all those Tea Party and town-hall protests seem to be made up of angry white folks?
What the McDonnell, Christie and Brown victories teach is that the GOP should stop listening to the Wall Street Journal and start listening to these forgotten Americans.
An end to affirmative action and ethnic preferences, an end to bailouts of Wall Street bankers, a moratorium on immigration until unemployment falls to 6 percent, an industrial policy that creates jobs here and stops shipping them to China appear a winning hand in 2012.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, can be ordered from Amazon.com.

Friday, January 22, 2010

Has Obama Lost White America?

An interesting post from www.vdare.com/buchanan.htm about how Barack Obama is driving the mainstream of America away from him. This follows this article about Scott Brown's pickup truck. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Has Obama Lost White America?
by Pat Buchanan

If Republicans will study the returns from Massachusetts, then review the returns from Virginia and New Jersey, light will fall upon the path to victory over Barack Obama in 2012.
Obama defeated John McCain by winning the black vote 24 to one, the Hispanic vote two to one and taking a larger share of the white vote, 44 percent, than did John Kerry or Al Gore. As the white vote was three-fourths of the national turnout, Obama coasted to victory.
Now consider Massachusetts. In the 2008 election, no less than 79 percent of the voters were white, and Obama carried them by 20 points, winning the state 62 to 36.
How did Scott Brown turn that 26-point deficit into a six-point victory? By winning the white vote as massively as did Obama. While there are no exit polls to prove it, we do have exit polls from Virginia and New Jersey, which tend to corroborate it.
Bob McDonnell won the Virginia governor's race by 17, while McCain lost Virginia by six. As McDonnell did equally poorly with African-Americans, losing the black vote 90 to nine, while McCain's lost it 92 to eight, what explains his Virginia landslide?

The white vote. McDonnell won Virginia's white vote 68 to 32, though his opponent was a downstate Democrat more conservative than the Northern Virginia candidates he beat in the primary.
In New Jersey, same story. McCain won 8 percent of the black vote. Gov. Chris Christie won 8 percent of the black vote. How did Christie turn a McCain loss of New Jersey by 16 points into a five-point victory?
The white vote. McCain won the white vote in New Jersey 50 to 49, but Christie won the white vote 59 to 34, almost two to one.
Republicans have won three major races -- two of them upsets and one a Massachusetts miracle -- because the white share of the vote in all three rose as a share of the total vote, and Republicans swept the white vote in Reagan-like landslides.
What explains the white surge to the GOP?
First, sinking white support for Obama, seen as ineffectual in ending the recession and stopping the loss of jobs.
Second, a growing perception that Obama is biased. When the president blurted that the Cambridge cops and Sgt. James Crowley "acted stupidly" in arresting black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates -- a rush to judgment that proved wrong -- his support sank in white America and especially in Massachusetts, where black Gov. Deval Patrick joined in piling on Crowley. Deval is now in trouble, too.
Then there was Obama's appointment of Puerto Rican American Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Her militant support for race and ethnic preferences and her decision to deny Frank Ricci and the white firefighters of New Haven a hearing on their case that they were denied promotions they won in competitive exams because they were white caused 31 GOP senators to vote against her.
While Massachusetts is Democrat over Republican three to one, Reagan carried the state in 1984 and Hillary Clinton clobbered Obama in the 2008 primary, though the Kennedys were in Obama's corner. The Scott Brown Democrats were the Hillary Democrats were the Reagan Democrats.
But if McDonnell, Christie and Brown could roll up large enough shares of the white vote to win in three major states McCain lost, why did McCain lose all three?
Answer: In 2008, the working and middle class had had a bellyful of the Bush-McCain Republicans. They were seen as pro-amnesty for illegal aliens and pro-NAFTA, when U.S. workers had watched 5 million manufacturing jobs disappear in a decade -- and reappear in China. They were willing to give Obama a chance because Obama had persuaded them by November he was not just another big-spending utopian liberal.
So what have Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi been doing for a year? Crafting a federal takeover of health care with a vast plan that provides coverage for the uninsured -- most of whom are minorities -- while sticking it to Medicare recipients, 80 percent to 90 percent of whom are white.
Immigrants are 21 percent of the uninsured, but only 7 percent of the population. This means white folks on Medicare or headed there will see benefits curtailed, while new arrivals from the Third World, whence almost all immigrants come, get taxpayer-subsidized health insurance. Any wonder why all those Tea Party and town-hall protests seem to be made up of angry white folks?
What the McDonnell, Christie and Brown victories teach is that the GOP should stop listening to the Wall Street Journal and start listening to these forgotten Americans.
An end to affirmative action and ethnic preferences, an end to bailouts of Wall Street bankers, a moratorium on immigration until unemployment falls to 6 percent, an industrial policy that creates jobs here and stops shipping them to China appear a winning hand in 2012.

About The Author
Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Camp of the Saints? Part II


As we have noted here, there are plenty of good places to send charity to help the Haitian earthquake victims.

However, in Part I of this series here shows the possibilty that many Haitians may end up fleeing or being relocated to the United States.
An interesting book which showed a similar result is called Camp of the Saints which you can get from Amazon by clicking here or your library here.


The Prophet as Leper,
By Lloyd A. Conway (Detroit) - See all my reviews

This book is so politically incorrect that I admire Amazon.com for actually carrying it. Written in the early 1970s, this book looks beyond the cold war to a North-South confrontation in which European civilization is unilaterally morally disarmed. The thesis is simple: suppose a million starving people from the Ganges actually took Western rhetoric of compassion, explotiation, etc., to heart, and comandeered, en masse, shipping, with the intention of moving to the shores of France? (Raspail, of course, is French.) Would anyone stop them? The imagery employed is interesting.

The title comes from Revelation, Chapter 20, and refers to the forces of evil laying seige to the camp of the saints, here meant to be the nations of the West. "The thousand years are over..." is chanted from Third World lips, harking to the millenial reign of Christ, as well as to the millenial domination of Europe over the globe. Raspail has the Vatican, World Council of Churches, and other organs of what he saw as Western liberal compassion try to feed the Armada, as it sails around the Cape. The bodies of their would-be benefactors are cast into the sea. The characters who oppose, with violence, the Armada are named with names like Constantine Drasages and Luke Notaras, namesakes of the last Byzantine Emperor and Admiral. They are portrayed as villans in the media; one of the more thoughtful leftists, fashionably in support of opening up France's shores, but cynical enough to see the potential results, reflects on the parallels between Byzantium's fate and that of the West. The author's point is that any who dare to say that 'white' civilization has a right to exist are branded racists and cast out of the pale of polite society. The narrative is set up as a flashback. The Armada is about to disgorge its human cargo in Provence as we begin. An old man, M. Calgues, awaits them, Mozart playing in the background, after setting what he expects to be his last supper among the living. From there, we go back to the beginning, in India, as a Western cleric preaches quasi-liberation theology to the masses. Along the way, as the news spreads over the world, we digress, looking at Manhattenites holing up in skyscrapers as the spectre of race riots beckon, and at Russian troops on the Manchurian border contemplating the human waves gathering to wash over them. The central question of the book is this: will the West (including Russia - more properly, the North), when (not if) confronted with de facto occupation of national territories by Third World people, coming to live, but not to assimilate, use violence to save itself? Is there left in Euro-American civilization a will to live that is strong enough to pull a trigger? The stark question is answered in one of two possible ways by the concluding chapter. This astringent book, whether you agree with Raspail's views or not, demands thoughtful attention to the questions posed. How will we deal with population/immagration issues? Is our culture and way of life worth fighting for? -Lloyd A. Conway