Friday, June 26, 2015

The Supreme Court Decision on Sodomy

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the Supreme Court. This follows this post about America's dependency crisis. This follows this post about the debt from entitlements like healthcare. This follows this post about the gay agenda.For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.

The Supreme Court Decision on Sodomy

Answerable to a Higher Court

Posted on Jul 09, 2003 by Melvin Rhodes Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

Add to my study list

Sodomy is defined in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary as “carnal copulation in any of certain unnatural ways.” Clarke’s Standard Reference Dictionary (UK, 1982) defines it as “any sexual intercourse held to be abnormal, as between a person and an animal or between two persons of the same sex.”
When most people think of sodomy, they think of sexual acts between people of the same sex, but the legal definition is clearly broader than that. The Bible also shows us that the sins of Sodom were many. The Old Testament prophet Ezekiel described them as “pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me …” (Ezekiel 16:49-50). Certainly, sexual sins were included among these.
The word sodomy comes from the biblical city of Sodom, notorious for its vice and corruption. Sodom, along with its sister city Gomorrah, were destroyed by God because of the sinfulness of its people.
You can read an account of the circumstances that led up to this destruction in Genesis 18 and 19.
When Abraham realized that God had determined to destroy the twin cities “because their sin [was] very grave” (Genesis 18:20), he appealed on their behalf, bargaining with God's messengers. He asked: “Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked?” (verse 23). “Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city; would You also destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous that were in it?” Abraham was assured that if there were 50 righteous left in the city, the city would be spared.
On second thoughts, Abraham realized that there might not be 50 righteous inhabitants left, so he asked again, this time wondering if the city would be spared if only 45 God-fearing citizens remained. He was assured the city would be spared. Eventually Abraham got down to 10. And the Lord said, “I will not destroy it for the sake of ten” (verse 32).
In the next chapter we see the cities destroyed. Clearly, there were not even 10 righteous people left.
The incident that preceded the final destruction of Sodom involved homosexual rape. When the two messengers from God were staying with Lot, “the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to [Abraham's nephew] Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally [sexually]”. Rebutted, the men “pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door” (verses 4-9).
Immediately after this incident, God took action to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (read the rest of the chapter). After witnessing their sin for a very long time, His patience had run out and He chose to remove them from the face of the earth.
Could the same fate befall the United States of America?
Since the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s, America and other Western nations have progressively moved further and further away from God and His standards of morality as defined in His Word, the Bible.
The sexual reforms of the '60s and subsequent decades have contributed greatly to the breakdown of the family, the increased spread of sexually transmitted diseases, millions of HIV/AIDS infections, an epidemic of drug-taking and increased crime and violence. Despite this fact, the greatest legal authorities in the land have reacted with yet another “reform” that takes the country further away from God’s laws for mankind.
As with Sodom and Gomorrah, when will God pull the plug on our immoral society?

Dylann Roof’s Targeting of Charleston’s Mother Emanuel AME Church was Not Random

A timely post about from http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com about Charleston. This follows this post about the GOP and the Confederate Flag. This follows this post about Pope Francis turning LEFT. This follows this post about Conservative Black Issues Speakers who are needed now more than ever! This follows this post about Obamacare subsidies and the Supreme Court.
You can follow me here.

Dylann Roof’s Targeting of Charleston’s Mother Emanuel AME Church was Not Random

[Previouly, at WEJB/NSU:

“The Manifesto of Dylann Roof, Complete and Unedited.”]

Excerpted by Nicholas Stix

“There are 10 AME churches within a mile in any direction of the Emanuel AME church. The shooter chose this specific one.

“Anyone who has spent time deconstructing fraudulent racial narratives over the past few years will immediately recognize, and admit, the AME church network is the most politically -and racially- connected network of affiliates in the nation.

“The AME network is the faith based power structure for the professional Black Grievance Industry….”

At The Last Refuge, aka The Conservative Treehouse.

Charleston Mother Emanuel AME Church Shooting – Discussion Thread…

Posted on June 18, 2015by sundance

A man walks into a church and shoots nine people dead; that’s terrorism regardless of race. If the shooting was based on race, then it’s a racist hate crime and terrorism, period.

The number one objective of everyone in law enforcement should be to catch the mass murder suspect and bring him to trial. As currently described that suspect is: “A 21-year-old, white male, with sandy blonde hair, clean shaven, wearing Timberland boots, jeans and a grey hoodie“. Every resource should be deployed to catch that criminal.
“Every resource” includes the principle that this horrific crime should be treated with the same intensity as the Boston Marathon bombing. Every resource in the arsenal of local, state and federal law enforcement should be immediately dispatched to catch this person, period.

Unfortunately, this horrible event will focus attention in many divergent directions based solely on the current environment permeating the national dialogue; and as a consequence of manipulative activists who relish anxiety to advance their various causes.
For those who have intensely followed the evolution of that manipulation for the past several years, the brutal event in Charleston carries a set of additional aspects which ring immediate alarm bells. Taken individually none of the aspects seem too controversial; however, when you put them together something else begins to assemble.
WIPING CLEAR THE WHITE BOARD – Just the facts:
♦ One of the first set of facts about the event that is immediately recognizable is the location, the Mother Emanuel AME Church of Charleston.

There are 10 AME churches within a mile in any direction of the Emanuel AME church. The shooter chose this specific one.
Anyone who has spent time deconstructing fraudulent racial narratives over the past few years will immediately recognize, and admit, the AME church network is the most politically -and racially- connected network of affiliates in the nation.
The AME network is the faith based power structure for the professional Black Grievance Industry.

• When Pigford I and Pigford II claims were constructed, publicized and paid, it was the AME network who did the heavy lifting to promote the programs on behalf of their constituents – entirely along racial lines.
• When Sanford Florida was organizing their activism against the city and justice system, in the Trayvon Martin shooting, it was the AME church network who organized the community – entirely along racial lines.

Tracy+Martin+Mary+Mary+attends+rally+held+F5_Be7oMhSjl

• When Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin did their coast to coast tour to promote Justice for Trayvon with Reverend Al Sharpton, it was the AME church network that hosted the events and filled the trashcans with contributions.
• When Ferguson riots broke out, it was the AME church network who were at the forefront of the advocacy – entirely along racial lines.

• When the Baltimore riots broke out, it was again the AME church network, Reverend Jamal Bryant, who was at the forefront of the advocacy – entirely along racial lines.
The AME church network, and the associated leadership within the construct, is extremely politically connected. Many of the social justice warriors, the social engineers, the social activists, weave in and out of the AME affiliations as needed; including activist financier Russell Simmons – entirely along racial lines.
In short the national AME church network is a powerful and political activist forum based solely and completely along racial lines. Decades of influence, and decades of organizational activism has left them sparsely connected to their religious, or faith based, origins. The AME larger network is now almost exclusively a political enterprise operating under the guise of Methodist Episcopal faith-based teaching.
♦ Coincidentally, or not, yesterday Hillary Clinton was campaigning in South Carolina, North Charleston specifically, for this very specific constituency. The pastor of the exact church selected by the gunman was at a campaign event with Hillary for this purpose.

On a campaign stop in the city Wednesday, Clinton spoke passionately about police violence, calling Scott’s death a “terrible tragedy.” She left the city before the shooting occurred, a campaign aide confirmed.
Pastor Pinckney returned after the event to the AME church, where Bible study was underway Wednesday around 9:00 p.m. local time when the shooting occurred (link)

Pastor Clementa C. Pinckney (42) was one of the shooting victims, as reported by media.

Because of the AME national network we can expect this horrific shooting to be magnified by infinite magnitudes amid those who are skilled in the dark arts of professional grievance and race-based activism.

Because of the AME national network of political influence we can also expect this horrific shooting to be amplified by responses of those who hold political office from coast to coast.
And when you add into the mix the current climate of racial division being utilized by the media and the professionally aggrieved for profit and ideological advancement you can begin to see how explosive the situation will be in the days, weeks and possibly even months to come.
Much of that anticipatory outcome we previously outlined, even before last nights’ horrific events, in the predictive discussions around Baltimore (Freddie Gray) and North Charleston (Walter Scott). ~ HERE ~ ‘Danger Will Robinson’
That is why capturing this shooter is of paramount importance. There is much at stake if our nation is to head off a summer of race-based anxiety, pushing toward violence. And it bothers us that President Obama and Eric Holder intentionally allowed Ferguson to burn after they knew on August 18th 2014, within 10 days of the Mike Brown shooting, the evidence supported Officer Darren Wilson 100%.
THE SHOOTING – A young man walks into a church and successfully shoots and kills 9 people, intentionally leaving a single person to bear witness. Why?

If this report is factually true, surely people will begin to wonder “why”. What possible benefit (to the shooter) is there to leaving a witness? Why would the shooter be committed to leaving a witness “so she could tell everyone what happened“? Who benefits?
Assuming the man was not holding a semi-automatic long gun, which would have alarmed the congregants, we can essentially conclude he was in possession of a handgun of sorts.
Successfully shooting, and killing, 9 out of 10 people – with a handgun – and no surviving victims, is considerably more difficult than is seen via Hollywood or TV. People run quickly in the face of threats, people move, people generally scatter.
Successfully disappearing after the event, and evading capture, is even more alarming.

The police Chief, Gregory Mullen, stated the shooting began at 9:05pm. By 9:35 the first twitter reports of a mass casualty shooting showed police swarming the area.
The same police chief immediately identified the shooting as a “hate crime”; we can assume based on information provided by the surviving witness.
Mullen also said the shooter was “21-years-old”, and wearing “Timberland” boots. Again, two very specific identifiable details inferring witness ID.
An unconfirmed source said there was a meeting of AME network leadership prior to the Bible Study which began at 9:05pm. The shooter had to anticipate a gathering of sorts, which implies local affiliation, or extensive research into the venue. A quick review of the Emanuel AME calendar on their website would not identify any event, and their Facebook page has not been updated since February 11th, 2015.
If we assume the racist/terrorist motive, which we have no reason not to, how did the shooter know he would find his victims at 9:00pm – in this specific location?
Lots of questions, and if they don’t ID a suspect quickly – it would appear to be very thought out, disciplined, and professionally executed. Yet the shooter went to the non-professional trouble of intentionally leaving a witness to ID him. It seems like there’s a bigger agenda in here.
All very troubling.

About these ads

Thursday, June 25, 2015

What's Behind America's Growing Dependency Society?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about America's dependency crisis. This follows this post about the New York Times. This follows this post about the debt from entitlements like healthcare. This follows this post about the gay agenda.For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.

What's Behind America's Growing Dependency Society?

by Michael Kelley 3 comments Estimated reading time: 10 minutes

Add to my study list

A man holding a $5 dollar bill. — What's Behind America's Growing Dependency Society?

During the first half of October 2013, another epic battle played out in Washington over the federal budget. Narrowly avoiding default, both sides decided to kick the can down the road—again. The contrast between those who believe government must provide ever more services and those who wonder how the nation will ever pay its mounting bills grew starkly defined.
Since the end of World War II, when the United States emerged as the world's greatest superpower, massive change has transformed the fabric of American society. A nation in which millions worked hard to defeat fascism and imperialism has turned into a nation increasingly on the dole.
As of early 2013 a staggering 160 million Americans (out of 325 million)—more than 49 percent—live in households receiving a monthly check from one or more government programs. Federal entitlements have expanded to include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, student education loans, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, and a host of other programs.
Over the past five years these programs have cost taxpayers a shocking $3.7 trillion. This is more than the entire U.S. Gross National Product was in the early 1980s. It's more than five times what the U.S. government spent on NASA, education and transportation during the same period.
Let's take a closer look at America's shift to dependency and what it means for the nation.

Expanding programs, expanding fraud

It all began with the granddaddy of social programs, Social Security. Enacted in the depths of the Great Depression in 1933, the original aim was to set up a plan for older workers to contribute to their retirement.
But today's glut of programs bears little resemblance to the simple program President Franklin Roosevelt had in mind. Today more than 58 million Americans receive a check each month from the Social Security Administration—a number predicted to swell to more than 97 million by 2035.
Many government programs are known for fraud and abuse. One part of Social Security, the disability insurance program (SSDI), has grown especially fast in recent years. Originally intended to pay benefits to the truly disabled, the program is being investigated for fraudulent approvals, enabling perhaps millions of able-bodied Americans to receive monthly checks of up to $2,500 from the government.
While the vast majority of those receiving Social Security disability benefits qualify legally, fraud in the program has been well documented. A typical pattern involves older workers who have lost their jobs due to the recent recession. When unemployment benefits run out, the next logical step for many is to claim a disability that will keep federal checks coming. If the initial claim is denied, there are always lawyers with TV ads claiming to know just how to get those benefits coming.
But the problem doesn't stop there. Frequent exposés reveal thousands of other Americans fraudulently receiving benefits, using ruses such as the names of dead people or people who have left the country. It all adds up to billions in fraud and abuse annually.
Like other entitlements, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, more commonly known as the Food Stamp program, began with a lofty purpose. America has always had an underclass of truly poor people facing chronic hunger. The Food Stamp program was enacted to provide a nutritional “safety net” for these individuals.
But the Food Stamp program has exploded, like so many other federal entitlement programs. Since 2007, the program has mushroomed from a $35 billion outlay to more than $80 billion in 2012, with more than 45 million Americans now getting food stamps. Food stamp rolls are growing at 75 times the rate of new job creation!

Medicare and Medicaid explosion

Almost in lockstep with America's growing dependence on government-provided food is the growing dependence on free or reduced-price medical care. Medicaid, a combined federal-state program set up to provide health-care benefits to the poor, covered an estimated 82.5 million Americans, or 27 percent of the population, as of late 2011.
An additional 46.5 million were on the Medicare rolls for elderly health care and health-care supplements. That number is rising rapidly as millions of baby boomers reach retirement age.
Medicare rolls are growing due to an estimated 3.6 million retiring baby boomers being added each year. A continued soft economy, with higher than normal unemployment, is producing what some observers are calling a permanent underclass, most of whom rely on Uncle Sam for their health care.
Here, too, widespread fraud and corruption compounds the problem. Medicaid fraud, which usually involves a hospital, nursing home, health-care professional, ambulance service or pharmacy overbilling Medicare, has grown into a $30 billion problem, or roughly 10 percent of the program's cost. State-administered Medicaid programs are especially fraud-ridden. New York, for example, budgets more than $50 billion of its $121 billion state budget on the program, and estimates that fraud costs it as much as $18 billion of that amount.
Decades of dependence on Medicare and Medicaid helped pave the way for the newest health-care entitlement, the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, the first major step towards instituting nationwide socialized medicine.
Working on a largely European model, Obamacare continues to remove health-care decisions from doctors and forces millions of basically healthy Americans to buy health insurance to extend coverage to some 42 million Americans who haven't been covered by any health insurance plan. To encourage participation, Americans earning up to four times the federal poverty level are to be given a federal subsidy to buy insurance.
The law's requirements have polarized Americans unlike virtually anything that has come before it. Millions resent being forced to buy health insurance or facing fines if they fail to do so. And other millions of insured citizens are likewise being forced to turn to government “health exchanges” for coverage at rates much higher than they were paying previously.

Why bother to work?

In the face of generous federal benefits, many Americans who lost jobs during the recession and slow recovery have basically given up looking for work. Some have apparently done the math, asking themselves why they should work when they can have as great or greater equivalent income with food stamps, free health care and unemployment benefits for up to two years.
So it's not surprising that the percentage of the adult population working has fallen to 63 percent, the lowest percentage since 1978. Over the past five years, more than 10 million U.S. adults have left the labor force. It's a bad downward trend, and many economists see no indication this is improving.
Economists blame failure to create jobs and the rapid pace of retirements of baby boomers as two reasons for the falling labor participation rate. And a third reason they now give is more Americans going on Social Security disability, with 8.8 million Americans receiving Social Security Disability benefits—a number that has doubled since 1995.
Could it be that many Americans have simply grown tired of working, or see not working as a more attractive financial alternative?

Major shifts in American attitudes

These trends reflect a fundamental change in attitude. A nation that traditionally prided itself on hard work and self-reliance now looks increasingly to Washington as the source for supplying all needs. Uncle Sam has become the “rich uncle” to many.
Seemingly lost in all this social change is the diminished role of the family. Since the dawn of civilization, people looked first to their family, and then to a lesser extent to their neighbors and community, for help when hungry or sick or destitute.
This strong family and community influence was long a part of America, when rural folks would assist each other in clearing land, building houses and raising crops. Families looked after not only their own, but others as well. If families had to leave home for a time, they could count on neighbors to look after their property.
But the central role of the family began to erode rapidly in the 20th century. Beginning with President Franklin Roosevelt's “New Deal” of the 1930s, American attitudes towards governmental assistance began to change. The Great Depression at that time disrupted the lives of millions, bringing hunger, deprivation, and the loss of homes, farms and businesses. As the Depression dragged on in the early 1930s, Americans began to look to government for a solution.
No longer was the role of the federal government limited to keeping the peace and maintaining national security. Now its job, in the eyes of millions, was also to stamp out poverty, provide old-age pensions and health care, pay for college educations, maintain a basic level of nutrition, support illegitimate children, and on and on. The increasing role of the federal government gained more traction with President Lyndon Johnson's “Great Society” of the 1960s, which was promoted as the way to eradicate poverty (in spite of almost $15 trillion spent on anti-poverty programs since then, the U.S. poverty rate remains essentially unchanged).
Over the past 30 to 40 years a country that once prided itself on self-reliance became addicted to government aid. A 2008 study by the Pew Research Center revealed a shift in preference toward a more socially activist role for the federal government, with millions seeing it as government's role to aid the disadvantaged.
The report also noted that this coincided with a diminished role of religion in daily life. More than half said the government should help more needy people even if it adds to the nation's debt. This was up from just 41 percent who felt this way in 1994.

Has America reached a tipping point?

Has America reached a tipping point? Is the nation's growing dependence on government programs—with half of American households getting a check from the government each month—at the point of no return?
At his inauguration in January 1961, newly elected President John F. Kennedy issued a famous challenge to his fellow Americans: “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” Sadly, millions have reversed that into “Ask not what you can do for your country—ask what your country can do for you.” And to them the answer is— plenty!
Free food, free housing, free cell phones, free education, free health care, free money, and on it goes. So long as it's free, why not?
But as the saying goes, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Eventually the bill comes due. America's national debt recently passed the $17 trillion mark—up from $10.6 trillion only five years earlier. But that figure pales in comparison to the federal government's total unfunded obligations for Medicare and Social Security, currently estimated at $43 trillion to as much as $126 trillion, depending on which set of economic assumptions are plugged in.
At the latter figure, each American taxpayer is on the hook for a staggering $1.1 million! But even at the lower number, each taxpayer's share is some $375,000.
Obviously this is an unsustainable path, driven by far too many people who feel entitled to “free” government benefits paid for by the government forcibly taking from their producing neighbors—and abetted by unscrupulous politicians and government officials who have learned that the sure way to get votes is by promising ever more benefits from the public treasury.
Such things are clearly not God's way. Yes, God commands love toward neighbor, and He instituted laws and instructions designed to care for those in difficult circumstances (see “Dependence, Independence and Helping Those in Need “).
But He surely doesn't endorse a society in which half the citizens live off the labors of the other half, with a government incurring massive and unsustainable debt that can realistically never be paid back. This is nothing more than government-endorsed (and enforced) theft—a blatant breaking of the Eighth Commandment, “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15).
Where will this end? Sadly, without a major change of heart, the United States will follow the pattern of other great empires that have gone before—disappearing, as the saying goes, not with a bang but with a whimper, victim of its citizens' own spiritual blindness and greed.

Democrat Says ADIOS AMERICA Could Be The “Common Sense” Bombshell Of Our Time

An interesting article from www.vdare.com about Ann Coulter's book. This follows this post about the TPA in the Senate. Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please follow me here.

Democrat Says ADIOS AMERICA Could Be The “Common Sense” Bombshell Of Our Time

Donald A. Collins

Common Sense, published in 1776, challenged the authority of the British Crown by using plain language that appealed to ordinary people. The subtitle of author Thomas Paine’s fellow British immigrant Peter Brimelow’s Alien Nation, “Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster,” was a conscious tribute.

Since 1965, the population of the USA has been doubled without a vote of its citizens. While most of us never wanted this immigration invasion, our governing elite did, and there is an entire System dedicated to silencing any dissent against open borders. It takes courage to rebel against this, but luckily we have a new Thomas Paine in the form of Ann Coulter, with Adios America serving as this generation’s Common Sense.
Now, once again, the common people are being exploited by royalty. The new aristocrats are the economic elite who control Adios, America

our government at all levels. It is because of these plutocrats that these illegal aliens are getting a free pass and an easy path to your money, your rights, your property and your country. And Coulter is laying out the case about how this happened and what we can do about it.
Though I’m a Democrat, I loved this book. And judging from the reviews on Amazon, which average 4 out of 5 stars out of 156 reviews despite people who haven’t read the book trying to sabotage the rating, I’m not alone.
Here’s what readers think:

“The thesis of Ann Coulter’s book is simple: Since 1948, a majority of white voters have voted against Democrat Party Presidential candidates. The secular-progressives cannot win the debate amongst those of us who work and actually pay federal income taxes. With voter ID laws, Democrats, especially in places like Chicago and New Orleans, can no longer stuff ballot boxes. Instead, the Democrats want to import voters, while the owners of businesses and corporations want to import immigrants to suppress the cost of unskilled labor.
And guess who gets the bill? Middle-class America.
Coulter backs her claims with statistics. In 1970, one of every 21 people living in the U.S. were foreign born; today, one of seven people living here are foreign born. Sixty percent of legal immigrants are on some form of government assistance. Today, 20 percent of those in the U.S. speak a primary language other than English.
Moreover, although Coulter’s brash style does not particularly resonate with me, I have yet to hear a single advocate for unlawful immigration refute ANY of her arguments. All they do is ignore her statements and call her a racist or a hater.
I highly recommend the book. It is time for Americans to wake up. Immigration, if managed correctly, could be a positive thing. However, WE the People — those of us wake up everyday, go to work and pay our taxes — should be the one’s who get to decide how our nation’s immigration system works, and not the unlawful immigrants.”
[Ann Debunks the Open Borders Liars, by “E.D. Flynn,” Amazon, June 2, 2015].

As a Democrat liberal, especially on social issues such as abortion choice and drug legalization, I agree with the characterization of the next Amazon reviewer that

“Ann Coulter is a polemicist who is widely hated by Progressives of all parties (yes, there are plenty of Republican and Libertarian Progressives – as strange as that sounds) for the simple reason that she is both effective and very, very funny. Because she won’t pull her punches as all polite “conservatives” are consulted to do, Progressives work frantically to get her disqualified from your consideration before you listen to or read a word she says.
There will almost certainly be a flood of dismissive “reviews” that will generically declare the facts, evidence, arguments, and history she provides as “lies all lies” without actually citing even one and demonstrating how and why it is false.
For Progressives, that Coulter challenges their agenda, their spin of history, and their cherished fables is enough to try to have her burned at the op-ed stake.
But Ms Coulter has handled all this for so long and so skillfully that it is all less than water off a duck’s back. This book will be a monster best seller and more than a few Progressives will try to attack her and fail to muster anything more coherent than “well, I don’t like what you are saying!”.
Don’t let such cheap brain lint cheat you from this fun and informative read.
This book exposes the efforts by Progressives to dismantle America’s culture through a drastic change in who lives within America’s increasingly vague and porous borders and how they live once they are here.
She explains and demonstrates the massive changes brought about by the “Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965” which was sponsored by Democrats Philip Hart of Michigan, Emanuel Celler of New York, and widely promoted and expanded over the decades by Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.
The idea was to abolish the immigration formula that had been in place since the 1920s and to rebalance the country’s ethnic composition to better reflect the rest of the world that had been denied quota allocations Democrats wanted to expand. Is it a coincidence that the newly expanded nationalities for immigration were much more likely to become reliable Democrat voters and clients of the government largesse?
She also examines the disastrous ”Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986” that Reagan signed into law because he was promised that the amnesty granted would be the last one because immigration would be strictly controlled and illegal immigration would be stopped. Of course, the amnesty was granted immediately (see the Democrat seizing of California Politics since then) while the control portion of the law was never shown the light of day. Reagan went to his grave admitting he was still waiting on the control portion of the law to be implemented. He was swindled. But Progressives learned how to market their desire for periodic Amnesty.
When I was a child, we were taught about America as the great Melting Pot, where all nationalities enter to become Americans and assimilate into the larger American Culture with its traditional values and written Constitution while adding their own flavor to the more or less homogenous mix. No longer!
Along the way, Teddy Kennedy led the charge along with an army of radical immigration rights lawyers, judges, activists, and advocacy groups to ensure that not only did assimilation NOT take place, that it would be illegal for the government to try an enact policies to encourage it. In fact, the government would have to spend billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars to promote immigrants remaining separate and apart from the larger American Culture because it was deemed the “White Power Structure” and therefore inherently evil.
So, we got money, time, and human potential wasters such as bi-lingual education, multicultural everything enforced by bureaucracies so that it is no longer a spontaneous representation of a living culture but a government mandated power grab and spoils distribution system, and an attack on American Culture that is so comprehensive that today it is hard to find anywhere in our schools, universities, and media where it is taught in a way that would be recognizable to any previous generation of Americans.
Which brings us to the political and media fetish for “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” we have today. While Coulter does a masterful job of dismantling this in her book, we can simply note that the reason Progressives like Omnibus Bills (the large bills no one reads and only vast bureaucracies can implement what they like and ignore what they don’t like) is because they can make it up as they go.
Omnibus “laws” are laws in form only but they are implemented by fiat (see ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank). In effect, Progressives can take all the wins they wanted but could not accomplish politically because they are unpopular (see how amnesty actually polls among all Americans and not just the Left) while pretending to support but not ever actually implementing the things most Americans want (such as control of our borders and the mandating of English as our national language). Basically, they want to repeat the 1986 swindle in modern dress.
Get this book, read it, share it, buy a few and give them as gifts, and – most of all – discuss it with friends. Of all political stripes. Heck, discuss it with some who aren’t friends and just have fun mixing it up a bit.
[Get This Book, read it, share it, discuss it and enjoy the fireworks, by Craig Matteson, Amazon, June 1, 2015]

One final representative five star reviewer also echoes my views as a liberal Democrat:

“God Bless Ann Coulter. I wish to remind her critics that wil never read her book and try to smear her to shut her up, that even heaven has a border and an angel at the gate!
I say that as a liberal on many issues and a registered democrat who has wanted less legal immigration and zero illegal immigration for years. Immigration is a racket, a transfer of money from labor to capital. It is a way billionaire open border globalists can profit and then pass on all the social, economic and environmental costs of immigration to our communities.
The democrats used to have sane immigration policy. As recent as 1995, Democrat Congresswoman Barbara Jordan led the bi partisan congressional commission on immigration which concluded immigration hurt working Americans and recommended we have less legal immigration and zero illegal immigration and provided a dozen commonsense solutions, all of which then president Clinton applauded, yet never implemented.
Now we live in a world where billionaire globalist have bought both parties and the media and call for endless amnesties and increased legal immigration while we have almost 100 million out of the workforce and nearly all net new job growth going to immigrants since 2000.
The globalists have spent over 1.5 billion with their allies in academia, big business, ethnic advocacy groups, leadership of the churches , the chamber of commerce and think tanks and public policy groups trying to shove another amnesty down our throats since their last attempt failed.
God bless Coulter for speaking out. We are not a nation of immigrants, we are a nation of citizens that have been betrayed by both political parties and the media for decades on immigration”.
[I am a democrat and loved her book, I bought it on her website so I could get her autograph by MRHULOT, Amazon, June 1, 2015].

So what to do now? None of the presidential frontrunners are emphasizing the immigration issue like they should. And it’s high time for patriots to pick one who will, certainly someone other than Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush.
Is it time for a new party? John C. Fremont was the first Republican who ever ran for President in 1856. Four years later, Republican Abraham Lincoln was President.
There’s a more troubling question. Are we on the verge of a Civil War? If Coulter’s dire prediction that the Left’s plan is to turn our country into just another part of the Third World comes true, we may well be.
There is still time. There is still hope. But only if we can make real immigration reform the key issue of the 2016 campaign.
Donald A. Collins [email him], is a freelance writer living in Washington DC and a former long time member of the board of FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform. His views are his own. He is the author of From the Dissident Left: A Collection of Essays 2004-2013

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

A Revealing Profile of Media Professional

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the New York Times. This follows this post about media bias. This follows this post about the debt from entitlements like healthcare. This follows this post about the gay agenda.For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.

A Telling Profile of Media Professional

by Good News Estimated reading time: 1 minute

Add to my study list

The entertainment establishment-writers, producers and stars of the movies, TV programs and music we consume-are overwhelmingly liberal in their political outlook. Not so widely known is that voting patterns of American newspaper reporters and editors show a similar overwhelming lean to the left. Consider these findings:

In the 1992 election, 89 percent of journalists who make up the Washington, D.C., press corps and report on national political news voted for the liberal candidate, Democrat Bill Clinton. Only 7 percent voted for the conservative candidate, Republican George H.W. Bush.
Of these journalists, 61 percent saw themselves as “liberal” or “liberal to moderate,” while only 9 percent regarded themselves as “conservative” or “moderate to conservative.”
A poll of 167 newspaper editors found that, in the 1992 and 1996 elections, 58 and 57 percent, respectively, voted for Democratic candidate Bill Clinton (compared to 43 and 49 percent of all other voters).
A 1996 survey of more than 1,000 reporters at 61 newspapers found that, of those with more than 50,000 circulation (primarily large-city papers), 65 percent of the staff members were liberal or leaned to the left.
A 2001 poll of more than 300 media professionals found that those who identified themselves as liberal outnumbered conservatives four to one.
A 1980 study of 240 New York and Washington journalists found that 86 percent never or seldom attended religious services, and half had no religious affiliation at all.
Some 90 percent of these journalists were pro-abortion.
About 75 percent did not regard homosexuality as wrong, and 54 percent did not regard adultery as wrong. Only 15 percent of these journalists “strongly agreed” that adultery, abortion and homosexual practices were immoral.

(Sources: William Proctor, The Gospel According to The New York Times , 2000, pp. 44-46; Media Research Center.) GN

Stupid Party Behaving, Well, Stupidly, Over Confederate Battle Flag, Council Of Conservative Citizens

A timely post about from www.vdare.com about the GOP and the Confederate Flag. This follows this post about Pope Francis turning LEFT. This follows this post about Conservative Black Issues Speakers who are needed now more than ever! This follows this post about Obamacare subsidies and the Supreme Court.
You can follow me here.

Stupid Party Behaving, Well, Stupidly, Over Confederate Battle Flag, Council Of Conservative Citizens

Alexander Hart

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley’s sudden capitulation on the Confederate Battle Flag was entirely predictable given the terminally corrupt South Carolina GOP [South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley says Confederate flag has ‘no place’ on statehouse ground, Fox News, June 22 2015]. But as Conservatism Inc. and the GOP blindly attempt to distance themselves from Southern history, they are digging their own graves. Their joining in the rush to demonize the Council of Conservative Citizens is just another example. There was a reason the late Sam Francis, himself once editor of the Council’s newsletter, described the GOP as “the Stupid Party.”
The Charleston shooter Dylann Roof’s supposed manifesto noted that he Googled “black on white crime,” found the Council of Conservative Citizens website and discovered that there was an enormous amount of black on white crime that the Main Stream Media just suppresses. This is the extent of any known connection between Roof and the organization.
After the shooting, the Council’s blog stated: “the loss of nine lives is devastating” and “we pray, for the sake of all Americans, that there will not be an escalation of racial tension.”
The organization’s president Earl Holt III further noted:

The CofCC does not advocate illegal activities of any kind, and never has. I would gladly compare the honesty and law-abiding nature of our membership against that of any other group.
[Media Interviews with the CofCC, Conservative-Headlines.com, June 20, 2015]

In all the condemnations of the Council in the wake of the shooting, I have not seen anyone suggest that Roof was actually a member, or that the organization has advocated violence. And insofar as the Council highlighted black on white crime, it is no different than most other conservative news outlets like Drudge Report, Breitbart, Fox News, and Daily Caller.
In fact, many Leftists quickly blamed these conservative outlets as well.
For example, South Carolina House Minority Leader Todd Rutherford (pictured right) attacked Fox News saying Roof:

…hears that, because he watches the news and he watches things like Fox News, where they talk about things that they call news, but they’re really not. They use that coded language, they use hate speech, they talk about the president as if he’s not the president. They talk about churchgoers as if they’re not really churchgoers. And that’s what this young man acted on. That’s why you can walk into a church and treat people like animals when they’re really human beings. [South Carolina legislator took a cheap-shot at Fox News on Charleston massacre, By Erik Wemple, Washington Post, June 20, 2015]

Similarly, Bill Maher noted “there were a lot of stories about black people” on Drudge and Daily Caller, which “present a really twisted view,” so he was “not surprised this guy thought ‘they’re taking over the country.” [Bill Maher Says Daily Caller, Matt Drudge, Fox News Inspired Dylann Roof [VIDEO], By Chuck Ross, Daily Caller, June 20, 2015] (In 2011, when Drudge merely linked to headlines about the Flash Mob phenomenon without mentioning race, Salon’s Alex Pareene called it Matt Drudge’s disgusting race war awareness campaign.[June 1, 2011]).
No doubt Conservatism Inc. was relieved when Maher cited the Council of Conservative Citizens rather than a more Establishment site. So they joined on the pile-on. Writing on Breitbart.com, Jordan Schachtel describes Roof’s manifesto as advocating “neo-Nazi” beliefs and claimed that “through the Council of Conservative Citizens, Roof said he ‘found out about the Jewish problem and other issues facing our race.’” [Dylann Roof Manifesto Reveals Racist, Neo-Nazi, Anti-American Beliefs, Breitbart.com, June 20, 2015]
Essentially everything Schachtel writes here is false. The only thing Roof said he learned about from the Council of Conservative Citizen’s website was accurate information about black crime and lies about the Trayvon Martin scam—issues that Breitbart itself has regularly highlighted. Roof said he “researched deeper,” presumably from other sources, before forming opinions on Jews.
In fact, even its critics do not call the CofCC anti-Semitic. It carries nothing that could even conceivably considered anti-Semitic. For that matter, the only mention of Nazism in Roof’s manifesto is where he says “I myself would have rather lived in 1940’s American than Nazi Germany.”
Schachtel then goes on to note how the organization has nothing to do with the Republican Party because it “has been condemned by the Republican National Committee for holding ‘racist and nationalist’ views.” Yet this fails to acknowledge that the reason this occurred was that so many Republican politicians, including Trent Lott, Bob Barr, Haley Barbour, Mike Huckabee and Roger Wicker had associated with it, and the RNC was trying to shame other politicians from doing the same. (See James Kirkpatrick’s Scalise And GOP Don’t Want To Admit It, But They Needed Duke (= White) Vote. They Still Do).
Although the GOP has tried to completely marginalize the Council, there are still some state level politicians who ignore the party line and work with the group. As recently as 2013, Council board member Roan Garcia-Quintana was on South Carolina governor Nikki Haley’s steering committee for reelection.
And this goes to the larger issue: by joining in the attacks on the Council, Conservatism Inc. and the GOP are providing more fodder for the Left. It will now proceed to look for more “links” between the GOP and the Council, and for evidence that Roof may have read more conventional websites.
All the RNC’s efforts have not stopped the MSM from trumpeting even more attenuated ties. Notably, it turns out that Earl Holt has contributed $65,000 to various Republican politicians including Rand Paul, Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, Rob Portman, Rick Santorum and Jeff Flake. CITE
(Actually, I am surprised that a supposedly far-right leader is giving thousands of dollars to amnesty supporters like Jeff Flake and Rand Paul. I’m reminded of Joe Sobran’s quip after Bob Barr apologized for speaking to the group:

“[I]t has been reported in several newspapers that I once spoke to the Council of Conservative Citizens, which is currently being pilloried as a radical racist organization. It`s true I addressed them some years ago. But I should state here, for the record, that I would never have accepted their invitation if I had known then of their associations with Republican leaders.”[Change This Document!, Sobran.com, February 4, 1999])

Anyway, fleeing from the MSM, Romney, Paul, Cruz, and Portman have all announced they are either returning the donations or giving it to black charities.
Even if Holt were as evil as the MSM pretends he is, returning his donations sets a terrible precedent for GOP politicians. They are acknowledging they are responsible for the views of their donors. This invites the MSM to sort through FEC filings and find new scandals. As much as the Republican Party tries to be politically correct, their supporters are not. In the upcoming months, expect to see someone who made intemperate about gay marriage or black crime on Facebook contributing 200 dollars to Ted Cruz as national news.
In contrast, while I have no brief for Ron Paul, he realized the trap of setting a PC litmus test for his financial supporters. When the MSM went after him from accepting donations from people far to the right of Mr. Holt, his campaign responded:

All of our campaign’s energy is dedicated to spreading the message of liberty and limited government, and we do not spend time screening donors or blocking websites…If a small number individuals who hold racist beliefs want to waste their money by giving to Dr. Paul, a man who stands firmly against their small minded ideologies, then the campaign will simply use those funds to protect freedom, peace and civil liberties across our Nation.
[Ron Paul Refuses to Divest of Donations from Neo-Nazis, By Josh Harkinson, Mother Jones, November 15, 2007]

Similarly, by demonizing the Council, Breitbart accepts that it’s fair to attack any news source that may have indirectly influenced Roof. But just because Roof did not cite Breitbart or other Conservatism Inc. websites in his manifesto does not mean that once the FBI goes through his browsing history, they won’t find them.
In fact, many of the black-on-white crime stories that the Council’s website links to came from Breitbart, and it praised Andrew Breitbart as a hero. [Conservative hero passes away, March 2012]. If the Council of Conservative Citizens is responsible for Dylan Roof liking the Council’s website, then why isn’t Breitbart responsible for the Council liking Breitbart?
Lenin may never have said “the capitalists will sell us the rope with which to hang them,” but the modern reality is much worse.
Today, the GOP and Conservatism Inc. are giving the Cultural Marxists the rope for free.
Alexander Hart (email him) is a conservative journalist.

brianlee

Friday, June 26, 2015