Goofy Headline Betrays Anti-Gun Bias
They say this like it is a bad thing.
'Shoot first' laws make it tougher for burglars in the United States
Of course, they do manage to find (and extensively quote) a liberal whiner to make it appear that making things tougher for burglars is a bad thing.
But for the Freedom States Alliance that fights against the proliferation of firearms in the United States, these new laws attach more value to threatened belongings than to the life of the thief and only serve to increase the number of people killed by firearms each year, which currently is estimated to stand at nearly 30,000.
"It's that whole Wild West mentality that is leading the country down a very dangerous path," said Sally Slovenski, executive director of the alliance.
"In any other country, something like the castle doctrine or stand-your-ground laws look like just absolute lunacy," she continued.
"And yet in this country, somehow it's been justified, and people just sort of have come to live with this, and they just don't see the outrage in this."
I'm sorry, I can't help but be outraged that you believe I should give a tinker's damn about the life and safety of someone who breaks into my home. Especially given crimes like this high profile incident that recently took the life of one of my wife's childhood friends and her two daughters.
Soldiers Cleared In WWII Case
You know, Leon Jaworski has been a hero to Democrats for decades. Now it has been shown that he was willing to let a guilty white murderer go free to ensure the conviction of innocent black soldiers.
Guglielmo Olivotto, an Italian prisoner of war, died with a noose around his neck, lynched at a military post on Puget Sound 63 years ago. Samuel Snow, 83, hopes that people will stop blaming him and the 27 other black soldiers convicted of starting the riot that led to Mr. OlivottoÂ’s death. It was one of the largest Army courts-martial of World War II.
This week, a review board issued a ruling that could lead to overturning the convictions of all 28 soldiers, granting honorable discharges and providing them with back pay.
The board found that the court-martial was flawed, that the defense was unjustly rushed and that the prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, a young lieutenant colonel who went on to fame three decades later as a Watergate special prosecutor, had important evidence that he did not share with defense lawyers.
All of the 28 have died except for Mr. Snow and another soldier.
Leon Jaworski went on to fame and fortune after railroading these men. Why did he ignore the evidence and insist upon sending them to prison? Could it have been the race of Jaworski's victims -- and of the murderer?
And I wonder -- Jaworski's grandson, Joe Jaworski, is seeking to unseat my state senator. Will he have the integrity to condemn his grandfather for this clear example of prosecutorial misconduct?
the mock hangings — considered relatively new to the panoply of Halloween mock-menace — have been displayed openly. And they are defended vigorously by people like Jennifer Cervero of Stratford, Conn., who this week removed the figure of a man hanging from a noose in her tree, after protests, but still finds the complaints of racial insensitivity she received “completely overblown and ridiculous.”
“We do up all the holidays really big, and this Halloween we decided to go for the big Wow,” said Miss Cervero, who is white and lives with her mother and sister in Stratford, a mostly white suburb of Bridgeport.
The resulting display included a plastic corpse with its head ripped off, a mechanical ghoul whose head spins around, a rotting corpse — and the offending figure, which she bought from an online catalog that lists it as Item HG-005078: Inflatable Hanging Victim Prop, which she hung, per instructions, from a tree. It cost $89.99.
The Rev. Johnny Gamble, pastor of the Friendship Baptist Church in Stratford, heard complaints from parishioners and went to see it for himself.
“At first, I couldn’t believe my eyes. But there it was. A mannequin of a black man, hanging from the neck,” said Mr. Gamble, who is black.
When he knocked at the door, Joyce Mounajed, Miss Cervero’s mother, told him the figure was not meant to be a black man, but was dark-hued to convey the idea of decaying flesh. It was “just a decoration,” he said she told him.
“I told her, ‘We don’t decorate like that. That is a symbol of lynching,’” Mr. Gamble said. “What if my great-grandfather was lynched? There are no two ways of looking at this; that thing is extremely offensive.”
My response to Mr. Gamble would have been "You don't decorate like that? Fine. We do. That constitutes evidence that there are, in fact two ways of looking at this. Welcome to America, the land of freedom. Now quit trying to impose your politically correct values on me and get off my property before I call the cops and have you arrested for trespassing."
Posted by: Greg at
03:15 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 407 words, total size 3 kb.
War On God In Veteran's Cemeteries
Rather than allow the traditional flag-folding ceremony as an option at the burial of our nation's veterans, the long-standing tradition has been banned by a government bureaucrat? Why? Because of a complaint over a reference to God.
Flag-folding recitations by Memorial Honor Detail volunteers are now banned at the nationÂ’s 125 veterans graveyards because of a complaint about the ceremony at Riverside National Cemetery.
During thousands of military burials, the volunteers have folded the American flag 13 times and recited the significance of every fold to survivors.
The first fold represents life, the second a belief in eternal life, and so on.
The complaint revolved around the narration in the 11th fold, which celebrates Jewish war veterans and “glorifies the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”
The National Cemetery Administration then decided to ban the entire recital at all national cemeteries. Details of the complaint werenÂ’t disclosed.
Administration spokesman Mike Nacincik said the new policy outlined in a Sept. 27 memorandum is aimed at creating uniform services throughout the military graveyard system.
He said the 13-fold recital is not part of the U.S. Flag Code and is not government-approved.
And, of course, we can't have anything that isn't in the Flag Code. So let's ban the ceremony by government fiat. As I recall, though, the Flag Code also bans disrespectful burning of the flag. I guess that some speech is just a little more equal than other speech.
But most distressing is that a single complaint has resulted in the destruction of a long-standing tradition, and its denial to those who find comfort in the ceremony at a time of loss. Wouldn't a reasonable approach have been to require that the family be asked as a part of the funeral arrangements whether the ritual was welcome?
1
A veteran should be able to have the ceremony at his or her burial as long as no one is forced to participate. This is not about someone else. It is their memorial. Our country is now about the rights of everyone except Christians. Christians are the only ones in our country who have no right to their beliefs. Nothing is being done about hate crimes against Christians. Wake up people, what is wrong with honoring those who gave at least a part of their life for this country.
Posted by: Ralph Sherman at Tue Oct 30 05:53:31 2007 (XSBiG)
Can You Imagine This Article In 1947
Imagine arising on a fall morning in 1947 to read this in the paper.
In late June, three of Adolf HitlerÂ’s senior military officials were found guilty of war crimes, including the notorious henchman Hermann Goering. Iraqi law required that they be executed no more than 30 days after the German courts rejected their final appeals.
That deadline has passed, but the men are still alive and in United States custody. The execution has been delayed because of questions raised by some German politicians and a spirited behind-the-scenes discussion involving senior German and American officials over the death sentence of one of the other men, Joachim von Ribbentrop, the former foreign.
Now, Mr. von RibbentropÂ’s fate has become a test case for reconciliation and whether Germany'sÂ’s fractious parties and political alliances can work together to resolve the difficult issues surrounding his death sentence. There are also doubts among some German officials about the fairness of his punishment.
Of course, no such article would ever be written. No such dispute or delay would ever have been allowed to override justice being done. Indeed, the New York Times would have been shouting for blood, and condemning any who dared stand in the way of the sentences being carried out.
What a difference six decades makes, as this sympathetic piece in the New York Times today shows.
In late June, three of Saddam HusseinÂ’s senior military officials were found guilty of war crimes, including the notorious henchman known as Chemical Ali. Iraqi law required that they be executed no more than 30 days after the Iraqi courts rejected their final appeals.
That deadline has passed, but the men are still alive and in United States custody. The execution has been delayed because of questions raised by some Iraqi politicians and a spirited behind-the-scenes discussion involving senior Iraqi and American officials over the death sentence of one of the other men, Sultan Hashem Ahmed al-Jabouri al-Tai, the former minister of defense.
Now, Mr. HashemÂ’s fate has become a test case for reconciliation and whether IraqÂ’s fractious sects and political alliances can work together to resolve the difficult issues surrounding his death sentence. There are also doubts among some Iraqi officials about the fairness of his punishment.
Beyond the heated arguments about Mr. HashemÂ’s guilt lies the fraught question of whether Iraqis are ready to stop the retributive killing of members of the former government. It seems that some of them are.
Beyond the heated arguments about Mr. HashemÂ’s guilt lies the fraught question of whether Iraqis are ready to stop the retributive killing of members of the former government. It seems that some of them are.
I don't know about you, but that this article is being written with such an approving tone strikes me as rather chilling. But then again, given the tendency of the mass media to give aid and comfort, if not explicit support, to the enemies of America, maybe I couldn't be surprised. No doubt they would find a few positive words for the condemned Nazis today.
Posted by: Greg at
01:41 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 521 words, total size 3 kb.
Ron Paul Starts Radio Campaign
Well, looks like Ron Paul is going to try to expand his base beyond the internet lunatic crowd. Now he's trying to infect attract the general public with a radio and television campaign.
Hoping to defy more expectations, Rep. Ron Paul is ratcheting up his maverick Republican presidential campaign by launching TV and radio commercials in early primary states and setting an ambitious $12 million fundraising goal.
For a candidate often relegated by pundits to second- or third-tier status, Paul's ability to make a big entry into advertising wars is unusual.
With just over two months until the first primaries, experts question whether the libertarian-leaning congressman from Lake Jackson can expand his intense following to make a credible showing in these early contests.
Officials with Paul's campaign acknowledge they have an uphill battle, but say they plan to broaden his support with an advertising campaign that includes $1.1 million in television spots that begin airing Monday in New Hampshire.
Now the Paul campaign is sitting on a chunk of cash, and has apparently decided to use it to communicate his sometimes reasonable, sometimes bizarre message. That is great, because there are some positive points in his message, things that I do agree with. Unfortunately, he has become a magnet for every conspiracist, lunatic, and extremist out there, as I've pointed out more than once.
Since he'll take their endorsement and their money without comment, I wonder if any of his money will go to Stormfront Radio?
1
As a lunatic residing on the internet, may I ask which position of Ron Paul's you find most b i z a r r e ? (I only spaced out that word because it freaked out your screening program for some reason)
It's often the case with Ron Paul haters that what then they say "Ron Paul's position on X is crazy" they really mean "I don't understand Ron Paul's position on X."
Posted by: FZappa at Sat Oct 27 02:44:05 2007 (O7n9v)
2
Well, Mr. Zappa, since you are dead AND lack a real email address, you don't merit a response.
When you grow up and grow a pair, come back and we'll talk.
3
Just another lunatic here mindlessly defending Ron Paul. I know you wish we'd all just go away but the fact is we're not going to.
Dr. Paul is the only candidate on the GOP side who is a true Republican. He is also the only candidate on either side who has a chance to defeat Clinton.
You can attempt to tie him to white supremacist groups if you wish but anyone who seeks out information concerning this man will quickly dismiss this and any other character assassination s.
I am not here to disrespect you or your blog. I just thought the white supremacist remark was ill founded.
Posted by: Lance Thibodeau at Sat Oct 27 03:27:40 2007 (7PGfv)
4
He has been endorsed by white supremacists and refuses to reject their support.
One major white supremacist site, Stormfront, has links directly to Ron Paul's donation page -- and the campaign has not acted to have that link removed or to stop folks coming from Stormfront from donating (you know, by having their site refuse redirects from Stormfront).
He is now clearly tied to white supremacy by a donation from the fellow who runs Stormfront, which the campaign has not returned or donated elsewhere in an effort to cleanse itself from the link to racism.
Taken together, it is clear that Ron Paul welcomes white supremacists to his coalition. Speaking as a Republican, I can tell you that such a move is hardly indicative true Republicanism. Real Republicans reject racism and racists. It is therefore clear that Ron Paul is not a true Republican.
5
I'm getting tired of having to rebut these slanderous articles. All Americans, no matter how crazy they may be, have a right to donate to whichever candidate they want. In fact, only crazy people and felons can't vote but I don't know if that stops them from donating. To me, donations are a form of free speech so no matter how hateful or absurd that speech may be it is still protected. Would I take the donations? Probably, not. But I'm not as strict about following the constitution as Dr. Paul is either.
With that said, can't you think of some better dirt to dig up? I'll even help you. These numbers are from the center for responsive politics at opensecrets.org:
Lobbyist donation totals at end of 3rd Quarter:
Hillary: $518K
McCain: $315K
Romney: $216K
Dodd: $212K
Giuliani: $206K
Ron Paul: $0.00
Casinos/Gambling:
Giuliani: $176K
McCain: $108K
Ron Paul: $3K
Commercial Banks:
Hillary: $920K
Obama: $879K
Giuliani: $603K
McCain: $585K
Romney: $583K
Dodd: $451K
Ron Paul: $29K
Oil & Gas Industries:
Giuliani: $541K
Romney: $296K
Clinton: $211K
McCain: $190K
Ron Paul: $30K - and he lives outside of Houston!
Hedge Funds & Private Equity:
Giuliani: $1.131 MILLION
Clinton: $971K
Obama: $950K
Romney: $946K
Dodd: $916K
Ron Paul: $5K
Securities & Investment Industries:
Clinton: $4.7 MILLION
Giuliani: $4.4 MILLION
Obama: $4.4 MILLION
Romney: $3.5 MILLION
Dodd: $2.6 MILLION
McCain: $1.8 MILLION
Ron Paul $82K
Lawyers & Law Firms:
Clinton: $9.2 MILLION
Edwards: $8.1 MILLION
Obama: $7.8 MILLION
Giuliani: $3.1 MILLION
Ron Paul: $76K
With that information... do you think you might be able to dig up a story a little more interesting than a couple of racist stormfront owners? We're talking millions of dollars here folks, not small potatoes like $500 or a couple thousand bucks. Perhaps some of the clients of the lawyers and lawfirms that make up Clinton's $9.2 Million dollars from that group have represented cases for neo-nazis? Or maybe corrupt drug industries? I'd say it's a pretty good bet.
-Christopher Burch
Posted by: Christopher Burch at Sat Oct 27 08:04:56 2007 (TbUMB)
6
Perhaps you could look up who Rupert Murdoch donated to? Too lazy? Ok, I'll do it for you:
http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Rupert_Murdoch.php
Seems like ol' Murdoch, the owner of Fox News, is a fan of Hillary for 2008. He's donated directly $2,300 to her run at the primary and indirectly to "Friends of Hillary" in 2006. I wondered why Fox News keeps propping up the totally un-electable Rudy Giuliani while at the same time discrediting Dr. Paul as much as possible. The debate questioners are making a point to ask questions about Hillary as much as possible. They're subtly convincing America of Hillary's inevitability and they're very good at it. Fact is that Paul cuts to the "left" of Hillary on the war and to the "right" on everything else. He's got perhaps the most electable position on nearly every issue of any candidate in decades. This is a real danger for Hillary and it explains a lot about Fox News' actions this year.
-Christopher Burch
Posted by: Christopher Burch at Sat Oct 27 08:18:15 2007 (TbUMB)
7
Convicted Felon Martha Stewart:
$4,600 to Hillary Clinton.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/18/the-vanity-fair-_n_68910.html
Posted by: Christopher Burch at Sat Oct 27 08:29:54 2007 (TbUMB)
8
Will you explain how telling the truth about who a candidate takes money from is slanderous?
By the way, all candidates have the right to reject donations from those they find morally or politically repugnant.
That Ron Paul is keeping the money from Stormfront referrals and Stormfront's owner is proof that he does not find racists like the neo-Nazis and White Supremacists at Stormfront to be all that objectionable.
Which in turn tells us just how objectionable Ron Paul really is.
9
Oh, and Christopher, I life outside Houston, too -- and am in the last precinct north of Ron Paul's congressional district.
Why isn't he getting the oil and gas money? Because these folks know Ron Paul! The fact that folks who know him and have dealt with him -- folks who live in his district -- won't give to him should cause you to ask some questions.
And by the way -- if you are arguing that everyone has a right to give money to campaigns, what is your point in listing who got what from whom? After all, by the standard you set, those numbers are irrelevant and mean nothing. Why are you making "slanderous" comments on my website when "all Americans, no matter how crazy they may be, have a right to donate to whichever candidate they want." Are you trying to suppress the rightful political participation of people in these various industries?
10
The author is trying to paint Dr. Paul as being a racist or extremist because he doesn't reject every objectionable donation he gets:
"Unfortunately, he has become a magnet for every conspiracist, lunatic, and extremist out there, as I've pointed out more than once..."
While technically I guess you could say it isn't "slanderous" it is definitely a smear tactic. It is also rather unfair because "as he's pointed out more than once" he doesn't seem to give a proportional amount of time to scrutinizing the other candidates. It is actually rather hard to go through Dr. Paul's history and find negative stuff about him so the fact that people bring up a couple of racist donations while turning a blind eye to the other candidates makes me think that this is a smear campaign against Paul for reasons that I can't determine. What are the motives behind these articles? Is it to tell information that we truly need to know about Dr. Paul? Why doesn't he spend more time trying to find out if convicted felons (like Martha Stewart) are donating to anybody? These are questions that should be asked of all journalists that purposefully put out articles that show a good deal of bias in their reporting.
-Christopher Burch
Posted by: Christopher Burch at Sat Oct 27 08:45:15 2007 (TbUMB)
11
He gets lots of donations from his district in his congressional elections. He has historically had a 3-1 advantage in fund raising in his district even without any support from the Republican party. I'm making the case that "Big Oil" isn't donating a lot to him.
I'm listing all of those other contributions to give balance to the attack on Paul and so you can go and find other things to complain about the other candidates for. If you're telling me that in a collection of no less than 2,000 law firms you can't find any dirt in there where they've defended neo-nazis, corrupt medical companies, or anything else? It is apparent that you have a vendetta against Dr. Paul and I am curious why. I don't think it has anything to do with stormfront. How do you know so much about stormfront anyways? I've never been to their website.
-Christopher
Posted by: Christopher Burch at Sat Oct 27 08:53:51 2007 (TbUMB)
12
Other notable felon/unsavory/"conflict of neutrality in news" reporting donors:
Tony Sirico, convicted felon, mob ties to colombo crime family: $1,000 to Rudy Giuliani.
Peter Cherin, News Corp. (Fox News) President and COO, $4,600 to Hillary, $2,100 each to Obama and Dodd.
Barry Diller, IAC (media), $4,600 to Clinton and McCain, $2,300 to Biden
Norman Shu... do I really need to talk about it?
Ivan Seidenberg, verizon chariman (media)(illegal federal wiretapping), ceo, $2,300 to Hillary, $2,100 to McCain
I'm tired of looking, there's more if you really want to go check.
Sure these people are allowed to donate but I think due to their status as media executives or convicted criminals they should also have their donations returned if you're going to make Dr. Paul return his stormfront ones. Am I wrong?
-Christopher
Posted by: Christopher Burch at Sat Oct 27 09:36:20 2007 (TbUMB)
13Sure these people are allowed to donate but I think due to their status as media executives or convicted criminals they should also have their donations returned if you're going to make Dr. Paul return his stormfront ones. Am I wrong?
Yes, you are -- and if you cannot see why, there isn't enough time in the world to explain why. After all, if you cannot differentiate between those who espouse the philosophy of Adolf Hitler and media executives, it is clear that you are substantially lacking in the moral compass department.
14
How many times in the last 6 years has Fox allowed the phrase "Islamic Terrorism" to be uttered? I don't care how you paint it - it never comes with a declaration that only 5% of Muslims might actually be terrorists. That is a direct attack on the Muslim population and it is no different than Hitler's attacks on the Jews. I tend to lump the neo-nazis along with the neo-conservatives in that they are all racist, war-mongering folk and if you can't see that than you, sir, are "lacking in the moral compass department".
How do you know so much about stormfront??? I am still very curious about that. I wouldn't even know where to begin looking to find out that kind of information about a presidential candidate.
-Christopher
Posted by: Christopher Burch at Sat Oct 27 10:25:50 2007 (TbUMB)
15
That Ron Paul is being pushed by Stormfront? Look at the webpage and the video above.
Who the owner of the site is? Public records.
What he has given to Ron Paul? Again, public records.
And that you would make the comment you do regarding neo-conservatives that you do is proof positive that, in addition to a moral compass, you also lack a functioning brain.
And as for Islamic terroism -- when terrorism is committed in the name of Islam, that is the appropriate name for it. Especially when large proportions of the Muslims around the world are supportive of it. For you to equate truthful statements about the connection between Islam and terrorism with false statements about the Jews is frightening.
Oh, and as for you "only 5%" comment -- by my math, that still comes in at 50 million terrorists. That you, Ron Paul, and the bulk of his supporters seem to side with them is pretty telling, and sufficient to explain why he should be defeated in this election and driven from American public life.
16
Do you propose that we go slaughter 50 million people on suspicion of being terrorists? Not even including collateral damage it would take to kill them all? This is the racism against Islam I am talking about. It is at least as dangerous as Hitler.
Posted by: Christopher Burch at Sat Oct 27 11:05:11 2007 (TbUMB)
17
Funny, I never suggested any such thing. If your assumption is that my statement equates to a call to "slaughter 50 million people" to defend our nation, then you are clearly not in contact with reality.
On the other hand, am I quite willing to see our military bring about the deaths of any individual who seeks to attack our country? Damn straight I am, without apology.
And by the way, your heartfelt concern over collateral damages would have required you, philosophically, to oppose US participation in WWII after we were attacked. Methinks I see why you object to my comments about Ron Paul and Stormfront.
Democrats seemed to be trying "to drill enough small holes in the bottom of the boat to sink the entire Iraqi enterprise, while still claiming undying support for the crew about to drown," said Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia.
Posted by: Greg at
05:59 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.
When you see a person of color, you expect someone with similar values, views, beliefs — someone in touch with the emerging new majority. With Jindal, you get someone who very deliberately and proudly downplays his race in order to seek his own individual path. That kind of independence under certain circumstances may be commendable. But only if you happen to agree with his ideas that range from free-market health care, intelligent design instead of evolution, anti-choice and a fenced-in America.
In other words, independent thought is only OK when it leads you to the same conclusion as everyone else. "People of color" have no right to be diverse, the argument goes, because it somehow betrays the collective and their interests.
Tell me, though -- what is it about being Asian-American that requires one support socialized medicine? Is there some reason that one whose ancestry comes from East that obliges one to accept Godless evolution over the notion that there was a Creator of some sort? Does an Oriental heritage mandate taking the anti-life position on abortion? And is there something peculiarly and exclusively Occidental about a desire to see the sovereignty of the United States upheld and our immigration laws enforced so that all who come here are law-abiding?
One would think not, if one is a thinking person. There is no mandatory race-based political ideology, just as there is no exclusively "White" position on these issues that must be upheld lest one be a race-traitor. Indeed, suggesting such a thing would be seen as proof positive that one is a racist of the most vile ilk. And that is precisely the category to which individuals of good will must consign Emil Guillermo and the editors who allowed his piece to be published.
Because after all, the Asian community is a diverse one, encompassing multiple cultures, languages and religious faiths, not to mention histories. With all the contempt for assimilation and support for diversity mouthed by Guillermo, why does he insist that every individual of Asian-American heritage must behave as a part of a Borg-like left-wing racial collective?
1
For whatever reason, I'm still having issues with trackbacks from my blog (thanks WordPress). So the two entries I'm shamelessly plugging this weekend (thus far) are:
“King Tut” — Steve Martin & The Toot Uncommons
http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/?p=1183
A video trip back down memory lane inspired by an entry on Planck's Constant blog about Egyptian artifacts, etc.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal — Pt. Deux
http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/?p=1184
Well, another liberal shows his true colors and as such shows why liberals don't follow the mantra of tolerance they espouse.
Posted by: Carl at Fri Oct 26 15:54:20 2007 (rn2AI)
14
Tamiflu (Oseltamivir) is a prescription medication used for the prevention or treatment of the flu. It is licensed for adults and children 1 year of age and older. The medication is not a flu vaccine, nor should it be used in place of a yearly flu vaccination.
Just Toss Him
Seems like a much more fitting punishment for this crime, even though we can't do it under our system of laws.
A man who tossed a 10-week-old puppy off a third-story balcony during an argument with his girlfriend was sentenced to three years in prison Thursday by a judge who said he wanted to "send a message."
Javon Patrick Morris pleaded guilty to animal cruelty after throwing the animal off a North Charleston apartment balcony in March.
The animal, a Yorkiepoo, was in a soft-sided container. It suffered severe head trauma, among other injuries, and had to be euthanized.
Morris, 22, said he was sorry before his sentencing in the Charleston County Courthouse. But Circuit Judge Edward Cottingham, who's owned nine dogs, seemed taken aback by the severity of the crime.
"You mean he threw a helpless animal off three floors because he was mad at someone?" Cottingham asked 9th Circuit Assistant Solicitor Stephanie Bianco.
Of course, we would have to make the drop proportionally higher – I think the Empire State Building’s observation deck might just be high enough.
Dhimmicrats Allow Candidates To Appear In Michigan
But only for one special group – Arabs/Muslims. If you are a Christian, a Jew, a Hispanic, or an African-American in Michigan, the Democrat presidential candidates are not allowed to seek your vote.
Hundreds of Arab-Americans and members of the Washington political establishment will meet in Dearborn this weekend for a national conference amid concerns that while Arab-Americans are increasingly courted for votes, attempts also are made to exclude them from the public discourse.
The sessions are considered significant enough that the Democratic chairs of the party in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina extended a singular exemption from a ban on candidates campaigning in Michigan -- in a dispute over scheduling the primary -- so that candidates could attend the National Leadership Conference of the Arab American Institute, beginning today.
Can we get someone to file a complaint with the US Department of Justice over this issue? It is a clear violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, granting special political privileges to one ethnic/religious group that are not extended to other Americans.
Portland School To Follow Laws Protecting Minors
One good thing is coming out of the decision to allow schools in one Maine community to dispense birth control to children as young as 11. These same schools will now start following state law and require the reporting of sex involving those under the age of 14 to the authorities.
Portland's school-based health centers have not been reporting all illegal sexual activity involving minors as required by law, but they will from now on, city officials said Thursday.
Cumberland County District Attorney Stephanie Anderson questioned the health centers' reporting practices after the Portland School Committee decided last week to offer prescription birth control at the King Middle School health center.
The King Student Health Center has offered comprehensive reproductive health care, including providing condoms and testing for sexually transmitted diseases, since it opened in 2000. The school serves students in grades 6 to 8, ages 11 to 15.
Maine law prohibits having sex with a person under age 14, regardless of the age of the other person involved, Anderson said.
A health care provider must report all known or suspected cases of sex with minors age 13 and under to the state Department of Health and Human Services, she said. Abuse also must be reported to the appropriate district attorney's office, Anderson said, when the suspected perpetrator is someone other than the minor's parent or guardian.
"When it's somebody under age 14, it is a crime and it must be reported," Anderson said. "The health care provider has no discretion in the matter. It's up to the district attorney to decide."
It seems that school officials hadn’t bee following the law, including the health care “professionals” at the school clinic. I hope that while the local DA subpoenas the records of the clinic to determine whether past criminal violations have not been reported, and that appropriate sanctions are taken against the licensure of those who failed to follow the law.
After all -- we in education have a legal obligation, not to mention a moral one, to protect the children in our care.
Academic Freedom For Muslims – Not For Jews
Is anyone else disgusted that a public university would cave in to a request likethis?
Yesterday, the University of Delaware asked Asaf Romirowsky to step down from an academic panel at the University of Delaware because another panelist, University of Delaware political scientist Muqtedar Khan, didn't want to share the podium with anyone who served in the Israeli Defense Forces. Romirowsky, who holds joint American/Israeli citizenship and lives in Philadelphia, had been invited to join Khan, his colleague in political science, Stuart Kaufman, a staff member of the National Security Council during the Clinton administration, and a graduate student to discuss anti-Americanism in the Middle East. The program was organized by the College Republicans, the College Democrats, and the Students of Western Civilization Club. The Leadership Institute provided the funds for the panel, which met on the University of Delaware campus on Wednesday evening. The students offered Romirowsky the opportunity to come to campus next week and speak alone, with no other panel members who might object to his presence.
Khan is not just a faculty member at the university – he is also a staff member of the Brookings Institution and spoke the same day at the Pentagon. That he would make the request indicates his inability to fairly deal with any Israeli student – and perhaps any Jewish student. It also indicates that he is someone who has no place helping to guide and direct the formation of our national defense policy.
But more disturbing than the request is the willingness of a public university to give in to the demands of an anti-Semitic pig like Khan. The appropriate response would have been to rescind the invitation to Khan – and to review his employment status in light of the questions raised by the request. To take the path they did was to cave in to dhimmitude.
Posted by: Greg at
12:10 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 326 words, total size 2 kb.
When Schools Do Things Right
I grew up the son of a military officer during time of war. I know what it is like to have a parent gone, and the anticipation of their safe return. Most schools try hard to support such kids – and I love the way this school handled this homecoming.
Brittainy and Madison were hoping their dad, Maj. Robert Thomas, would come home from Iraq in the next couple of weeks.
So it's no wonder they were bowled over when he walked into their school's gymnasium during a student program about patriotism Thursday.
"I thought we were just going to read our (essays) about patriotism," said Brittainy, 11, and a fifth-grader at Atwood Elementary School in Macomb Township. Atwood is in the L'Anse Creuse Public Schools district.
"I had no idea my dad was going to be here," she said. "I'm just really happy my dad is home."
Madison, 6, was also surprised.
"I thought my dad would be home for my birthday on Nov. 8," she said. "I guess I was wrong."
The girls' father returned home Thursday morning after serving in the Army in Iraq for about a year.
I encourage you to read the rest of the article. I’m proud of these fellow educators who handled this special situation with class and dignity – and who turned a special family event into a special learning experience for the whole school.
And call me a sucker, but I cried while reading about the event.
Posted by: Greg at
12:09 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.
Legislators Return Qurans
Now we can argue over whether or not the response to receiving the books is the correct one, but I think this situation raises a different question that is being overlooked.
Two dozen Oklahoma lawmakers plan to return copies of the Quran to a state panel on diversity after a lawmaker claimed the Muslim holy book condones the killing of innocent people.
The books were given to Oklahoma's 149 senators and representatives by the Governor's Ethnic American Advisory Council.
* * *
[Council Chairperson Marjaneh] Seirafi-Pour said the gift was a way to introduce the council to lawmakers so they could use it as a resource to "serve their offices and constituents." Oklahoma lawmakers also received a copy of the Bible earlier this year from The Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma.
Now did anyone catch the troubling detail in the excerpt? If you didn’t, go back and look again. The books were given to the legislators by an official governmental panel. Why was that? Isn’t that a violation of the constitutional separation of mosque and state? How much government money was spent procuring the books and distributing them to the legislators? Were the sacred texts of other religious groups also distributed by the Governor’s Ethnic American Advisory Council, or did they specifically act to establish Islam as the state religion of Oklahoma? Do Buddhists, Hindus, and other religious believers qualify as second-class citizens in the eyes of these multi-culti buffoons, if their books were not also distributed to enable legislators to “serve their offices and constituents”? Given the large population of Native Americans in Oklahoma (certainly outnumbering Muslims), were Cherokee and other tribal religious texts also put into the offices of legislators?
And donÂ’t try to compare that to the gift of the Bibles, because those came to the legislators from a private organization, not an arm of the government. These Qurans came with the official imprimatur of the executive branch.
Where is the freakinÂ’ ACLU on this one, folks? Or do the rules that apply to Christians not apply to Muslims?
UPDATE: I just came across this information regarding the distribution of the Qurans.
Gov. Brad Henry's Muslim advisory council is offering personalized Korans to lawmakers to mark the state's centennial, with each copy to be embossed with the Oklahoma state seal and the recipient lawmaker's name. The all-Muslim group — plain-vanilla-named the American Ethnic Advisory Council — asked lawmakers to notify it if they didn't want a Koran, which the group described as "the record of the exact words revealed by G-d through the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad." So far, 24 have declined.
Of course, it's the rejection of the Korans that's making headlines, not their state-sealed if privately funded distribution. No one asks what the Koran has to do with Oklahoma's centennial, for Pete's sake; or why a government organization is proselytizing about "the exact words" of Allah; or how those words in that book sound to non-Muslims leery of Islam's age-old message to convert, submit or die. In our weird world, it's not the Islamic message that's branded hateful or even insensitive; it's the person who rejects it. This is the technique that usually shuts people up.
If this is correct, the books themselves are privately funded – but still being distributed by a government panel. This still seems to be creating a “mosque and state” problem to me.
Second, why is an “Ethnic American” group composed solely of Muslims? Even if, as Diana West notes later in the column, it was intended to be a group to be composed of members of the "Middle East/Near East community", why are there no Arab Christians or Middle Eastern Jews? Why doesn’t its name clarify what “ethnic Americans” it is intended to “advise” about if it is intended to be an exclusively Muslim group? Could it be intended to disguise the “mosque and state” violation in question?
What Blogs Should You Read?
Well, one college study has come up with a list of the 100 best blogs to read to keep up with the news -- and one of them is Rhymes With Right (#72)!
1
Congrats and deservedly so. There's not a morning goes by that I don't check in for a dose of your wisdom. Your views and opinions are enjoyed.
Keep up the great work.
Posted by: Syd B. at Fri Oct 26 01:14:47 2007 (H+iuK)
2
Congratulations! Being listed with the likes of Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds is surely an honor.
Its an interesting study. It first struck me that none of the listed blogs were the usual big loud and cranky leftist trash. The listings consisted mostly of well reasoned bloggers. What the study was measuring though was the mathematics involved as to who is getting out the storys in a timely way. It's now proven that the rant blogs are not about getting real content such as events and facts but blowing steam.
Posted by: Liberty at Sat Oct 27 00:48:56 2007 (/nwR7)
NYTimes Whines On SCHIP
After all, the President has proposed an increase, just not the gargantuan expansion of the health insurance program for poor kids to include adults and middle class kids, too.
And Republicans in Congress have proposed an even bigger increase than the President -- but again, keeping the program for poor kids, not the children of families making $60K a year.
But that isn't enough for the NYTimes, which has the audacity to complain about the president being driven by ideology.
The House approved a revised bill to finance the children’s health insurance program yesterday by a 265-to-142 margin — a strong mandate, but still not enough to overcome another promised veto by President Bush.
If the president carries out this threat, we hope Congressional tacticians can find a way to enact this important measure over the adamant, ideologically driven opposition of Mr. Bush and House Republican leaders. The health of millions of children who lack insurance cannot be held hostage to the presidentÂ’s visceral distaste for government and its essential role to protect the weak, or his desire to protect the tobacco industry.
Desire to protect the tobacco industry? Where does that one come from?
And is it just me, or is the complaint by the editors of the New York Times to ideologically driven positions on policy issues somewhat akin to complaints about from a hooker about the loose sexual morality of women in contemporary society?
Andrew Sullivan -- Hypocrite
The fine conservative site RedState recently announced its decision to ban comments favoring Ron Paul by newly registered members, based upon a documented problem with the Ronulans. Whether or not this is the correct move is subject to debate, but it is hard to call teh decision illegitimate in light of the behavior of many Ron paul supporters around the internet.
Erickson thinks that they're a human political cocktail of Code Pink activists and Neo Nazis, and he doesn't expect them to vote for anyone other than Paul.
All thinks that a lot of them are those who buy into Paul's message of limited government and fiscal responsibility.
I don't think I qualify as a Neo-Nazi or a Code Pink activist. Full Wired story here. But here's a simple message to Ron Paul supporters. You're welcome here. The Dish believes in expanding the range of debate among conservatives, not crushing it. And any cursory look at the degenerate state of American conservatism would not lead you to think your problem is too much diversity of opinion.
Really, Andrew? That's odd -- you don't allow comments at all from anyone, though you do allow trackbacks.
Tell me, sir, how your no-comment site promotes dialogue and debate. Seems to me that your comment-free zone stifles that debate. As such, I hope you don't mind if I refer to this as a classic case of "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy on your part.
Ron Paul Takes Nazi Cash!
Matt, David, and the rest of the folks at LoneStarTimes.com have dug up what ought to be a big scandal -- Ron Paul is taking campaign cash from Nazis, including the owner of the biggest neo-Nazi site on the internet (and the current husband of the former Mrs. David Duke).
A LoneStarTimes.com investigation has conclusively established that a leading figure in the American neo-Nazi / White-Supremacist movement has provided financial support to Ron PaulÂ’s 2008 Presidential campaign.
The individual in question is Don Black, the founder, owner and operator of Stormfront, a “white power” website that both professional journalists and watch-dog groups have identified as the premier English-language racist/hate-site on the Internet.
Now LST has been raising the issue of links to Paul's website (including a fundraising widget) from Stormfront for some time now, without response from the Paul campaign. Paul has not renounced support from white supremacists like Black and Stormfront, despite his campaign being made aware of the links from the racist site. Furthermore, Paul's association with (and courting of) 9/11 Truthers, rabid anti-Zionists, and militia supporters clearly walks him to the extreme fringe of American politics -- right to the very neighborhood inhabited by the neo-Nazis.
Interestingly enough, Ron Paul supporters commenting at LST are defending the acceptance of white supremacist cash, and arguing that LST is in the wrong for revealing the connection.
Will Ron Paul do the right thing in this case? Or will he keep the cash, thereby verifying that he is the candidate of the freaks, weirdos and nutjobs of the internet?
1
Giuliani took money from corporations like Goldman Sachs. Should he give that back?
Who cares who associates with Ron Paul? It's not like he's embracing them. Ron Paul is also polling highest with blacks. Clearly his message is extraordinarily racist.
What a silly blog post.
Posted by: Hotchney at Thu Oct 25 13:15:02 2007 (E3YOH)
2
I've got no problem with Goldman Sachs -- but I guess you do, given that the name is so Jewish.
And I guess you have no problem with Nazis and white supremacists. Tells us everything there is to say about Ron Paul supporters like you.
3
Ha, you fool. Always trying to play the race card. You sound like a liberal. Then again you're probably supporting Giuliani so you are one. I have no problem with Goldman- Sachs. I just don't like voting for candidates who are manipulated by special-interests. Giuliani is knee deep in them. Of course, you don't care about that. Who cares if our politicians are honest. As long as they don't take money from private citizens with racist backrounds.
Right.
Posted by: Hotchney at Thu Oct 25 13:28:54 2007 (E3YOH)
4
Odd -- I conclude from your support for Ron Paul's keeping donations from a Nazi and your gratuitous reference to a company founded by Jews that you must be a bigot yourself.
You, on the other hand, take my objection to racism and anti-Semitism to be signs that I am a liberal, that I support a particular candidate, and that I don't care about government corruption. On all three points you are wrong.
That is precisely the problem with Ron Paul supporters -- their fact-free view of the world.
5
This is getting stupid. How do you propose we go about eliminating problems like white supremacists donating money to candidates? Having all donors pass a background check first? What is to stop a white supremacist from donating to any campaign? I bet some have donated to Romney's campaign, as there is a strong white supremacist streak in the LDS community around Utah and Idaho. I oughta know: I lived there. Somehow though, I don't think that concerns you. Somehow, I think you just *enjoy* attempting to trash Ron Paul's campaign.
Whatever.
Makes me glad I dropped out of politics. Who needs politicians anyway?
Posted by: Gene at Thu Oct 25 13:36:48 2007 (4RKkJ)
6
Actually, you guys have developed an almost religious faith in Ron Paul. No wonder you treat criticism of the man the same way Muslims treat criticism of Muhammad.
7
In other words, you don't have any evidence but are willing to throw out the charge, defaming the man's religion in the process.
Find a white supremacist donor to Romney and I bet he returns it.
8
A fact free view of the world? Right.
And the ideas from people like Giuliani to prance around the world nation-building, wasting trillions of dollars we don't have is fact-imbued? I never thought following the constitution was such a bad idea, although liberals like yourself seem to think that it is a bad idea.
Posted by: Hotchney at Thu Oct 25 14:25:47 2007 (E3YOH)
9
I'm no liberal, despite your willingness to keep throwing around the charge.
And I'm no Giuliani supporter, despite your insistence that I am.
Like I said -- you live in a fact-free world. And like most of your Ronulan ilk, you insist upon defaming and insulting anyone who does not bow down before the altar of Ron Paul.
10
I don't insist you bow down. I do refute your preposterous accusation that Ron Paul supporters live in a fact free world. Some may; most don't.
Who do you support? Or will you not say because you're ashamed of supporting them? Is it tax-hike mike? Or Fred "Uh" Thompson? I had hope for Thompson - until he got into the race. Whew what a dud.
Posted by: Hotchney at Thu Oct 25 16:36:14 2007 (E3YOH)
11
Actually, you've refuted nothing. You've yet to offer any proof that I am wrong.
And I've endorsed my candidate on this site more than once -- and the fact that you have no idea who it is constitutes proof that you don't have any facts on your side when you make your assertions.
13
Today, a life form on AM radio named Michael Meth-head, Med-head, Dead-head, Medved, whatever, claimed that if I googled Ron Paul and Nazis, that I'd find really disturbing facts which Ron Paul needs to acknowledge, etc. The highest ranked site was from Daily Kos and was some bimbo who correctly claimed that Ron Paul was NOT a Nazi and then went on to make idiotic arguments that his foreign policy views were worse than Rudy's because even though Ron Paul is AGAINST the war, he's against it for the wrong REASONS (WTF??!?!?!? Who GIVES a sh*t??!!!). The second highest ranked site for those two phrases was you. All I can say is that if Michael In-bred believes that Ron Paul is a Nazi because he's actually taken cash from them, then he's really not very bright. He's taken money from Strippers for Ron Paul - does that make this Lutheran ultra-gentleman (who will never go with a woman unaccompanied by witnesses he's so in love with his wife and so old-school) a Stripper or a supporter of such practices themselves as opposed to the RIGHTS of women to engage in such professions? You all are stupid, stupid, stupid.
14
All I can say, Robert, is that your comments and your website prove that you are, in fact, a moron.
Interestingly enough, you don't dispute the fact that he takes money from Nazis. You can't. A true "Lutheran ultra-gentleman" would repudiate such money and support.
15
The fact is, Ron Paul is not a serious candidate. and the fact that he takes money from NAZI white supremists, is wrong because they are criminals. We are not talking just a regular Joe Blow who happens to know a Nazi, He has taken money from well known....very well known names. Hmmm kind of sounds like Clinton's taking money from Chinese communists! All of the freaks I see waving "google Ron Paul" signs prove that he is associating with the freaks!! can't wait till he is out.
Posted by: sage at Fri Nov 2 01:24:49 2007 (J5C6/)
16
Just because a neo-Nazi contributed funds to the Ron Paul campaign doesn't make Ron Paul a neo-Nazi. The neo-Nazis believe very strongly in Jesus Christ. Does this make Jesus a neo-Nazi? I think not.
Posted by: TruthAndReason at Sun Nov 4 14:57:18 2007 (w5Ju6)
17
You'll notice that I never accused Ron paul of being a neo-Nazi, because i know that he isn't. I instead noted that he is taking money from such folks for his campaign.
But since you raised the question, let's put the question to you: Would Jesus keep campaign donations from a neo-Nazi?
18
What does it matter where money cames from, Little old ladies, Nazis or if it falls out of the sky. Money is money, it all spends the same.
With this mosey Ron Paul can buy media publicity, and get his message out, which you admit is not a Pro-Nazi nor even a Nazi-friendly message.
You say they are criminals, but if that was the case the funds would be wired in from jail cells, to say other wise is to assume guilt without a fair trial, which is unconstitutional.
So long as Nazi are not actively breaking the Law, the constitutions says we must grant them the liberty to stomp around in jackboots and make absurd racial proclamations, they may even Hitler Solute each other and anyone else they feel like.
That is what freedom and liberty means.
If these Neo-Nazis where breaking the law, then Ron Paul would have every reason to turn them in to the police and hand the money over as evidence. However, there is no crime is expressing ones liberty to donate money to any individual or organization one chooses.
If a Nazi organization gives a huge check to the Salvation army, should they use that money to feed the poor, or give it back to the Nazi, who will use it to buy svastikas, and I don't know ropes to lynch minorities, or torches to burn down black churches.
Personally, I think the money is in better hands with Ron Paul, and it would be irresponsible of him to put money back into the hands of racists.
Posted by: Clocktower at Wed Nov 14 19:35:51 2007 (/T4xS)
19
Well, Clocktower, thanks for the canned response that in no way responds to what i wrote.
1) I nowhere say that Nazis are criminals.
2) I nowhere say that Ron paul is not pro-Nazi or Nazi-friendly.
3) I nowhere say that they don't have the right to engage in their disgusting displays of ignorance and racism.
4) While Nazis have the right to participate in politics, no candidate is required to accept their money. Ron Paul could choose not to associate with known neo-Nazis. That he chooses to do so calls into question his ethics and morality -- if he has any.
5) I do say that Ron Paul is the candidate of freaks and weirdos, and proves this by courting their support and accepting their money. Your arguments are one more example of the truth of that asertion.
20
sage said they are criminals.
Explain how exactly, allowing someone to give you money over the internet is the same as associating with them. Its not like he went out of his way to appeal to Nazis, or that he takes there money as a bribe to support Nazi-agendas in congress or as president.
you fail to address that every dollar a nazi gives to Ron Paul, is one less dollar they can use to support acts of hate.
I admitted that you agreed that Paul is not pro-Nazi. My question is what is wrong with taking money from Nazis, that they would use for evil, and turning that money into good use?
Rather like the old justification for dealing with evil spirits, that the magician is forcing the demons of hell to perform the righteous works of heaven. Transmuting evil into good. (Lead into GOLD)
Are you an inquisitionist who fears Paul is engaging in dibolatry or alchemy, which is a threat to the magical authority of your chosen Pope (candidate)?
You tell me what is weird about people keeping their own money, using it as they want to, learning to support themselves rather than rely on welfare.
What is weird about the ideal that if we stay out of other nations internal affairs (regardless of the potential benefit to us) they will respect us enough to stay out of ours. That forming trade inter-dependence will keep nations people from attacking us because af the mutual benefit.
What is crazy about tying money down to a solid defined value, rather that supporting run away inflation that maken prices raise, then minimum wage goes up, then prices raise again, each time minimum wage goes up, it is less than before and the only makes a difference for about a year before price goes up. Many businesses cant keep giving raises and go under. people lose jobs and get welfare + social security, thin makes more inflation.
Some one has to put an end to it, maybe not Ron Paul, but he is all we have an this time.
Posted by: clocktower at Thu Nov 15 05:23:17 2007 (/T4xS)
21
I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but I don't agree with or associate with racists and/or white supremacists.
And Ron Paul doesn't either.
You say "Ron Paul could choose not to associate with known neo-Nazis. That he chooses to do so calls into question his ethics and morality -- if he has any." He's not associating with neo-Nazis. The only reason you view it that way is because you don't like Ron Paul. He doesn't go to dinner with neo-Nazi's. He doesn't go to fund raisers of theirs. He doesn't go to their parties or celebrate holidays with them.
You also say "I do say that Ron Paul is the candidate of freaks and weirdos, and proves this by courting their support and accepting their money." This is the canned response by people that dislike Ron Paul, big deal. It's old, and it's just using the liberal trick of name calling when you don't have anything intelligent to say. If you want to debate his politics then debate them. But when you use name calling as a tactic against someone you disagree with you just sound like a little brat that isn't getting his way.
You're using the fact that Ron Paul has accepted donations from them that he therefore supports everything they stand for, which is untrue. Or maybe you think due to their donations that he's going to do things for them or something...which again is untrue.
It really doesn't matter how much people against Ron Paul bring up things like this, we believe in HIS message. We don't believe in the message of his donors.
It's the same for the supporters of every other candidate out there. You can bring up negative things about Hillary Clinton for example, but no matter what it is Clinton supporters will still be Clinton supporters.
So keep up the "against Ron Paul" campaign, because it doesn't matter. His supporters are for smaller government, the end of the welfare state, protection of our borders, adherence to the Constitution, and liberty...no matter who donates money to his campaign.
Posted by: Liberty Dave at Fri Nov 16 01:07:48 2007 (cjyBY)
22
"Would Jesus keep campaign donations from a neo-Nazi?"
So now you're acting as though you know what Jesus would do?
You have no idea what Jesus would do. No one does. That question is irrelevant and ridiculous.
I could say "Yes, he'd keep the money and give it to the poor".
You could say "No, he'd never keep the money! He'd throw it in their faces and damn them to hell!"
Who's right? No one knows.
If you disagree with Ron Paul's politics, let's hear it. What do you disagree with and why?
Most Ron Paul Paranoids like yourself don't debate the issues honestly, you simply call him and his supporters names because you disagree with his political philosophy.
Posted by: Liberty Dave at Fri Nov 16 01:15:42 2007 (cjyBY)
23
Also, there's a good response by the Lone Star Times, one of the many publications that raised this issue. They actually spoke with someone from the Ron Paul campaign about the support of these neo-nazi groups.
I won't go into detail, you can read the article here:
http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/30/rpb2/
One thing I want to point out is something said by the Ron Paul campaign in regards to Don Black, the leader of a racist group that donated $500 to his campaign:
"Until three days ago, neither Dr. Paul nor anyone else in the campaign had any idea who Don Black was or is. WeÂ’ve never met or communicated with him. We did not solicit his support.
It is certainly unfortunate that the campaignÂ’s donation banner is on his site. WeÂ’re not rushing to spend a lot of time reading whatÂ’s over there, but what youÂ’ve described is certainly repugnant, and completely anathema to everything Dr. Paul stands for."
That's right...they said it's "certainly repugnant, and completely anathema to everything Dr. Paul stands for"
I know some people, however, will never forgive him unless he performs some action (gives the money back, gives it to charity, openly declares he's not a supporter of them, etc). Others will just never forgive him and continue to bash him because they don't like him, but that's expected from the Ron Paul Paranoid group.
Posted by: Liberty Dave at Fri Nov 16 01:41:02 2007 (cjyBY)
24
There is still the unaddressed point that if he were to give the money back to the Nazis it would be no different than if he wrote them a check of his awn and handed it to a Nazi support charity. Either way, its putting money into the hands of Nazis. It doesn't matter if you give Nazis new money, or give them back their own money which they had written off as an expense, they still have money to spend on something evil, that they did not have before.
If Hitler gave me a million dollars I would keep it, if a homeless old woman gave me her last dime, I would give it back. Thats ethics as I see it, take money from evil people, give it to good people who need it.
Posted by: clocktower at Fri Nov 16 05:04:59 2007 (/T4xS)
25
As noted at LoneStarTimes.com in the original article, the best choice Ron Paul could make is to give it to a Jewish charity.
At this point, though, Ron Paul can just keep the cash as far as i am concern. he has shown himself to be a man with no moral values or standards -- as have his followers here.
26
Why should he give it to any kind of charity?
Once the specific $500 left Nazi hands and entered the collective funds of Ron Paul, It lost all association with Nazis, its just money now.
If 300 people each give me a dollar, the history of each dollar is voided, its now just a collective $300, not $300 individual dollar bills with different histories.
If Ron Paul was to give the $500 to a jewish charity, how do we know that those are the exact same dollar bills the Nazis gave him and not some other dollars that came from an honest reputable American.
Is it right to give an honest mans dollars to a charity he does not want to support, just to strike some kind of symbolic gesture to some other dishonest Nazi, that are in no way related to the honest man?
I say any money Ron Paul gets for his campaign is to be used for his campaign, so that he can win the election, and show his anti-Nazi merit in the white house.
Posted by: clocktower at Fri Nov 16 14:14:29 2007 (/T4xS)
27
No, Nazi-lovin' Ron Paul can keep his corrupt cash as he goose-steps into oblivion.
After all, he will lose the nomination -- and his House seat.
He's shown he is a man with no morals.
28
well being a Nazi is not a crime in America, and that means no matter your personal feelings, you treat Nazis just like anyone else.
That is what America means, it mean love and respect for people even if you don't like what they stand for of choose to do with their time. Fine Nazis hate people, as such they are bad Americans. America does not just mean that legally and politically we allow freedom, it means personally on an individual level we tolerate any behavior up until it breaks the law, that is it causes a direct threat or use of force backed coercion on a specific person.
America is a mentality of the people to accept even blatant anti-liberty attitudes and behaviors from others. As to hate the haters is only more hatred and that is just as unAmerican as to hate in the first place.
By reaching the hand of friendship and mutual brotherhood even to Nazis, Criminals, rapists, Drug dealers, and such ilk, we can offset the pain, fear and humiliation that fuels their misanthropic hatred of some or all of their fellow human beings.
By throwing money back in their faces you only serve to reinforce their belief that they are hated outsiders, who are special and can only gain acceptances by killing their oppressors, or justifiably exploiting other human being.
But when we offer unconditional respect a funny thing happens these Nazis begin to feel like they belong, like others care about them. They begin to feel connected to humanity, they gain self respect, and little by little they learn to respect others. They learn to trust others, even other races, and to give up rationalizing their fear and distrust with racist words. The become ashamed of their shaved heads and svastika tatoos, and like Alex at the end of A Clockwork Orange (Brittish version) they repent their anti-social ways.
And all because people were nice to them, despite their attempts to alienate themselves, with displeasing opinions and behaviors to push others away.
Its called Psychology, read about it
Posted by: clocktower at Fri Nov 16 19:13:32 2007 (/T4xS)
29
And that is where you are wrong, clocktower.
While Nazis are not criminals in this country, decent people do not 'treat[them] just like anyone else."
Decent human beings disassociate themselves from them and shun them as unfit companions and supporters.
They refuse to do business with them and do not take their money in trade or as contributions.
They show their abhorrence of their reprehensible ideas and philosophy at every turn -- just as they do with Communists and others who hold to the murderous agenda that the twin evils of the twentieth century attempted to bring about.
That Nazis are just fine with you shows the degree of your moral failings -- and that Ron Paul gladly takes Nazi cash shows he is not a man of right principles.
30
Right morals is to love your enemy, its in the bible, read your bible!
Posted by: clocktower at Sat Nov 17 02:55:44 2007 (/T4xS)
31
So now I have a RonPauLunatic here who wants to impose biblical morality on us? Seems to me that is quite a contrast from the message of freedom you clowns tell us you are for.
And by the way -- the Bible also tells us to treat those who are persistent in sin as unbelievers. I'd argue Nazism is a pretty big sin.
32
I don't actually care what it says in the bible.
Just that the basic Premise Jesus worked under is has proven correct.
That is people do hurtful things because they are themselves hurt "spiritually" which is to say emotionally/psychologically.
Therefore we should seek to heal those who behave in such ways, not provoke them further by justifying their delusions of mistreatment.
Or rather making their delusions of mistreatment and inferiority into self fulfilled prophesies.
Their is nothing a Nazi type wants more than for you to hate him, to spit on him and curse him under your breath. Because this gives him reason to hate you, because he says to him self everyone is against me because I am special, me and by white brothers are elite agents of truth against Jewish lies.
If you throw money back into his face, he will take it as proof you are part of the Jew conspiracy, and then pat himself on the back for outing you as a Race Traitor or some such thing.
Thus all you would do is further his racist beliefs.
Do you think it is a good moral principle to encourage Racists in their racism? I should not think so.
Posted by: clocktower at Sat Nov 17 15:00:28 2007 (/T4xS)
33
Gee, clocktower, what a load of claptrap.
If you and Ron Paul want to stand with the Nazis and their wounded psyches, feel free to do so.
Me? I'll stand with the Jews, the blacks, and the other victims of Nazi racism. And if the Nazis claim I'm part of a Jewish conspiracy, I'll simply respond that I am instead a part of a conspiracy of the decent against the indecent.
Too bad you and Ron Paul can't say the same -- and it is good of you two to prove that you are willing to love the Nazis for fun and profit..
34
I guess you never heard of hate the behavior not the person.
You certainly don't understand Adler.
And you seem so concerned about ureal things like making moral points, over real things physical paper money which is not tainted with Nazi cooties or any such actual physical harm.
Posted by: clocktower at Sat Nov 17 20:17:40 2007 (/T4xS)
35
Guys, knock yourself out hangin' with the Nazis.
Moral people disassociate themselves from such scum.
That you don't indicates that you are severely lacking in moral values.
No doubt you would celebrate a donation from bin Laden. Oh, that's right, you folks don't think he was behind 9/11.
36
If Bin laden gave me money, how does that further his agenda?
Im not going to do Terrorist things. But I will have money it my bank, I can pay my Bills, get a nice car, travel the world, whatever.
I don't care where my money comes from, so long as they don't come knocking for favors.
If the Nazi offer be a bribe, I will not take it. If they leave it on my door step, unsolicited, then its mine.
Posted by: clocktower at Sun Nov 18 13:07:57 2007 (/T4xS)
37
Whether or not it would advance his agenda, the mere fact that you would knowingly keep it is indicative of the depth of your moral depravity.
As is Ron Paul's decision to knowingly keep money from these Nazis.
38
how does keeping money that a terrorist gives me hurt anyone?
If no one gets hurt, who doesn't want to get hurt, there is nothing immoral.
Taking money from a criminal, is not a criminal act.
If you petition the criminal to steal for you, then accepting that money is being an accomplice.
What should we do, burn any money that has ever touched a Nazi's hands because its got cooties now?
What if I run a grocery store, should I refuse to allow Nazi's to buy bread, on the grounds that I best not touch their poisoned money?
Sure if everyone stopped taking money from known Nazi's that would make it hard for them to keep being Nazi's, but they are not defined as criminals so their is no legal reason to starve and alienate them. In fact refusal to do business with them is probably a crime, Ironically it would be discrimination.
Even if not a crime, it would put them on welfare to the state, and your taxes would go to by them groceries.
Is that what you want?
Either accept money from Nazi's or else the government mafia will steal your tax dollars to buy bread for Nazi's.
Posted by: clocktower at Mon Nov 19 04:45:43 2007 (/T4xS)
39
No, what I want is no welfare state -- and for folks to so marginalize the Nazis that they starve in the streets.
40
This is America and everyone has a right to live his life as he feels fit, even the liberty to be a complete bastard if he wants, and face no persecution for it.
That is the whole point of America, its a place where freaks, misfits, the eccentric, the puritanical, loons, goons, and bastards can come to be free of social oppression and ridicule.
In America, Nazis are welcome to express their views and be as they want, so long as they dont hurt anyone else. If they want to have a privite Whites only plot of land and teach racist doctrines and instill fear and hatred, they are free to do so. So long as they legally abtain the land, and demonstrate peacefully, they are welcome in America, the land where all misfits co-exist in peace.
It is only if a specific individual performs an act of harm or use of coercive force against another individual, that the government exists to step in and keep the peace.
America is a land of individuals, you are not accused by affiliation with groups. Only Individual acts are judged.
An American is an individual human being first and foremost, and is not ever required to be a patriot of the Government. The Government protects the rights even and I would say especially, of those who would criticize the Governments actions that seek it empower itself rather that protect the absolute liberty of the individual.
America is not an ideal delegated to the government, it mush burn in the hearts of ever man, woman, and child. That Ideal is not obedience to the government, it is not love of the nation. It is the ideal of Absolute total liberty of each individual beholden to no group or authority, but FREE in his own right, which is not granted by power or authority but is an inherent liberty.
This liberty is a mutual liberty that one keeps for oneself only by granting it to others. The instant you persecute a NAZI, you give up a piece of your own liberty.
Posted by: clocktower at Mon Nov 19 14:03:54 2007 (/T4xS)
41
They are legally welcome to express their views -- and I am legally permitted to express my abhorrance for them. That includes refusing to associate with them in any manner -- personal, political, religious, and economic.
Furthermore, that means that I am free to attempt to persuade others to do the same.
Unless, of course, you are proposing that ONLY Nazis have rights in your warped version of America.
42
Rhymes with Right, you're full of it.
"and that Ron Paul gladly takes Nazi cash shows he is not a man of right principles."
Ron Paul doesn't GLADY TAKE NAZI CASH. His people have said as much. They can't screen all of their donors other than to make sure they're not illegal contributions (unlike Hillary). It would take too much time and effort to do that. And his campaign has said they don't support the Nazi agenda at all.
You're a fool, Rhymes. A complete fool. If Ron Paul can use the money for good purposes then more power to him. You think he supports Nazi philosophy just because they donated to his campaign? If you do then you're a loon and you need mental therapy.
You're just saying the same things over and over thinking if you say it enough times it's going to come true.
You probably didn't like Ron Paul before this news came about anyways, and you'd probably be trash talking him no matter who donated money to his cause. You're pathetic.
And this argument that anyone that supports Ron Paul is a Nazi loving hate monger is hilarious! Sure, we're all a bunch of psychos for following Ron Paul. Keep it coming Rhymes, you're making a lot of us laugh!
Posted by: Liberty Dave at Tue Nov 20 05:53:19 2007 (cjyBY)
43
The economic system is open and free for anyone to participate in it, and by all means we should take it that only dollars participate in it, tho oricin of those dollars in no ones business.
If I am selling a car, the law says that I have to sell it to whoever can pay the price I ask, I can not refuse to sel it based on my opinion of the buyer. A racist can not refuse to do business with a black man, I can't refuse to sell my car to a man who plans to smash it up in a demo derby, and you can't just refuse the sale on the grounds that the buyer is a Nazi.
And donating to a campaign is a sale, the trade is money for policy, in the case of Nazis they probably donate to Paul because they believe the Federal reserve is run by Jews, and they hate that their taxes go to minorities on welfare.
Thus they support Paul's policy, for the wrong reasons, but support it none the less.
Posted by: clocktower at Tue Nov 20 06:27:16 2007 (/T4xS)
44
Clocktower you've made many great points that are very logical to an open minded person.
The problem is no matter how much sense you make, no matter how politely you pose your arguments, people such as Rhymes with Right doesn't care. They will continue to bash those that disagree with them and will not acknowledge any points you make.
Rhymes with Right has pretty much ignored the good points others have made and keeps saying the same Ron Paul bashing arguments.
For example, webguy's comments above are very logically made but Rhymes doesn't even discuss them. Many points you made were completely ignored, not addressed at all. Why? Because he knows he can't actually argue with anyone that makes sense when they disagree with him, so he resorts to his childish name calling.
Sean Hannity and Michael Medved use the same tactics to try and make it seem as though they're still ahead of the game no matter what good points are made for the opposing side.
Posted by: Liberty Dave at Tue Nov 20 09:32:18 2007 (cjyBY)
45
yes, he probably wants to claim I am a liberal also. Which I guess he things liberal means anyone who doesn,t think we can end violence by proving ourselves the biggest dog on the block. Or does not believe that anyone is morally justified in claiming authority to control, regulate, or otherwise shape policy.
Funny, I always thought I was more like a Right-wing anarchist, if anything.
Actually I like to think myself a Thelemite.
Posted by: clocktower at Tue Nov 20 10:03:11 2007 (/T4xS)
46
Dave -- If Ron Paul does not gladly take Nazi cash, all he would have to do is return the $500 to the guy who runs Stormfront. That he does not puts the lie to any denial by his campaign.
And clocktower -- unless there were a violation of civil rights law, I don't have to sell my car to anyone. For that matter, if I own a business I can run someone off and ban them from the premises if I dislike them, as long as it was not for a prohibited reason under civil rights law.
And I don't think you guys are liberals -- I think you are Nazi-lovin' pussies.
47
And guys, the reason I don't get into the "good use" argument is that it is irrelevant. The source of the cash itself is the problem, not the great purpose it will be used for.
If the source of the money is tainted, it does not matter what you do with it. Just as a pro-chastity group does not take money from teh local pimp, a pro-liberty candidate should not be taking money from a Nazi.
48
"Dave -- If Ron Paul does not gladly take Nazi cash, all he would have to do is return the $500 to the guy who runs Stormfront. That he does not puts the lie to any denial by his campaign."
Wrong again Rhymes, which isn't surprising since most of your arguments are idiotic. Your opinion is Ron Paul gladly takes Nazi cash since he hasn't done something YOU think is right with the donation.
He didn't request money from anyone in particular, especially Nazi type people. You keep ignoring that issue altogether.
Also, in your twisted mind of illogical thoughts, if Ron Paul ends up giving the money back would it even change your mind on this issue? No, I thought not. You're just a bag of hot air.
"And I don't think you guys are liberals -- I think you are Nazi-lovin' pussies."
You're hilarious! Keep 'em coming Rhymes. You keep showing what a complete ass you are. If we disagree with you on this issue we must be "Nazi-lovin' pussies". That is a perfectly logical argument. You got us there. You win!
Posted by: Liberty Dave at Wed Nov 21 00:27:01 2007 (cjyBY)
49
No, I will retract my comments about Ron Paul and the Nazi connection if he refunds the money to Stormfront's owner or donates it to a legitimate charity, demands that links to his campaign website be removed from Stormfront's website, and in the future return other extremist cash he has received. I still won't support Ron Paul, but it would prove he is walking the walk not just talking the talk about rejecting such extremists -- sort of like he does so-called special interest money.
And given your defense of Nazis and their right to have their money accepted by poor, defenseless (principleless is more like it) Ron Paul, I stand by my statement that you are Nazi-lovin' pussies. The ONLY folks you seem to think have rights in any of this are the Nazis.
50
If the Nazis gave Ron Paul that money in hopes that he would use it to get rid of the Federal Reserve system, and that is what Ron Paul plans to do with the money he gets for his campaign. Then why should he give back legitimate contributions to the cause he is trying to achieve?
Just because a guy is a Nazi, does that mean everything he does is evil? If a Nazi dropped in a dollar to a charity to help cure Cancer, should that Charity dig through every jar they but aut and return all Nazi dollars?
On what grounds, can a Nazi dollar not help fight cancer the way a someone else's dollar can?
Must we assume that the Nazi didn't really want to cure cancel because he is evil and wants people to die of cancer?
Of I know it means the Cancer Charity is a fraud that really supports only supports white power, because Nazis are evil tight wads who only give money to hate organizations.
It can not possibly be the case that a cure for cancer is a mutually shared goal that both Nazis and minorities have in common.
I mean their is no way that Ron Paul and Nazis could have a shared goal, unless that goal is hate oriented, right?
Posted by: clocktower at Wed Nov 21 09:01:02 2007 (/T4xS)
51
Ron Paul is not the cure for cancer, noris he a charity.
Ron Paul is a political candidate, who can and should be judged by those with whom he associates by taking their money.
Ron Paul takes Nazi cash -- ergo anything he has to say is irrelevant because of the taint of taking that cash.
52
Ron Paul is a candidate who accepts donations from people who like what he wants to do as president. Some people want out of the war, so they give him money, some people what to end medicare so they donate money, some people don't like the Federal Reserve. Some people just want to get publicity for supporting an underdog.
The Nazi contribution is no different, they support something in his platform, whatever it is, its their money to use as they please. Its not up to Ron Paul to figure out or to care where his money comes from or what the motive for the donation might be.
All he needs do in take the money and use it to win. If the Mafia donates millions of dollars, then he can use that to win, so what if they got the money illegally from extortion. Ron Paul has it now, and once president he can deal with putting an end to extortion. Giving it back doesn't help stop the Mafia.
How does giving maney back to racists end racism? it doesn't but a Ron Paul presidency will!
Posted by: clocktower at Wed Nov 21 10:22:13 2007 (/T4xS)
53Its not up to Ron Paul to figure out or to care where his money comes from
Gee -- that sounds just like a line out of the Hillary Clinton playbook.
Face it -- Ron Paul has no moral scruples against knowingly taking money from Nazis and other racist scum. What's more, he, his campaign, and his supporters all argue that taking money from Nazis and other racists is just fine.
In the end, we can only draw the conclusion that you folks like being associated with Nazis because you like some of their ideas.
The one thing you folks don't like is being judged by the company you keep.
Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas -- lay down with Nazis, get up with swastikas.
54
If both Ron Paul and the Nazis want to get rid of the Fed, then why should he not accept their money.
I mean the other candidates take money from the religious right, even though I'm sure none of them want to support the Fowell-Robertson agenda, that would make the US a theocracy.
Maybe when they denounce Pat Robertson, Paul will give back the funds.
Notice I never said they should give back the money, just denounce his agenda.
Posted by: clocktower at Wed Nov 21 11:34:01 2007 (/T4xS)
55
1) There is no agenda for theocracy in this country. One more lie from the RonPauLunatics!
2) That you can't tell the difference between Pat Robertson and Hitler tells me a lot about you and your candidate.
56
Oh, and clocktower -- since you seem to be from the Belleville are, might I suggest you go have a pizza and a beer at D.S. Vespers? It is one of the many things I miss from my old stomping grounds -- perhaps the thing I most miss.
57
Look rhymes with right, nobody but you is buying into your bullshit and asinine logic, so stfu and have a good day. Look if you want to vote for a pro big government candidate thats you own business, but some people dont buy into your bullshit pro welfare state. Anybody who disagrees with you is a nazi loving pussy?, sounds like your the real nazi to me. But when you cant debate ron paul on the issues I guess smear is the only option. have fun voting for flip flopper romney or giuliana. they will say anything to get your vote, that should be right up your alley.
Posted by: brian at Wed Nov 28 22:02:27 2007 (F0Ozz)
58
No -- candidates who take money from Nazis and those who support their doing so are Nazi-loving pussies, Brian. Glad to see you fall into that category, as witnessed by your pro-liberty demand that I "stfu" because I espouse a position you disagree with. I suppose that if i don't, you and the rest of the RonPauLunatics will put on your best brown shirts and come beat me into submission, right?
59
Nope we will just vote ron paul into the whitehouse, and then shove the freedom and tax dollars youll save down your throat. But honestly who do you support?
Posted by: brian at Thu Nov 29 01:23:11 2007 (F0Ozz)
60
And is it me or is it ironic a white supremacists last name is black? And let's be honest we know ron paul isnt racist, he probably didnt even know the money he was taking was from nazis, and it wasnt much at all. $500? he made 4.3 million in one day, his site probably gets a lot of donations . Im not gonna sit here and argue he shouldnt give it back, but dont sit there and argue he's a nazi if he doesnt. It was money from an individual who happens to be a nazi, not a nazi group. and alex jones donated? who gives a fuck? anybody can! I think a rapist or pedophile or murderer is worse than a nazi who doesnt break laws. If any bad person has ever donated to any cause, should it always be given back?
The only reason I could see somebody getting mad over this, is you say "well ron paul took money from nazis so maybe the nazis were trying to buy him off to support their views." But we know he doesnt support their views and wouldnt for any amount of cash, ergo it doesnt matter. We know they donated because ron paul will speak against the fed, but for a different reason than nazis.
You say he should give it to a jewish charity, would a jewish charity accept nazi money?
Posted by: brian at Thu Nov 29 02:00:10 2007 (F0Ozz)
61
Brian -- I don't argue that Ron Paul is a Nazi -- but he is either a Nazi-loving pussy or otherwise an individual of no character if he knowingly keeps the cash from such a source. You are judged in such a case by the company you keep.
And I suggest that such a charity would take the money, just as they have taken items looted by the Nazis when no rightful heir could be found. And indeed, such a donation would thoroughly repudiate the Nazi agenda in a way that the campaign keeping it.
As for who I support, I suggest you read my site and find out.
62
I think it's more that he believes in freedom so much, that he thinks anybody and everybody has a right to think whatever they want, no matter how batshit crazy it is, as long as they dont break the law. and you say you dont argue that he's a nazi? but he's a nazi lover? you know who loves nazis? only fucking nazis. This man has no character? He is the only politician whos not a complete bullshit flip flopper who would say and do anything to please you and get your vote.At least the only one running for president. He is a doctor who worked for $3 an hour at a charity hospital, delivering babies of any race or color. How many lives have u saved? He was a doc during viet nam and has devoted so much of his life to helping people, what the hell have u done? start a blog? but he has no character? This man has more character in his pinky than you or me have in our whole body. Have u read any of his writings, or heard him talk about race? To say he is a nazi sypathzer is to be blind to anything he's ever said.
Like you said alex jones donated, does it mean he thinks 9/11 was done by the government? no, no matter how many people like you to try to make it out like he does.~ So an individual who is a nazi donated, does it make him a nazi sypathyer>? no. I could see if it was a nazi group but it was an individual citizen whos racist, and as much as it might piss us off, they have the same right to donate or not donate to ron paul as anyone. And it's really not fair to take somebodys money for one reason, and give it to a cause they dont believe in at all.
Look I know you dont want ron paul to win, hence your for the status quo, but enough americans are sick of bullshit we cant vote for anybody but ron paul.
Posted by: brian at Thu Nov 29 14:55:26 2007 (F0Ozz)
63
I know all about Ron Paul -- I live 2 miles from his congressional district.
And I'm sorry -- anyone who does not reject money from certain sources (Nazis, Kluxers, Islamists, and Communists) has no character. In this case, Ron Paul has put cash (and such a piddling amount of cash) before decency and principle. As such, he is unfit for any office -- and i am working to make sure he has no office 13 months from now, in any branch of government.
64
We must live close together then. Myabe it's that his principles are in fact too strong, because nazis have the right to hate anybody. But since you know all about ron paul, but call him a nazi sympathizer you're obviously just a delusional liar, but that's your right, and you can hate ron paul as much as you want, but he is far and away better than any of those political hacks he's on stage with. I dont defend nazi views, i defend their right to have any view they want.
heres pauls stance on racism, not exactly a nazis wet dream.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/
Racism
A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.
The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.
Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.
Posted by: brian at Thu Nov 29 17:12:52 2007 (F0Ozz)
65
I defend he right of Nazis to hate whoever they wish, too.
I also expect those seeking public office to reject campaign donations from known followers of such malign philosophies.
Those who don't do so can only be presumed to support the hatred or lack the morality and decency to oppose them with deeds as well as words.
66
Or maybe he supports peoples right to think whatever they want.
Posted by: brian at Fri Nov 30 16:39:12 2007 (F0Ozz)
67
He's so supportive of the right of people to think what they want that he doesn't support his own right to disassociate himself from those whose malign ideologies include explicit calls for genocide? I don't think so.
68
First of all, if you were a Neo-Nazi, which candidate would you endorse? Neo-Nazis, militia crazies, and the KKK are generally anti-government. They hear Ron Paul being the only candidate openly expressing anti-government views, so of course they endorse him. It makes perfect sense. Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber would probably be strong Ron Paul supporters.
The important point is, should this reflect badly on Ron Paul?
Well, consider this:
Many Neo-Nazi and KKK members strongly claim to endorse Jesus as their spiritual guide. So have many criminals, murderers, and child molesters.
Does this reflect badly on Jesus by association? Does this fact bring into question Jesus' teachings, character, integrity, or values?
Of course not.
Guilt by association is a logical fallacy.
What if it is a great thing that Ron Paul's campaign is draining extremist group's funds of cash that would be otherwise used to hurt others? I hope he is successful in bankrupting the KKK and Neo-Nazis by this most devious method!
In other words, why should they return the cash, rather than keep it, and put it towards efforts to enforce human rights and further the cause of freedom from race or religion-based oppression? Wouldn't the money be better put to use in this way?
Posted by: A Reader at Sun Dec 2 21:16:38 2007 (fBIj0)
69
Hence my suggestion that he give the money where it will do exactly that, eliminating the taint of taking their cash while devoting it to a positive cause antithetical to theirs.
70
What's ridiculous is that Ron Paul has raised so much moolah. I didn't know Nazis had so much money. It's not helping in the polls, however. He's stuck at 5%.
Posted by: Damail at Tue Dec 18 14:34:18 2007 (wlCGQ)
71
That is the absurdity of his refusal to return the tainted cash -- he clearly doesn't need it.
72
Ron Paul has recieved millions in small donations from European-Americans who don't care whether or not Usurael gets "wiped of the map", or whether or not we are a "diverse nation".
Neither "diversity", nor allegiance to foriegn, especially non-Christian lands are Constitutional.
Posted by: AntiZionismIStheOnlyRightism at Thu Dec 20 07:56:48 2007 (N8HNN)
73
Thank you for demonstating the true nature of Ron Paul supporters, and the sort of people embraced by the candidate when he refuses to return this piddling little donation.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) enjoyed a more than $2 million fundraising edge over the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in September, continuing a year-long pattern. And although the Republican committeeÂ’s money margin over the Democratic committee is less than was typically the case before the GOP lost control of Congress in the 2006 elections, it remains the GOPÂ’s brightest spot in a year in which the DemocratsÂ’ U.S. Senate and House campaign units have built up big fundraising leads of their Republican counterparts.
The RNC raised $5.8 million in September, according to its latest filing with the Federal Election Commission, compared to $3.7 million for the DNC. That continued an RNC winning streak that it has sustained through every month of this year.
Overall through Sept. 30, the RNC raised $63.1 million, and began October with $16.5 million in cash on hand. The DNC raised $40.5 million and began October with $3.3 million left to spend. The DNC has $2 million in debts, while the RNC is debt-free.
Could it be that we are seeing that the people are supportive of GOP principles, but less than happy with the direction taken by some GOP incumbents who are willing to compromise away all principles in an effort to win praise for their “bipartisanship”?
Posted by: Greg at
12:02 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.
Dem Pol To Take Money From Troop Defaming Buddy
David Crosby used to be a talented musician, before he burned out every last brain cell with all those drugs. And Congressman John Hall used to have a modicum of musical talent – not much, but enough to score a couple of light-weight pop hits along the way. But in his new position, should he really be having a fundraiser featuring Crosby, given the latter’s recent insult to the troops?
Rep. John Hall, D-Dover, is refusing to cancel a planned performance Sunday at a campaign fundraiser in Bedford by longtime friend and fellow musician David Crosby despite Crosby's recent statement that when a U.S. soldier arrives in Iraq "he finds out the job is killing somebody else's mother and sister."
Crosby appeared on the program "Hardball" last week, commenting to host Chris Matthews on young Americans volunteering to serve in Iraq.
"On the one hand, you have got a young kid who is patriotic, who loves his country, believes in it," Crosby said. "And he's being told, yes, this is the truth. And we have got to go in there to protect your mother and your sister."
Crosby added, "And he goes over and he finds out the job is killing somebody else's mother and sister."
Bad enough that he wonÂ’t dump the musical has-been from the fundraiser, but Hall also lacks the decency and integrity to defend our men and women in uniform by repudiating his friend and supporters slanderous comments. If you need any proof of how unfit John Hall is for office, that should do it for you.
Turnabout Is Fair Play?
Remember when the Democrats had a guy stalk Senator George Allan, looking for some miscue to exploit until they found one poorly chosen word? Well, it looks like a conservative student in Michigan is doing the same thing, and the Democrats – and the educrats he works for – don’t like it one bit.
A politically conservative student armed with a video camera and a Web site is trying to force a Democratic congressional candidate out of his teaching job at Central Michigan University.
Dennis Lennox, a 23-year-old junior, has posted videos on YouTube of himself questioning assistant professor Gary Peters about campaigning for office while holding a prestigious position at the university.
Some say Lennox is persistent. Others accuse him of pandering for attention.
"What I'm doing isn't about getting media attention," said Lennox, a political science major. "I'm speaking for the hundreds of students, alumni, taxpayers and even legislators who have complained because Gary Peters won't pick between Congress and campus."
One college administrator appears to have assaulted Lennox, and there are attempts to prevent him from filming on campus, or from filming public employees. I guess the First Amendment only applies to Democrats and liberals – and that they really don’t consider turnabout to be fair play.
Posted by: Greg at
11:58 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.
Not A Great Electoral Strategy
Ileana Hernandez is seeking the office of county commissioner in Pike County, Pennsylvania.
Someone splattered a campaign sign with paint. Someone also dumped dirty diapers in front of her campaign office..
Her response?
Hernandez, a Democrat who is the first Latino woman to run for the office, said the vandalism "could be both racist and sexist — it's Pike County."
Her opponents have criticized the both acts of vandalism. But I can’t help but think that labeling the people you hope to represent as a bunch of racists and sexists is not the best pat to high political office – especially when your victories in previous elections in the county has proven that neither race nor sex has been an obstacle to your political success.
Posted by: Greg at
11:57 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.
Dubin Labels Opponents Hateful
In case yesterday’s post about Illinois Senator Dick Durbin didn’t make the point clear, this comment should. Disagreeing with him is not legitimate – indeed, it is a sign of not of principled disagreement, but of something much more ugly and unacceptable.
llegal immigration remains at a legislative impasse — and that may be a good thing for GOP chances since the party’s base in the South and West tends to be vehemently opposed to any accommodation with illegal immigrants.
In his post-vote assessment, the Dream Act’s chief sponsor, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois said, “In a campaign year, it is a very difficult issue. If it’s tough this year, it’s tougher next year.”
Some senators, he said, “are running scared” on the illegal immigrant issue.
“Switchboards light up, the hates starts spewing, and people get concerned, to say the least,” Durbin told reporters.
Go that, people? Cacting your congressional representatives is not laudable participation by citizens in the political life of the Republic. It is, instead, an exercise in hatred – you know, one of those things the Democrats tell us must be criminalized. When you opposed this piece of Durbin-sponsored legislation because it made a mockery of our borders and amounted to nothing less than amnesty for entire families, you committed a hate crime.
Posted by: Greg at
11:56 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.
Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week Program Brings Out Pro-Islamic Fascists At Emory
Writer and activist David Horowitz was brought in to speak at Emory University by the College Republicans as part of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. The response of those opposed to his message was not debate or discussion – instead, it was to resort to fascist tactics to silence the speech they oppose.
Protesters began their efforts as soon as Horowitz was introduced with boos and chants of "Heil Hitler." Despite the people who stood with their backs to Horowitz and the shouting of obscenities and other remarks from audience members, Horowitz attempted to deliver his speech that covered academic freedom and radical Islam. The loud chants, sign-waving, and disruptive gestures continued to escalate from audience members until the atmosphere was so chaotic that even the police present were unable to subdue the crowd. Horowitz was led off stage and left the campus under tight security, and the event came to an abrupt end.
Rather than remove those engaged in harassment and disruption under relevant disorderly conduct statutes and university regulations protecting academic freedom, the authorities removed the victim instead and silenced his message. You should have tazed them, bro!
Is academic freedom dead in America? Or is it available only to those with a politically correct message and the dictators they coddle?
Is it time for the federal government to begin investigating – and prosecuting – the repeated series of civil rights violations committed by Islamists, illegals, and Leftists against conservative Americans?
1
.
They are so insane, they would at the same time say they support GLBT Rights! Amazing! Fight back against those that stone gays to death! Democracy NOT Theocracy!
STOP KUFFARPHOBIA Demonstration at Whitehall in London, 12pm Friday 10/26/07!
I think we all must start calling the Islamofascists 'racists'. We should scream that they are hateful towards the Christian race, and the Jewish race, and the Hindu race, and the Atheist Race, that they are Christianityphobiasts. They will scream that Christianity is not a race, and we'll say:
"See, Islam is NOT a race either.
And by the way, the Bible doesn't say to convert, conquer or kill non-Christians; like the Koran says to do to non-Muslims. So there YOU RACIST hater of non-Muslims! You're a Kuffarphobic!"
Be careful all you in London Friday 10/26!
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
don't call a spade a spade
Islamist terrorism
not related to Islam
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
you have NO rights
to hate religions
that demand to convert you
absurd thought -
God of the Universe calls
for sick ideologies
that deny human rights
KILL adulterers and gays
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
be very afraid...
of saying the wrong things
TRUTH is especially BAD
http://absurdthoughtsaboutgod.blogspot.com
. .
Posted by: USpace at Thu Oct 25 17:17:50 2007 (7glBz)
Liberalism In Action
For a brief moment, I thought we were dealing with a rational liberal columnist.
Then I got to the fourth sentence.
Forget impeachment.
Liberals, put it behind you. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney shouldn't be treated like criminals who deserve punishment. They should be treated like psychotics who need treatment.
* * *
Impeachment's not the solution to psychosis, no matter how flagrant. But despite their impressive foresight in other areas, the framers unaccountably neglected to include an involuntary civil commitment procedure in the Constitution.
Still, don't lose hope. By enlisting the aid of mental health professionals and the court system, Congress can act to remedy that constitutional oversight. The goal: Get Bush and Cheney committed to an appropriate inpatient facility, where they can get the treatment they so desperately need. In Washington, the appropriate statutory law is already in place: If a "court or jury finds that [a] person is mentally ill and . . . is likely to injure himself or other persons if allowed to remain at liberty, the court may order his hospitalization."
I'll even serve on the jury. When it comes to averting World War III, it's really the least I can do.
And it leads me to conclude that Bush Derangement Syndrome is not a mental illness, but is instead a manifestation of the evil that lives in some people's souls.
Jindal Seeks Competent Appointees For Louisiana
Looking for a job in government, one with real policy influence? Are you experienced and competent, and willing to think outside the box? Then Bobby Jindal wants you!
BATON ROUGE, La. — Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal is taking resumes from people looking for jobs at a new Web site, Louisiana Transition
"We are considering every position within the administration an open one and encouraging everyone interested to apply. We are looking for the best and brightest folks out there interested in working to bring our state a fresh start," Timmy Teepell, director of Jindal's transition team and chief of staff when Jindal takes office in January, said in a statement.
The transition team will form committees to choose the Jindal administration's cabinet members, according to Rolfe McCollister, chairman of the transition efforts.
Jindal will have a month longer than most incoming governors to handle transition because he won in Saturday's primary, not a November runoff.
Louisiana government has been a mes for years, and that was quite clearly demonstrated two years ago. If you want to be a part of the reform movement, click the link above and apply to be a part of the solution.
Posted by: Greg at
10:11 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 2 kb.
Why The Fire Response Is So Good
I've not written much about the California wildfires, but I've certainly been praying about them -- I've got family in the area, and have been sent some really chilling pictures of fires on hillsides.
I have, however, gotten into more than one argument over why the evacuation and housing of those displaced is different.
Some will be tempted to attribute the quick action exclusively to race. After all, San Diego County, where most of the more than 800,000 wildfire evacuees live, is predominantly white (66 percent) and well-to-do (9 percent poverty rate) compared to the mostly African American (67 percent) and poor (28 percent poverty rate) victims of New Orleans. But that would be simplistic.
Because of well-organized disaster preparedness planning at the state and regional levels and drills that are continually performed, California is considered the gold standard of emergency response. After devastating fires in 2003, San Diego County invested in the automated reverse 911 system, which this week urged San Diego County residents to evacuate. And Californians have something that Louisianans, in particular those in New Orleans, didn't have when they needed it most: leadership, in this case from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the San Diego mayor on down. That there have been just five fatalities in an inferno that has burned an area twice the size of New York City shows what can result from clear and coordinated leadership.
These fires are regularly occurring events. They have plans to deal with them, and are not afraid to implement them. And everybody does communicate. Race, ethnicity, and socio-economic status are not even a factor in this equation.
And besides -- do those who want to argue that the response to Katrina was incompetent insist that every disaster get the same sort of response? Or would they prefer that we as a nation have learned from the mistakes of 2005?
Posted by: Greg at
10:07 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.
Think Before Sending!
Do you really want that email read by just anyone? After all, it can happen, either through your mistake or the forwarding habits of others.
First, letÂ’s make one thing clear. Does the local superintendent of schools want to kill any of her teachers? No, she does not.
In fact, for the most part, residents seem relatively pleased with the performance of the Catskill schools superintendent, Kathleen P. Farrell, who in less than three years has gained a reputation as a can-do presence in a tough job.
* * *
Back and forth the discussion went, until Oct. 3, when Dr. Farrell wrote an e-mail message to the district’s director of facilities, John Willabay. She vented a bit and then allowed: “Please go KILL these people....Please, please, please.”
Then she sent it — not just to him — but, accidentally, to an unknown number of others as well, including Terri Dubuke, a sixth-grade teacher who was one of the critics. Ms. Dubuke read it in shock and referred it to the teachers’ union, and the matter was discussed at a closed-door school board meeting on Oct. 17.
It is stuff like this that causes our principal to caution us regularly at faculty meetings about being too quick to respond in anger or with a sarcastic tone.
But my question is this -- why does Farrell still have her job? After all, the head of the district union points out the disparity in treatment.
“If a student had written that, we would have been under lockdown and the student would have been escorted from the building,” she said. “Same thing if it had been a teacher. But when you have the person doing the policing writing it, none of that happens.”
Not only would a student or teacher have been escorted from the building, it is quite likely that a kid would have been expelled or a teacher fired. After all, we must have zero tolerance for threats of violence, even silly, blowing off steam type of threats that are not threats at all. Otherwise the little sociopath in third period could claim discrimination when his "People to slay" list is found along with detailed plans on how to assault the school.
Shouldn't the rules apply to everyone? And if not, doesn't that show the silliness of the zero tolerance rule?
JezebelÂ’s Seal
It appears that they may have found the seal of one of the most infamous women of the Bible.
An ancient seal that surfaced in Israel more than four decades ago belonged to the biblical Queen Jezebel, according to a new study released on Tuesday by a Dutch university.
The seal, which some scholars date to the ninth century BCE, was first discovered in 1964 by the Israeli archeologist Nahman Avigad, with the name "Yzbl" inscribed in ancient Hebrew, Utrecht University said.
Although it was initially assumed that the seal belonged to Jezebel, the powerful and reviled Phoenician wife of the Jewish King Ahab, there was uncertainty regarding the original owner both because the spelling of the name was erroneous, and because the personal seal could easily have belonged to another woman of the same name.
Moreover, the unknown origin of the seal, which was not found in an official excavation but purchased on the antiquities market in Israel, has left Israeli archeologists uncertain of its ownership for the last 40 years.
But the study by Utrecht University Old Testament scholar and Protestant minister Dr. Marjo Korpel, 48, concludes that the seal must have belonged to Jezebel, based on the symbols that appear on it.
Will it ever be possible to authenticate the seal with 100% certainty? No, it won’t – but once again, we have archaeological evidence that seems to corroborate the existence of biblical figures. And while that doesn’t “prove” that the Bible is 100% accurate, it does show that it contains at least some elements of historical truth not available elsewhere.
1
Now this is cool!
Might I make something of the irony that proof of Jezebel's existence is found the year Hillary Clinton is running for POTUS?
SJ Reidhead
The Pink Flamingo
Posted by: SJ Reidhead at Wed Oct 24 12:10:36 2007 (9M3RG)
Another Chinese Space Advance
Does this signal that China will have men on the moon before the US returns there?
China has launched its first lunar orbiter, on a planned year-long exploration mission to the Moon.
The satellite, named Chang'e 1, took off from the Xichang Centre in south-west China's Sichuan province at 1800 local time (1000 GMT).
Analysts say it is a key step towards China's aim of putting a man on the Moon by 2020, in the latest stage of an Asian space race with Japan and India
Earlier this month, a Japanese lunar probe entered orbit around the Moon.
India is planning a lunar mission for April next year.
NASA says it is on path to a 2020 return to the Moon – but we have spent the last couple of decades concerned with the Space Shuttle and not manned exploration beyond earth orbit. And after the Moon comes Mars – will the Red Planet see a Red Chinese flag before the arrival of the Red, White and Blue? And what of the other spacefaring nations – India and Japan? Are they interested in manned programs or not?
Posted by: Greg at
10:17 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.
What A Pity He DidnÂ’t Mean It
Too bad – I might have considered breaking my pledge not to vote for John McCain if he had.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain told workers of small weapons factory that he not only wants to catch Osama Bin Laden if elected, but said he "will shoot him with your products".
"I will follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell and I will shoot him with your products," McCain said.
You know, I like the image of an American president personally dispatching the archfiend of al-Qaeda to Hell with an American-made weapon. Heck, IÂ’d vote for Hillary if she would make that commitment. Especially if she promised to do it live on national television.
1
You should take a look at the Wounded Warriors Project. It raises awareness for severely wounded combat U.S. combat veterans in Iraq and Afghanistan. It really puts a face on the cost of this war. Here's a link:
http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/aarwebshow
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff at Thu Oct 25 18:26:41 2007 (0KQTy)
2
I've supported and promoted the group here in the past.
And having grown up in a military family during Vietnam, I am well-aware of the cost of war.
But that still doesn't speak to the issue of whether the war is right or wrong.
Bravo Tancredo!
And shame on Dick Durbin. After all, Congressman Tancredo was precisely right in his call to enforce our nationÂ’s immigration laws in the very building where they were made.
Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado, a Republican presidential candidate whose fierce opposition to illegal immigration is the center of his campaign, contacted the immigration service yesterday demanding that agents raid a senatorÂ’s news conference.
“If we can’t enforce our laws inside the building where American laws are made, where can we enforce them?” Mr. Tancredo said in a statement.
Now as it turns out, the participants in the press conference for this misguided piece of amnesty legislation are all holders of temporary legal status, despite having come to this country illegally. But Tancredo’s point is spot on – members of the legislative branch should not be permitted to flout the nation’s laws by bringing lawbreakers into the Capitol itself. Such flagrant disrespect for the law is unacceptable, and a call for the enforcement of the law is appropriate.
Which is why Dick Durbin showed why he is a disgrace to the state of Illinois and unfit to serve in the Senate.
“Congressman, have you no shame?” Mr. Durbin said in a statement, indirectly comparing Mr. Tancredo to Senator Joseph McCarthy and his anti-communist hearings in the 1950s.
What is shameful about demanding that the laws made by Congress be enforced in the very building where they were passed by a majority of both houses? How on earth is this comparable to the oft-caricatured excesses of Joseph McCarthy, who was at least right on one point despite all his excesses – as has now been extensively documented, there was an extensive infiltration of the United States government by Communist operatives directly or indirectly in the service of the Soviet Union.
Of course, Durbin is the same guy who compared our own troops to Nazis, Soviet gulag guards, and the murderous Khmer Rouge. It is clear that it is he who has no shame – and so should be regarded accordingly.
Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) vowed yesterday to block the renomination of a government energy board's chief until the Bush administration scales back its push for new high-voltage power lines in his state.
Casey took to the Senate floor to declare that he would put a hold on the renomination of Joseph T. Kelliher as chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. He denounced the boundaries of a "national interest electric transmission corridor" to promote the construction of new power lines in the Mid-Atlantic states.
The corridor, finalized earlier this month, includes most of Pennsylvania as it stretches from Virginia north to Upstate New York. It marks the first time the government has used new powers granted under an energy bill passed in 2005.
Senator, it is an unfortunate reality that your state sits right between New York and Virginia. That means, for better or for worse, that the transmission lines must cross your state as part of the national power grid. If you are that opposed to allowing it to do so, perhaps we can accommodate you by cutting off the Pennsylvania from our nations’ power supply – something that I’m sure many Pennsylvanians will object to come January when the temperatures drop into single digits. But if you want to cripple the energy distribution network, you and your state need to be taken out of it completely.
Posted by: Greg at
10:08 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.
Immigration Showdown
Once again, the Democrats in Congress want to impose a nightmare, called the DREAM Act, upon the American people -- creating one more incentive for illegal immigration.
Mickey Kausnotes some of the problems with the bill -- even while dispelling some incorrect claims about the proposal.
Turning on the 'Kids Magnet': Sen. Reid has filed for cloture on the Dream Act, meaning a vote could come tomorrow (Wednesday). My problems with the proposed law--which would in effect grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens under 30 who can claim they came into the country before they turned 16--are outlined here. Both proponents and opponents are activating switchboard-flooding measures. Askew has a list of allegedly undecided senators. ... Here's a list from Numbers USA. ... Here is an estimate of the number of illegal immigrants who'd qualify from Steven Camarota. ...
P.S.: Applicants would have to live in the U.S. for five years and eventually graduate from high school or get a GED. But Numbers USA claims that the bill would "be a rolling amnesty drawing more illegal aliens here in the future to apply for amnesty." [E.A.] Is it possible that the bill has no cutoff date--no requirement that applicants have entered the country before such and such a day--meaning that it would function as a formal standing offer to people in other countries who might be thinking of coming here illegally in the future: 'Sneak across the border before your kids get too olad and they will get legalized'? ... Even the recently-defeated Kyl-Kennedy "comprehensive immigration reform" had a nominal cutoff date, but I don't see one in the text of the DREAM Act. I must be missing something. Or have the bill's opponents buried the lede? ...
Update--Asked and Answered: Thomas Maguire is a closer reader of the law than I am, and emails to note that the bill does require (in section 3 (a)(1)(A) ) that an illegal immigrant have lived here for five years "immediately preceding the date of enactment of this Act." So there does appear to be a cutoff. ... The bill still acts as a magnet, of course, because a) future illegals know that if they come now another compassionate DREAM Act is likely to be passed in future years, and b) there are ample possibilities for fraud--claiming that you were here before the deadline and daring the authorities to disprove it.
And Kaus gets it exactly right in that last paragraph
I remember the Simpson-Mazzoli Act in the 1980s -- the one-time, never-again amnesty bill wrongly supported by Ronald Reagan. It was supposed to end the immigration problem forever -- and today we have 5-10 times ads many illegal immigrants in America as we did 25 years ago, all clamoring for grants of US citizenship (or at least permanent legal status). We've been down this path, and seen it doesn't work. This will simply draw the next generation of illegals waiting for "compassion" from the bleeding-hearts.
Besides, what is the result of giving these folks citizenship? They gain the immediate right to bring in the parents who broke the law by coming here in the first place -- sort of the equivalent (to use a somewhat inexact analogy) of allowing the family of a bank robber to keep the interest on the fruits of his crime, or a drug dealer's kids to keep the house and car bought with the proceeds of his illegal acts.
1. No Amnesty. Do not provide legal status to illegal aliens. Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States. In some cases, those law-abiding and aspiring immigrants have been waiting for several years.
2. Attrition through Enforcement. Reduce the number of illegal aliens through increased enforcement against unauthorized alien workers and their employers. Without illegal employment opportunities available, fewer illegal aliens will attempt to enter the country, and many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home. Self-deportation can also be maximized by stepping up the enforcement levels of other existing immigration laws. This course of action offers a reasonable alternative to the false choices currently proposed to deal with the 12 million or more aliens already in the U.S. illegally: either arrest and deport them all, or give them all amnesty. Attrition through enforcement is a more reasonable and achievable solution, but this approach requires additional resources for enforcement and border security ...
4. Reduce the Jobs Incentive. Ensure employee verification by requiring that all U.S. employers use the Department of Homeland Security's electronic database (the E-Verify system) to confirm that a prospective employee is authorized to work in the U.S. Now that the technology is proven, provide sufficient resources to make the system as thorough, fast, accurate, and easy-to-use as possible.
5. Bolster Border Security. Finish building the 854-mile wall along the border by 2010 as required by 8 USC 1103. Extend the wall beyond that as appropriate and deploy new technologies and additional resources to enhance detection and rapid apprehension along our borders by 2012.
In other words, real borders, real enforcement, and the denial of incentives to come or to stay. This is the position that is popular with the GOP base, and with the American people at large. We welcome immigrants -- but only those who come here in compliance with American law. I'm open to increasing the number of openings for legal immigration, but not until we get a handle on the problem of illegal immigration and those who have already jumped the border.
My one complaint -- not enough in the way of employer sanctions. I've got no problem with seeing HR staff, business owners, and corporate executives frog-marched out the door and stuffed into waiting squad cars after their arrests for facilitating the violation of immigration laws by employing illegals. And i don't care what party these folks give to -- we need to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders.
Of course, my fundamental immigration proposal has always been:
Round 'em up! Ship 'em back! Rawhide!
Posted by: Greg at
10:43 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1036 words, total size 8 kb.
We Need More Schools Like This
I've said it before -- we try to send too many folks to college. The result is that kids who would do well in a trade sort of tune out a high school curriculum that they don't see as relevant to them.
“How many of you guys got a hooptee, raise your hand?” Carlos Caraballo asked his senior auto shop at Automotive High School in Brooklyn.
A dozen boys, roughly half the class, raised their hands and began discussing their hooptees. The term is street slang for a cheap, functional car favored by city youths who often tinker tirelessly to make the car a speedster.
Hooptee repair prowess is not the guiding mission at Automotive High, in the Greenpoint section of Brooklyn, but it is a fringe benefit, said Mr. Caraballo, who teaches auto mechanics at the school, the largest auto trade school in the nation.
Besides training in repairing cars and other aspects of the industry, Automotive offers a regular high school education.
Why am I such a big fan of programs like the one at Automotive High? Maybe it has to do with seeing kids at my school light up when they talk about their co-op (our name for the vocational program) classes, and the skills they are learning there. Or maybe it is having seen the good such programs do during the years, after his retirement from the Navy, when my dad ran a Job Corps center on the West Coast. But either way, I know that we have too many students for whom college is either not an option or not their choice. Let's go back to the days when we had an educational program for them, one that got them both the basic skills they needed to be a literate, functional, educated member of society AND the skills they needed to function in the workplace.
Posted by: Greg at
10:15 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.
Bush To Call For Transition To Freedom In CubaThe Cuban People, not Raul Castro, must chart the nation's path after Fidel Castro receives his infernal reward.
President Bush is planning to issue a stern warning Wednesday that the United States will not accept a political transition in Cuba in which power changes from one Castro brother to another, rather than to the Cuban people.
As described by an official in a background briefing to reporters on Tuesday evening, Mr. Bush’s remarks will amount to the most detailed response — mainly an unbending one — to the political changes that began in Cuba more than a year ago, when Fidel Castro fell ill and handed power to his brother Raúl.
The speech, scheduled to be given at the State Department before invited Cuban dissidents, will introduce the relatives of four Cuban prisoners being held for political crimes. A senior administration official said the president wanted to “put a human face,” on Cuba’s “assault on freedom.”
Cuba has been under the yoke of Communism for longer than I have been alive. Cubans have been scheming to escape that terrible oppression for all of that time -- even though their country has gotten the Michael Moore Seal of Approval when the USA has not.
Cuba will be free again, and in my lifetime. I still hope to see Fidel -- or at least Raul -- end up like Mussolini.
Posted by: Greg at
10:02 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.
He Says Osama; You Say Obama
These slip-ups are really not surprising, given that we have a presidential candidate with an unusual name that is only a single letter off from the name of our terrorist enemy.
In a slip of the tongue, Republican Mitt Romney accused Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama of urging terrorists to congregate in Iraq.
In the midst of criticizing Obama and other Democrats on foreign and economic policy Tuesday, the GOP presidential hopeful said:
"Actually, just look at what Osam — Barack Obama — said just yesterday. Barack Obama, calling on radicals, jihadists of all different types, to come together in Iraq. That is the battlefield. ... It's almost as if the Democratic contenders for president are living in fantasyland. Their idea for jihad is to retreat, and their idea for the economy is to also retreat. And in my view, both efforts are wrongheaded."
Romney apparently was referring to an audiotape aired Monday in which a speaker believed to be terrorist Osama bin Laden called for insurgents in Iraq to unite and avoid divisions. The authenticity of the tape aired on Al-Jazeera television could not be immediately confirmed.
Romney was addressing a Chamber of Commerce meeting. Spokesman Kevin Madden said: "He misspoke. He was referring to the audiotape of Osama bin Laden and misspoke. It was just a mix-up."
Now let's remember that the first major screw-up in this regard was made by Ted Kennedy, so there really is not any reason to claim partisan motivations. And remember as well that Romney had been talking about the presidential candidate when he made the switch to discussing the terrorist leader -- hence the mental slip that led to the verbal slip.
Oh, yeah -- and the fact that Obama's support for the cut-and-run-and-surrender policy of the Left does, in fact, encourage terrorists to gather in Iraq to come together to defeat America.
Posted by: Greg at
09:43 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.
A South Carolina high school freshman has been expelled from school for possession of a butter knife.
Amber Dauge was by all accounts a good student at Goose Creek High School. She had joined the Junior ROTC program and was a member of the school's chorus. But she says officials have overreacted to an honest mistake.
"I know I made a really stupid decision, but I don't think I should be expelled for it," Amber told WCIV-TV, the ABC affiliate in Charleston, which first broke the story.
"She was at home making toast and she looked up, saw the clock, and said, "Oh I'm going to be late," her stepfather, Steven Heinz, explained to ABC News' Law & Justice Unit.
"She ran out the door and locked herself out with the butter knife still in her hand."
"Now, she could have rang the doorbell and got us up and left the butter knife at home," Heinz said.
"And she could have dropped the knife on the porch, I guess. And I guess she could have, when she got to school, walked in and turned it in [school officials] Â… but she left it in her locker and forgot about it."
Heinz said Amber opened her locker a week later, and the butter knife fell out. A fellow student made a wisecrack about the knife that was overheard by a teacher, who reported it to school officials, according to Heinz.
Amber was immediately suspended for five days, pending an expulsion hearing that officials say was mandatory under by the school's "zero tolerance" policy toward weapons or potential weapons.
I love the fact that they are giving the girl a hearing prior to the mandatory expulsion, after which the letter was mailed on the same afternoon, indicating that there was already a decision made prior to the hearing.
One school official makes it clear that this was essential, given the heinous nature of AmberÂ’s offense.
"It's not what we would consider to be a traditional butter knife," Bailey told ABC News. "Even though it's blunt on the end, it does have a serrated edge."
Bailey acknowledged Amber's clean disciplinary record — beyond a minor uniform infraction. "Despite the fact that the student was an exceptional student, this has nothing to do with how good she was in the classroom. She was in possession of a knife."
Oh, heavens – a serrated edge! Sounds like the knives my wife and I use for dinner each night. I mean, she might have been able to engage in an act of violence like slicing a banana or cutting a sandwich in public! She had to go, especially given the flagrant disregard for uniform policies in the past. This child is clearly a menace to society who should be locked up!
At least the administrative ass in question does have some compassion for the family.
"Certainly, if it was my child, I would have a different perspective," she said. "But if you're a school administrator, your perspective has to be broader. You have to consider the safety of the entire student population."
What a moron – there was no safety issue here. But in the interest of making sure that no parent after a student starts hacking up classmates with a samurai sword, anything that bears a vague resemblance to a dangerous weapon (including a harmless kitchen utensil) must be banned and harshly punished.
1
Shoot, in pinch I could use my belt, glasses, shoe laces, hard cover books, and a chair as a weapon. But zero tolerance laws have little to do with logic.
I don't think I'd made it through school since ALL my friends used to carry a jackknife to school. On a school camping trip we all took our hunting knives. And the horrors of horrors, a buddy brought a Rambo knife to school to show off. This doesn't count the times my teacher would come to school with a .30-30 in his gunrack of his pick-up...and some how nothing ever happened other than a couple of fist fights.
Posted by: Dakotaranger at Tue Oct 23 18:00:28 2007 (2uGJ4)
2
I just taught my boys how to whittle this summer, but even though they were thrilled and wanted to show their friends at school, I had to explain how that's now considered a *weapon*.
I understand, but still it saddened me.
Posted by: Ms. V at Wed Oct 24 08:20:20 2007 (vckGe)
3
It's a shame that adults in charge have lost any idea of common sense. Instead they plan to ruin this girl's life and reputation over this incident. Aren't we in the business of teaching? What does this teach our children? This teaches them to hide things, and lie. We are supposed to teach our children the art of critical thinking. Yet, this kind of actions show that everything is black or white and we don't need any kind of critical thinking.
Posted by: Pat at Sun Oct 28 02:46:15 2007 (zwETM)
What To Do With Nazi War Criminals Six Decades Later
The Austrians are facing this issue right now – and not to the satisfaction of some groups tracking those involved in documenting the Holocaust.
She seems harmless enough now, the elderly figure in a dressing gown peering round the door to her flat.
Erna Wallisch, an 85-year-old grandmother, rarely ventures out, spending her days drinking coffee and being cared for by her family.
But the image she presents belies a dark past which has put her seventh on the Simon Wiesenthal Centre's list of most-wanted Nazi war criminals still at large.
Under Austria’s laws, the statute of limitations has run out on Wallisch’s crimes. But are there some crimes that deserve no statute of limitations? Is there no place else that she could be prosecuted – perhaps Poland or Israel? How long should participation in crimes against humanity be subject to punishment – or should such individuals be subject to the perpetual threat of punishment for their participation in genocide?
Posted by: Greg at
12:36 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.
To this end, Romney should give not "the Kennedy speech" but his own account of the religious question. He needs to explain how he can fairly ask that we not hold his faith against him, even as he insists that religious people should vote for him because of the values his faith has taught him. Mormonism should not be an issue. Consistency is another matter.
Dionne is right -- Romney should not give "the Kennedy speech". After all, that speech was a cave-in to the forces of bigotry in the name of political expidiency. JFK argued that yes, everything that the bigots had said about Catholics was true, but he would be an "Uncle Pat" and not act that way.
What Romney needs to do is stand up and extol the religious diversity and pluralism of this nation -- and point to the fact that it is shared values and policy preferences that matter, even if the basis for those values are different. He should point to the fact that Mormons participate in our nation's political life on all sides of the debate, free from Church interference -- from Harry Reid on the Left to Orrin Hatch on the Right. As such, he should insist upon being judged by the policies he proposes and the character he demonstrates, not the sign in front of his house of worship.
1
What Romney needs to do is stop changing his mind and pandering to the religious right. If the republicans do not put a conservative up for election, they have no chance of winning. Religion won in 04, it is the only chance they have in 08.
Quiz: Who do you call when deciding if to bomb Iran or not?
Answer: Your Lawyers. (Awesome)
Posted by: PeachPit at Tue Oct 23 02:50:21 2007 (m9tb8)
NAME: Greg
AGE: 40-Something
SEX: Male
MARITAL STATUS: Married
OCCUPATION: World History Teacher
LOCATION: Seabrook, TX
DISCLAIMER: All posts reflect my views alone, and not the view of my wife, my dog, my employer, or anyone else. All comments reflect the view of the commenter, and permitting a comment to remain on this site in no way indicates my support for the ideas expressed in the comment.