Ian Stuart Donaldson Skrewdriver

Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

Eddie Griffin: ‘Red-neck, racist Republicans’ won’t do a thing ‘as long there’s a black face in the White House’

Wednesday, April 24th, 2013

Eddie Griffin says the political culture in Washington, D.C., is the worst he’s seen in his three decades of doing comedy.


During a phone interview from Las Vegas, Griffin talked about the Boston Marathon bombings, being a father, the media, Big Brother and his frustrations with the Capitol.

Griffin wasn’t terrible talkative during a phone interview last week prior to his performance at the Kalamazoo State Theatre at 8 p.m. on Friday. That is, until Congress came up.

Griffin said his material will vary depending on what’s going on in his life.

So what’s going on in your life?

“None of your business. You’ll have to wait until the show,” he said.

Attempts to rephrase the question prompted him to say, “You’re truly a reporter. You’re truly an in-depth reporter … Man, I wish they had reporters like that who grilled them politicians.”

He said Congress is acting like two 6-year-old children. He said he thinks the whole country is frustrated with them. He then mimicked two kids fighting over a ball.

“How about doing a budget? And act like grown folks. Everyone else has a budget in their house. What the hell is wrong with them,” he said.

When asked to categorize the political climate in the context of his 30 years as a comedian, Griffin didn’t hold back.

“It has never been this bad. What it is is flat-out racism. Period. Them red-neck, racist Republicans ain’t going to do a damn thing as long as there’s a black face in the White House. And watch, as soon as Obama walks up out of there, ‘Oh all of a sudden we can sign everything,'” Griffin said.

Did Griffin anticipate that when Obama was elected?

“Of course, man. This is America. What are you talking about? … I was born black in this country. Trust me, I’ve seen the government,” he said.

Do you have any Republican friends?

“Of course,” he said.

What do you say to them when you go out for dinner?

“We don’t talk politics. When we sit down to eat, we don’t talk politics. We talk about the menu. The steak or the lobster?” he said.

In his Comedy Central special, 2011’s “You Can Tell ‘Em I Said It,” Griffin has a segment where he jokes about claims that racism is dead. In last week’s interview Griffin said he thought the notion was first floated by the media in the last two year’s of George W. Bush’s presidency. It continues through Obama’s tenure. Why does he think the media pushed the idea?

“So that racism can be a hidden agenda. You know the old saying: ‘Better the evil you know than the evil you don’t know?’ I like racism above the ground so it can be dealt with, but when it’s subversive and subjugated, it gets real dangerous,” he said.

He then mentioned the Tea Party.

The Tea Party ain’t nothing but the Klan in street clothes. I liked ’em better when they were in the sheets, at least I could spot them,” he said.

Griffin distrust of the government also extends to the media. Griffin said relies on a number of news outlets, because none of them are telling the truth.

“You have to watch CNN, MSNBC, Fox and then the local news and then Al Jazeera. The truth is somewhere in the middle, because all of them are lying. It’s what they’re not saying that’s really going on,” Griffin said. “What they’re saying is called television programming. They’re telling you this is the program. You are being programmed.”

Griffin also expressed concern about Big Brother.

“They’re putting cameras on every street corner without asking the public if we want to watch every five f—–‘ seconds. … The public has got to stand up and be counted,” he said.

Do you think the public will?

“Oh yeah. If you corner a rat, it’s going to bite you. Eventually the people will feel cornered enough and there will be a wrap on that b——-,” he said.


Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

North Alabama walk-on football player dismissed after racist tweet about Barack Obama

Thursday, December 20th, 2012

FLORENCE, Ala. — The University of North Alabama says a walk-on football player won’t be allowed back on the team after sending a tweet about President Barack Obama.

Sports publicist Jeff Hodges said Monday coaches have informed lineman Bradley Patterson of Red Bay that he’s no longer welcome because of his social media comment.

Obama’s speech bumped Sunday Night Football off NBC briefly, resulting in a racist tweet from a North Alabama walk-on player who was quickly dismissed. (AP Photo)

“Take that (expletive) off the tv, we wanna watch football!” Patterson posted on Twitter.

Hodges says coaches acted after being informed of a message that refers to Obama by a racial epithet. The tweet complained that Obama’s speech about the Connecticut school massacre pre-empted an NFL game Sunday night.

Hodges says the school found that there’s no question the tweet was issued by Patterson. Patterson couldn’t be reached by The Associated Press for comment Monday.


Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

The Meaning of Minority

Wednesday, December 19th, 2012

America’s white majority just bought itself another year.

According to census figures released Wednesday, 2043 is now the year that whites will no longer make up the majority of Americans. That’s one year later than previous projections.

We as a society must begin to consider now what this change will mean for a nation mired in a majority/minority swamp of privilege, expectations, historical benefits and systematic discrimination.

The browning of America is very real and unrelenting. Our task is to find a way to move into this new Ecru Era with as much ease and grace as we can muster.

An April 2011 report from the Metropolitan Policy Program (M.P.P.) at the Brookings Institution found that all but two of the 10 largest metro areas in the country have child populations in which white children are a minority. (Boston and Philadelphia were the exceptions.) Of the remaining eight metro areas, Hispanic children are the largest demographic in six, and blacks are the largest in the other two.

As Hua Hsu, a professor at Vassar College, posited in The Atlantic in 2009: “What will the new mainstream of America look like, and what ideas or values might it rally around? What will it mean to be white after ‘whiteness’ no longer defines the mainstream? Will anyone mourn the end of white America? Will anyone try to preserve it?”

On election night, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly said that ”the white establishment is now the minority.” The question is whether this should be a reason for lamentation or celebration. Or neither.

In September, a white student named Matthew Heimbach at Towson University caused a bit of an uproar when The Baltimore Sun reported that he was “gathering support” to start a white student union on campus. The newspaper pointed out: “His former group, Youth for Western Civilization, had sparked controversy with its public displays against Islam, same-sex marriage and multicultural education. That group disbanded after it lost the support of its faculty sponsor, but Heimbach said he hopes his new organization will promote white identity without disparaging other people.”

Now, putting Youth for Western Civilization’s intolerance aside for a moment (if that’s possible), we must ask: when will public displays of white pride become culturally acceptable? Will they forever be freighted with the weight of history—tantamount to gloating about privilege? Or should all racial and cultural pride be viewed more or less the same?

The Sun quoted Heimbach as saying, “It comes a point where we’re not directly involved in what happened centuries ago and our culture just perpetuates the guilt cycle.” He continued, “We want to provide a positive view of white identity.”

Is that offensive? Or fair play in light of where the country is heading?

There will most likely be a growing rub between traditional power structures and emerging ones, much of which will be visible along racial lines but also along gender and sexual identity lines. A great deal of that friction boils down to simple economics. As a July 2011 Pew Research Center report pointed out: “The median wealth of white households is 20 times that of black households and 18 times that of Hispanic households.”

This wealth disparity plays into the national debate about the role of government, appropriate spending levels and rates of taxation.

And on a worrisome note, a recent Associated Press poll showed that since Barack Obama was elected in 2008, prejudice toward blacks has increased. According to the report: “In all, 51 percent of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in a similar 2008 survey. When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56 percent, up from 49 percent during the last presidential election. In both tests, the share of Americans expressing pro-black attitudes fell.”

Furthermore, The A.P. found: “Most Americans expressed anti-Hispanic sentiments, too. In an A.P. survey done in 2011, 52 percent of non-Hispanic whites expressed anti-Hispanic attitudes. That figure rose to 57 percent in the implicit test. The survey on Hispanics had no past data for comparison.”

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Pressure Building for Immigration Amnesty

Wednesday, November 28th, 2012

Leaders from various evangelical organizations have sent letters to the president and members of Congress demanding action for the millions of illegal immigrants who have taken up residence in the U.S.

The letter maps out moral principles for reform and explains why evangelicals have called for reform in the first 92 days of President Obama’s second term.

“We are driven by a moral obligation rooted deeply in our faith to address the needs of immigrants in our country,” the letter reads. “Compassionate and just treatment of immigrants is a frequent topic in scripture. The Hebrew word for immigrant, ‘ger,’ occurs 92 times throughout the Bible.”

Dr. Richard Land, president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), says it seems evident that immigration reform is “the right thing to do.”

“There are lots of different opinions about this,” he acknowledges. “I believe it’s the right thing to do. It’s the moral thing to do.”

He asserts the letter calls for balanced immigration reform that respects the God-given dignity of every person, guarantees secure national borders, protects the unity of the immediate family, ensures fairness to taxpayers, and respects the rule of law. But it also establishes a path toward legal status and/or citizenship for those who qualify and wish to become permanent residents.

“If you want there to be a conservative majority in the country, it’s going to have to include large chunks of Hispanics,” Dr. Land points out. “You turn Hispanics away when you deny in-state tuition for the children of undocumented workers and . . . tell undocumented workers—some of whom have been here ten or 15 years—‘We’ve changed our mind. We haven’t been enforcing the law, but now we’re going to, and you have to go home.’ ”

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Pro-lifers are just ‘trying to build up the’ white race

Wednesday, November 14th, 2012

WASHINGTON. D.C., November 12, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – A commentator on MSNBC has said white people want to end abortion, because “they’re trying to build up the” white race.

On Saturday, MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry reviewed the declining portion of the electorate made up by white people and asked her panel about “ the demise of the white man.”

“It’s been weird to watch white people report on this,” said CBS contributor Nancy Giles.

“When you just showed that graph of the decline of the numbers, I thought maybe that’s why they’re trying to eliminate all these abortions and stuff. They’re trying to build up the race.”

White voters made up 81 percent of the U.S. electorate in 2000, but only 72 percent in 2012.  The percentage is expected to keep falling.

The demographic shift allowed Barack Obama to be elected president with only 39 percent of white voters.

Perry responded to Giles by saying, “There’s always eugenics associated with these questions.”

The comment seemed ironic, as Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was an outspoken proponent of eugenicsspoke at a Ku Klux Klan rally, and referred to “dysgenic” populations as “human weeds.”

Abortion disproportionately affects the black population, a fact pointed out by Pastor Luke Robinson at the keynote speech at the 2011 March for Life. As much as 60 percent of unborn black babies are aborted in New York City.

Dr. Day Gardner told LifeSiteNews.com the decline in black population has hurt their political clout. In the 1960s, “everybody wanted to reach out to us and get our vote, especially the Democrats,” she said. “Now they are courting the Hispanics, because we are no longer the largest minority in the United States.”

“They’re saying we’re not as important, because we’re not that big voting bloc anymore,” she said.

The blogger William Teach wrote that it makes no sense for alleged racists “to make sure there are more Black, Latino, and other minority children not being aborted, so that the country will have more Black, Latino, and other minorities, because we hate Blacks, Latinos, and other minorities.”

Nevertheless, liberals frequently accuse the pro-life movement of sub rosa racism. Brian Fung wrotein The Atlantic that “an abortion ban” is really “an attack on women of a specific stripe: those from disadvantaged minorities and the poor.”

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Voodoo a Voo-Don’t in Slay Trial

Saturday, October 13th, 2012

There’ll be no “witch doctortestifying as an expert witness for a Senegalese-raised man who claims he fatally slashed his ex-girlfriend in her new boyfriend’s bed because a “curse” compelled him to, a judge ruled yesterday.

Cheikh Ndao had been set to testify on behalf of admitted killer Bakary Camara, and would have told jurors that, as an imam, he had on several occasions come across other West African people who’d been cursed—including a woman who couldn’t get pregnant until he had her drink Koran-blessed water.

“That makes him a witch doctor, in a sense,” Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan said after Ndao took the stand to tell his curse-lifting war stories in a pretrial hearing.

“I’ve come to the inescapable conclusion that it’s not even borderline close that he’s an expert,” Merchan said in barring the testimony.

Camara admits he slashed beautiful Italian college student Rita Morelli to death, but has claimed in a confession note that he was powerless to do otherwise.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Can GOP Survive Its ‘Minority Problem’?

Saturday, September 29th, 2012

Some Republican strategists are already preparing for the worst. The numbers, frankly, are dismal. Nearly 2 of every 3 Latinos favor President Obama to Mitt Romney. Voters in the gay and lesbian community favor Mr. Obama by the same margin. Women favor the president by 51 percent to 41 percent, according to an August NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. And African-Americans? One poll suggested that Mr. Romney is being skunked: 94 percent to 0 percent.

Clearly, the GOP has a minority problem. But Republican strategists aren’t just worried about November—they’re worried about the Novembers after that.

If demographic trends continue to swell the country’s minority population, and the GOP continues to struggle to grow its white, Protestant base, the Republican Party risks going the way of the Whigs it replaced in the 1850s. Already, some experts say, minorities are likely to swing this presidential election to Obama. And going forward, the arithmetic (as a certain former centrist president from red state Arkansas recently pronounced) says it all: This year, for the first time, births of nonwhites outnumbered births of whites in America, putting the United States on the road to becoming a majority-minority nation in three decades, the US Census Bureau reported. For the GOP, the rubber is finally hitting the road.

If it wants to remain competitive for power in Congress and the White House, the GOP knows it must make serious inroads with minorities, and soon. That means it must begin to change the policies that have defined—and isolated—it for a generation. Of course, doing that without alienating its base is easier said than done.

The demographics are compelling. The country’s minority population grew by 30 percent during the past decade, according to data from the 2010 Census, while the white population grew just 1 percent. In 1992, the minority vote made up 12 percent of the electorate. This year, it’s expected to be 28 percent.

“The tectonic plates of American politics are shifting,” writes Ruy Teixeira, a political demographer and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, in a paper prepared for a March 2010 “Future of the Parties” conference. “A powerful concatenation of demographic forces is transforming the American electorate and reshaping both major political parties.”

These changes have left “the GOP … on the wrong side of history, demographically speaking,” adds Allan Lichtman, a presidential historian at American University in Washington.

Not that the GOP isn’t trying to expand its appeal.

Its national convention in TampaFla., featured a string of speeches by so-called rising stars, including Cuban-American Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, Indian-American Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Cuban-American Senate nominee Ted Cruz, Haitian-American mayor and congressional nominee Mia Love, and Mexican-American New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez.

But the convention floor was notably short on minority delegates—as made obvious by the Democratic convention‘s technicolored rainbow of an audience a week later. It’s a portrait even conservative commentators have poked fun at, as when New York Times columnist David Brooks described the winter Olympics as “the second most Caucasian institution on earth, after the GOP.”

And that is at the core of why Romney and the GOP aren’t doing more to court minority voters for the November election. In short, say political watchers, they can’t.

“They have a substantive problem,” says Professor Lichtman. “To the extent they reach out substantively to minorities, they risk losing their base.”

This doesn’t mean the GOP can’t compete in November.

If the Romney campaign succeeds at framing the election as a referendum on Obama’s record and the lagging economy, the race could tip in Romney’s favor. And while Romney is struggling to attract the minority vote, he’s surging past Obama on the white vote—particularly the working-class white vote, where he beats Obama 59 to percent 37 percent, according to an August USA Today/Gallup poll.

“That’s why Romney’s hanging on,” says O’Connell. “The white working-class, blue-collar voters. That is essentially his base.”

In the future, a changing GOP will have to make strategic concessions to minorities, such as civil unions and comprehensive immigration reform—delicate moves that it must sell to its base in a tactical fashion, invoking states’ rights on civil unions and making an economic case for immigration reform, for example.

“The key for the GOP is to balance principle with practicality,” says O’Connell. “Whether it’s taxes, the Bible, we’ve got to be principled but practical . . . . A pivot away from pure ideology. We’re for limited government, we get it, but we can’t survive if we don’t change our tax code.”

In so doing, the party may lose some segments of its base, like “Teavangelicals” and others who vote strictly on social issues, but “there’s always going to be some trade-offs,” says O’Connell.

“It may take them a few elections, but the political logic of the situation will force them to change their tune,” says Teixeira. “Parties usually manage to adjust.”

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Black Flag of Islam Flies over U.S. Embassy in Tunisia as America Is Targeted by Angry Mobs Across the Globe in Day of Chaos

Sunday, September 16th, 2012

A black Islamic flag is flying over the U.S. embassy in Tunisia after it was stormed by a mob of protesters today – as anger at an American-made anti-Islam film resulted in chaos across the world.

Symbols of America and U.S. embassies have been targeted around the globe in a fourth day of protest after Tuesday’s deadly raid on the American consulate in Libya.

In Tunisian capital Tunis, a mob overran the U.S. embassy compound, scaling the walls and setting fire to cars before tearing down the Stars and Stripes and replacing it with the symbol of Islam.

No U.S. staff were in the embassy in the city, where an American school has also been set on fire.

A large cloud of black smoke rose around the U.S. embassy as stone-throwing protesters and police waged a pitched battle.

Thousands of demonstrators massed outside the embassy and several were seen climbing the outer wall of the embassy grounds and raising a flag on which was written the Muslim profession of faith.

The protesters chanted ‘Obama, Obama, we are all Osamas’.

One protester was seen throwing a computer out of a window, while others walked away with telephones and computers.

Police responded by firing tear gas, live rounds killing two protesters and wounding 28.

A group of several dozen protesters briefly managed to enter the embassy compound and set fire to cars in an embassy parking lot. They were pushed back outside by police and special forces who continued to arrive on the scene.

It was the worst incident in clashes around the world – with angry protesters ransacking a KFC and Hardee’s restaurant in Lebanon, police firing on protesters in Yemen, and unrest in SyriaIraqPakistanTurkey and Jerusalem.

In London, an American flag was burned outside the U.S. embassy by protesters

One protester was killed  in Lebanon and twenty five wounded by police who opened fire as they cracked down on the mob who turned their anger on the American fast food chains.

A KFC in the northern city of Tripoli was set alight after the mob – many wearing face masks- ransacked the interior.

In Sudan, the American embassy was also attacked and smoke could be seen rising from the compound. Officials said a mob had been expelled from the compound with one protester killed.

A spokesman said protesters had been ejected from the embassay in Sudan, adding ‘they didn’t get far’.

Elsewhere, police have fired on protesters outside the US embassy in Yemen today as a group of 2,000 attempted to march on the compound.

It also emerged that Libya had closed its air space over Benghazi airport temporarily because of heavy anti-aircraft fire by Islamists aiming at U.S. reconnaissance drones flying over the city, after President Barack Obama vowed to bring the ambassador’s killers to justice.

It adds to unrest in Bangladesh where tens of thousands have taken to the streets, and India – where there are widespread protests in Muslim Kashmir.

In Egypt‘s contested Sinai region, a mob stormed an international peacekeeping base injuring two Colombian troops while troops fired on protesters in Nigeria.

Protesters clashed with police near the U.S. embassy in Cairo. Two Islamist preachers in Egypt told worshippers that those who made the movie deserved to die under Islamic law but they urged protesters not to take their anger out on diplomats.

Sudanese police were reportedly fighting back up to five thousand protesters who had gathered outside the building in the North African country’s capital Khartoum. It is unclear how many staff were inside the mission, or whether they are all accounted for.

The same group have already stormed inside and set fire to the German embassy next door, before tearing down its national flag and hoisting the Islamic banner.

A spokesperson for the British Foreign Office said: ‘We can confirm that there is a protest outside the British embassy and Sudanese police are on scene.’

Since a 14-minute trailer for the movie, called The Innocence of Muslims, was posted on YouTube by its American producers, turmoil has spread across the Muslim world.

Protests have erupted in a string of countries across the Middle East and Africa, including Egypt, Lebanon, Qatar, Bangladesh, Kashmir, Pakistan, Bahrain, Palestine – as well as the Sudan.

Across the border, thousands of Egyptian protesters advanced on the US embassy near Tahrir Square in Cairo – in scenes potently reminiscent of the violent clashes that ravaged the city’s streets during the Arab uprising last year.

Hurling stones and shouting slogans at the phalanx of heavily-armed riot police that stood in their way, returning fire with volleys of tear gas and rubber bullets in a bid to keep the oncoming crowds at bay.

As the violence continued throughout the day, Egypt’s president Hosni Mubarak appealed for calm on live television, a day after Barack Obama issued a veiled warning to the region’s leaders to quell the violence and protect America’s embassies.

The Egyptian authorities had erected large concrete blocks to block the route to the embassy and deployed hundreds of police.

‘Before the police, we were attacked by Obama,’ shouted one demonstrator, blaming U.S. President Barack Obama and the U.S. government for insulting the Prophet.

One banner held aloft by demonstrators read: ‘It is the duty of all Muslims and Christians to kill Morris Sadek and Sam Bacile and everyone who participated in the film.’

Several demonstrators – some bearded Islamists wearing traditional gallabiya robes and others youths and young men in T-shirts and jeans – waved green and black flags with Koranic verses on them.

The unrest has raised serious questions over whether the US should cut the billions of dollars in aid it sends to Egypt.

Barack Obama has already issued a veiled warning of possible repercussions if those governments do not quell the unrest and protect America’s embassies.

On the subject of Egypt, which the US currently supplies over $1.5billion in aid, he told Telemundo: ‘I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.

‘They’re a new government that is trying to find its way. They were democratically elected. I think that we are going to have to see how they respond to this incident.’

And in an ominous sign this morning, the Libyan government closed the air space above Benghazi ‘for security measures’.

In the Lebanese city of Tripoli, hundreds of protesters set fire to a branch of Kentucky Fried Chicken, while chanting: ‘No More insults to Islam.’

There, one demonstrator was killed and two others were wounded as they tried to storm a government building.

In Bangladeshi capital Dhaka, around 10,000 Muslims from half a dozen Islamist groups staged a noisy protest, burning and trampling American flags while chanting anti-US slogans.

Yesterday, thousands of demonstrators engaged in running street battles with police in Egyptian capital Cairo, burning cars and hurling stones while an angry mob stormed the American consulate in Sanaa, in Yemen.

In Libyan capital Benghazi, a similar demonstration was reportedly hijacked by heavily-armed Muslim extremists resulting in the deaths of several Libyan security guards.

America is still reeling from an attack on Tuesday that saw a hoard of protesters storm the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing the ambassador and three American security guards.

Despite the belief that the militants who hit the consulate did so separately from the protests over the film, US officials are deeply concerned that extremists may again take advantage of non-violent demonstrations to copycat the Benghazi raid.

Meanwhile, a top Israeli Arab Knesset official Talab el-Sana warned of ‘Armageddon’ if the United Nations does not intervene, telling The Times of Israel: ‘If the UN does not mobilize to stop this erosion, it will be Armageddon.’

Egypt’s ruling Muslim Brotherhood have called for demonstrations after Friday prayers as did authorities in Iran and the Gaza strip.

Large protests were also expected in Baghdad and Iraq’s second-largest city, Basra, as well as Amman, Jordan. Israel was stepping up security in anticipation of demonstrations after Muslim prayers.

‘It is important to note that as these protests are taking place in different countries around the world, responding to the movie, that Friday, tomorrow, has historically been a day when there are protests in the Muslim world,’ White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters in Colorado.

‘And we are watching very closely for developments that could lead to more protests. We anticipate that they may continue.’

The offending short video behind the unrest was made by an American company and spoofs the life and times of the Prophet Muhammad.

But the White house was quick yesterday to condemn its content and its anonymous makers.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered an explicit denunciation of the video as the administration sought to pre-empt further turmoil at its embassies and consulates.

‘The United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video,’ she said before a meeting with the foreign minister of Morocco at the State Department. ‘We absolutely reject its content and message.’

‘To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible,’ Clinton said. ‘It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.’

While rejecting the content of the video, Clinton stressed that no matter how offensive it is, the film cannot be used as an excuse for violence like that seen in Egypt, where a mob breached the walls of the US Embassy in Cairo on Wednesday, and in Yemen, where demonstrators tried to storm the embassy compound in Sanaa on Thursday.

‘There is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence,’ Clinton said.

‘We condemn the violence that has resulted in the strongest terms. … It is especially wrong for violence to be directed against diplomatic missions. These are places whose very purpose is peaceful: to promote better understanding across countries and cultures.’

She then reminded foreign governments that they have a responsibility to protect embassies.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon followed suit, adding: ‘The hateful film that appears to have been deliberately designed to sow bigotry and bloodshed.’

The intelligence leading up to the attacks will be examined to ‘see if there was any way of forecasting this violence,’ as in any violent incident, House Intelligence Committee member Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said in an interview Thursday.

But he said the focus now ‘has to be on finding out who is responsible and bringing them to justice.’

US officials said they suspect that the attack at the Benghazi consulate, which had also been the target of an unsuccessful attack in June, may have been only tangentially related to the film.

They also stressed there had been no advance warning or intelligence to suggest a threat in Libya that would warrant boosting security, even on the 11th anniversary of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

‘As we did with all of our missions overseas, in advance of the September 11 anniversary and as we do every year, we did evaluate the threat stream and we determined that the security at Benghazi was appropriate for what we knew,’ State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said.

President Barack Obama, speaking a campaign event in Golden, Colorado, also vowed that the perpetrators would be punished.

‘I want people around the world to hear me,’ he said. ‘To all those who would do us harm: No act of terror will go unpunished. I will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.’

As of Thursday morning, there was no intelligence indicating that what happened in Benghazi was planned, according to two U.S. officials briefed on the investigation into the attack. Intelligence officials said they believe it’s more likely that the attack was ‘opportunistic or spontaneous,’ with militants taking advantage of the demonstration to launch the assault.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

US Ambassador Killed in ‘Coordinated Al Qaeda Revenge Attack by Terrorists Who Used Libyan Mohammed Movie Protest as Cover’

Thursday, September 13th, 2012

A bloody attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya that left American ambassador Christopher Stevens, two marines and a communications officer dead was a planned ambush by terrorists using a pro-Islam protest as cover, it has been claimed.

The victims died during a rocket attack when an armed mob set fire to the consulate in Benghazi after joining a protest over a ‘blasphemous’ film about the Prophet Mohammed.

It is believed a ‘small, vicious group’ of attackers used the protest as a diversion, although questions remain over whether the killers drummed up support for the march or simply took advantage of it, an official told CNN.

While it is not known exactly who was responsible for the rampage, a London think tank with strong ties to Libya said Stevens, who is not believed to have been targeted, could have been the victim of a revenge attack by al Qaeda.

The assault ‘came to avenge the death of Abu Yaya al-Libi, al Qaeda’s second in command killed a few months ago’ in Pakistan, think tank Quilliam told CNN, noting the rocket-propelled grenade launchers used in the attack do not normally appear at peaceful protests.

‘The military assault against the US Consulate in Benghazi should not be seen as part of a protest against a low budget film which was insulting Islam – there were just a few peaceful protesters present at the event,’ Quilliam said in a statement.

‘Indeed, there have been no other demonstrations regarding this film in Libya. We at Quilliam believe the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was a well-planned terrorist attack that would have occurred regardless of the demonstration, to serve another purpose.’

Officials also reportedly voiced their concern that the attack was timed for the 11th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, which were commemorated across the U.S. on Tuesday.

‘We’ve been talking for years about the desire of Al Qaeda, radical jihadists to celebrate the anniversary of 9/11,’ Pete Hoekstra, former chairman of the House intelligence committee, told FoxNews.com. ‘All my background, all of the conversations that I’ve had over the last 18 hours lead many people to believe that this was just more than a mere coincidence.’

He added that Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri recently released a video calling on militants to attacks Americans for revenge for the death in Pakistan – and that the anti-Mohammed film could have been a cover.

As speculations over what led to the attack intensify, President Barack Obama has deployed a team of 50 marines to the compound in Benghazi which was left ravaged by firebombs during the attack.

He could also command unmanned surveillance drones to fly over Benghazi in search of jihadi encampments possibly tied to the deadly attack, a U.S. official said. The drones, which would pass gathered information to Libyans, are expected to be approved by the Pentagon and White House shortly.

Christopher Stevens, 52, was at the compound evacuating staff when the building was stormed by 20 heavily-armed militants.

During a 20 minute fire fight, Libyan guards positioned inside the consulate managed to hold the attackers off as they sprayed the building with bullets before hurling a bomb inside. In the carnage, Sean Smith, a foreign service information management officer was shot dead.

Ambassador Stevens and his team made a desperate bid to flee by car to safety. But the vehicle came under heavy arms fire and was hit by a rocket, leaving it disabled and at the mercy of the mob.

Two marines attempted to aid Ambassador Stevens but were also shot dead, according to CBS.

Graphic images taken at the scene show civilians making desperate attempts to pull the diplomat to safety. But their efforts were futile.

Arab television station Al Jazeera today reported that Ambassador Stevens died of smoke inhalation, while the doctor who treated him said he died of severe asphyxiation, which caused stomach bleeding. He said Stevens had no other injuries.

The doctor, Ziad Abu Zeid, said Stevens was brought to the Benghazi Medical Center by Libyans on Tuesday night with no other Americans and that initially no one realized he was the ambassador. He tried for 90 minutes to revive him.

Stevens was a career diplomat who spoke Arabic and French and had already served two tours in Libya, including running the office in Benghazi during the revolt against Gaddafi. Five other US ambassadors have been killed in the line of duty, the last being Adolph Dubs in Afghanistan in 1979.

President Barack Obama today condemned the attack and paid tribute to the late Ambassador Stevens as he ordered increased security at diplomatic posts around the world.

‘It’s especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi as it’s a city that he helped to save,’ Obama said outside the White House.

With ‘characteristic skill, courage and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyans… and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy.

‘He was a role model to those who worked with him and to the young diplomats who strive to follow in his footsteps.

These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. We grieve with their families but let us carry on their memory… I have no doubt that their legacy will live on.’

He added: ‘The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms this outrageous and shocking attack. There is no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.’

In a statement, Hillary Clinton added : ‘I had the privilege of swearing in Chris for his post in Libya only a few months ago. He risked his own life to lend the Libyan people a helping hand to build the foundation for a new, free nation.’

She said they were still trying to contact the next of kin for the other two men.

The deaths will put huge pressure on the Libyan administration which took over after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi. Despite the West taking a key role in his overthrow, the country remains unstable and Islamic militants have moved into the power vacuum.

There are also huge questions about the security surrounding both Ambassador Stevens, who was believed to be in Benghazi for the opening of an American building, and the US diplomatic buildings in such a volatile country.

The attack came amid violence in Libya and Cairo, which had been sparked by a 14-minute trailer for a film called The Innocence of Muslims posted on YouTube.

In an original English version and another dubbed into Egyptian Arabic, Mohammed is depicted as a fraud, a womaniser and a madman, showing him having sex and calling for massacres.

It was made by Sam Bacile, a 56-year-old California real estate developer who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew – but who has reportedly been using a pseudonym. ‘Bacile’ said he had produced, directed and written the two-hour film which had only been shown once to a mostly empty theater in Hollywood earlier this year.

‘Islam is a cancer, period,’ he said in an interview yesterday, speaking after the State Department confirmed the death of an American in Benghazi.

He was apologetic about the killing but blamed lax embassy security and the perpetrators of the violence. ‘I feel the security system (at the embassies) is no good,’ said Bacile. ‘America should do something to change it.’

Lebanon’s Shi’ite militant group Hezbollah claimed the film was an attack on religious belief, reflecting Western policy and branded it an ‘immoral act which represents the highest degree of aggression against the highest human right … for respect of beliefs and sanctities.’

In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai slammed the film and, fearing another anti-US backlash, ordered the YouTube site to be shut until the video is taken down and the US Embassy in the capital Kabul appealed for help in ‘maintaining calm.’YouTube pulled the film on Wednesday.

The movie featured on Egyptian media reports for several days with ultraconservative clerics going on air to denounce it and also to attack Sadek, who they blamed for the film.

Matters came to a head yesterday when hundreds of mainly ultraconservative Islamist protesters in Egypt marched to the US Embassy in downtown Cairo, gathering outside its walls and chanting against the movie and the US.

Most of the embassy staff had left the compound earlier because of warnings of the upcoming demonstration.

The crowd chanted, ‘Islamic, Islamic. The right of our prophet will not die.’ Some shouted, ‘We are all Osama,’ referring to al-Qaida leader bin Laden.

Young men, some in masks, sprayed graffiti on the walls. Some grumbled that Islamist President Mohammed Morsi had not spoken out about the movie.

A group of women in black veils and robes that left only their eyes exposed chanted, ‘Worshippers of the Cross, leave the Prophet Mohammed alone.’

Dozens of protesters then scaled the embassy walls, and several went into the courtyard and took down the American flag from a pole. They brought it back to the crowd outside, which tried to burn it, but failing that tore it apart.

The protesters on the wall then raised on the flagpole a black flag with a Muslim declaration of faith, ‘There is no god but God and Mohammed is his prophet.’  The flag is commonly used by ultraconservatives around the region.

The Cairo embassy is in a diplomatic area in Garden City, where the British and Italian embassies are located, only a few blocks away from Tahrir Square, the center of last year’s uprising that led to the ouster of Mubarak.

The U.S. Embassy is built like a fortress, with a wall several metres high. But security has been scaled back in recent months, with several roadblocks leading to the facility removed after legal court cases by residents.

Trouble quickly spread to Libya where a group identifiying itself as the ‘Islamic Law Supporters’ attacked the consulate on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on American in protest at a film that they deemed blasphemous to the Prophet Mohammed.

A furious mob fired gunshots and then set the building alight as they clashed with Libyans hired to guard the facility. Outnumbered by the crowd, Libyan security forces did little to stop them, al-Sharef said.

Witnesses reported militants firing rocket-propelled grenades from a nearby farmhouse.

The situation rapidly deteriorated as the army tried to cordon off the area around the building and fought running battles with the attackers. But the crowd overwhelmed the facility, looting the contents.

‘I heard nearly 10 explosions and all kinds of weapons. It was a terrifying day,’ said a witness who refused to give his name because he feared retribution.

Order was eventually restored after three hours but there was very little of the consulate left. State Hillary Rodham Clinton strongly condemning the attack in a statement shortly after.

She said she had called Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif ‘to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya.’

‘Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,’ Clinton said in a statement released by the State Department.

‘The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.’

It was some hours later that it emerged Ambassador Stevens and three of his team had been killed.

Mitt Romney used the event as an opportunity to take aim at Obama, accusing the administration of a ‘severe miscalculation’ and calling its handling of the incident ‘akin to an apology’.

‘I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi,’ Romney said in a statement, when a single death had been reported. ‘It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.’

His comments referred to an earlier statement from the U.S. embassy in Cairo which condemned the anti-Islam film, which he said ‘reflects the mixed signals they’re sending to the world’ and which he likened to an apology of American values.

He added that Obama was responsible for the embassy statement – even though White House officials had distanced themselves from it on Tuesday.

‘We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack,’ Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, countered.

The brutal attacks on Tuesday night were the first such assaults on US diplomatic facilities in either country, at a time when both Libya and Egypt are struggling to overcome the turmoil following the ouster of their longtime leaders, Moammar Gadhafi and Hosni Mubarak, in uprisings last year.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

OUTRAGE: Illegal Aliens Obama Refused to Deport Committed 19 Murders, 142 Sex Crimes!

Wednesday, August 1st, 2012

The Obama administration declined to try to deport more than 36,000 illegal immigrants that were arrested on other charges between 2008 and 2011, including some who went on to commit 19 murders, 3 attempted murders and 142 sex crimes, the House Judiciary Committee said Tuesday.

All told, the administration was alerted to nearly 160,000 immigrants — most of them here legally — who were arrested during the three-year period. They went on to be charged in nearly 60,000 more crimes, according to the committee and the Congressional Research Service, which issued a report on the matter.

The findings stem from the Obama administration’s Secure Communities program, which was designed to identify immigrants who run afoul of the law and who the administration decides it wants to deport.

While hundreds of thousands have been sent back home under the program, 159,286 were not put in deportation proceedings during the period under review, CRS said.

About three quarters of those weren’t eligible for deportation because they were legal immigrants and their criminal records didn’t rise to the level of deportation, though nearly a quarter could have been deported, CRS said.

Those who could have been deported but were released later went on to commit the 19 murders, 3 attempted murders and 142 sex crimes, the Judiciary Committee said.

“The Obama administration could have prevented these senseless crimes by enforcing our immigration laws,” committee Chairman Lamar Smith said. “But President Obama continues to further his anti-enforcement agenda while innocent Americans suffer the consequences. His unwillingness to enforce immigration laws puts our communities at risk and costs American lives.”

Mr. Smith requested the CRS report, which used data he had subpoenaed from the Homeland Security Department.

The department didn’t immediately return a request for comment Tuesday morning.

Secure Communities has come under fire from both sides of the aisle.

Many Democrats say it casts its net too wide, which means illegal immigrants who have committed relatively minor offenses could be deported. But Republicans, led by Mr. Smith, say the administration is actually being too picky in those it chooses to deport, which results in criminals being released back onto the streets to commit more crimes.”

Wake up, America!

This president and the Democrat Party are willing to sacrifice the lives and safety of innocent Americans just to pander to illegal aliens for votes.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

School district won’t punish teacher over Nazi-Obama speech

Monday, July 30th, 2012

A Pennsylvania school district says a teacher was exercising his First Amendment rights during a speech in which he drew parallels between Nazi Germany and the United States under President Barack Obama.

Spring Cove School District officials say no disciplinary action will be taken against teacher Philip Waite for comments he made at a July 1 tea party rally in Blair County.

Democrats criticized Waite for the speech, in which he likened federal governmental power to Nazism.

Waite said Adolf Hitler was a “slick, quick talker” who told citizens “`you don’t need to worry about responsibility.”

Speaking after Waite, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Tom Smith said he spoke “eloquently” but later called his comments “divisive.”

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

No one at the White House will disclose their real policy on Israel

Monday, July 30th, 2012

Mitt Romney is visiting Israel to try to win over American Jews (80% voted for Obama in 2008). Obama sought to one up Romney by pledging an extra $70 million in US taxpayer dollars for Israeli defense. Yet no one at the White House will even disclose what their real policy on Israel even is. Obama’s latest $70 million aid packages come with new pledges of military support without asking for anything in return.

Watch the response by Obama’s press secretary to what is an extremely basic question about Obama’s foreign policy. This is reminiscent of when Obama repeatedly voted “present” on important issues in the Senate. Obama doesn’t want to go on record as supporting anything.

The US gives billions in US taxdollars to fund the armies of foreign nations. Israel was the leading beneficiary from 1976-2002. It is now in third place behind Afghanistan and Iraq. Other top beneficiaries are Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and Columbia. Note: This does not includes the tens of Billions used to “fund democracy” overseas.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Mitt Romney Would Restore ‘Anglo-Saxon’ Relations Between Britain and America

Friday, July 27th, 2012

Mitt Romney would restore “Anglo-Saxon” understanding to the special relationship between the US and Britain, and return Sir Winston Churchill’s bust to the White House, according to advisers.

As the Republican presidential challenger accused Barack Obama of appeasing America’s enemies in his first foreign policy speech of the US general election campaign, advisers told The Daily Telegraph that he would abandon Mr Obama’s “Left-wing” coolness towards London.

In remarks that may prompt accusations of racial insensitivity, one suggested that Mr Romney was better placed to understand the depth of ties between the two countries than Mr Obama, whose father was from Africa.

“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special,” the adviser said of Mr Romney, adding: “The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have”.

Mr Romney on Wednesday embarks on an overseas tour of Britain, Israel and Poland designed to quash claims by Mr Obama’s team that he is a “novice” in foreign affairs. It comes four years after Mr Obama’s own landmark foreign tour, which attracted thousands of supporters.

He lands in London early on Wednesday morning, in advance of meetings with David Cameron and other senior ministers on Thursday. He will also meet Ed Miliband and Tony Blair before attending two lucrative fundraisers and the opening ceremony of the Olympics.

He used a speech in Nevada on Tuesday to accuse the President of drastically weakening America’s stance towards rivals such as Russia, China and Iran while imposing “devastating” spending cuts on the US military.

“If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on earth, I am not your President,” he told the Veterans of Foreign Wars. “You have that President today”. Promising another “American century” in which the US acts as the global night watchman and does not hesitate to “wield our strength” when needed, he said: “I will not surrender America’s leadership in the world”.

Members of the former Massachusetts governor’s foreign policy advisory team claimed that as president, he would reverse Mr Obama’s priority of repairing strained overseas relationships while not spending so much time maintaining traditional alliances such as Britain and Israel.

“In contrast to President Obama, whose first instinct is to reach out to America’s adversaries, the Governor’s first impulse is to consult and co-ordinate and to move closer to our friends and allies overseas so they can rely on American constancy and strength,” one told the Telegraph.

“Obama is a Left-winger,” said another. “He doesn’t value the Nato alliance as much, he’s very comfortable with American decline and the traditional alliances don’t mean as much to him. He wouldn’t like singing ‘Land of Hope and Glory’.”

The two advisers said Mr Romney would seek to reinstate the Churchill bust displayed in the Oval Office by George W. Bush but returned to British diplomats by Mr Obama when he took office in 2009. One said Mr Romney viewed the move as “symbolically important” while the other said it was “just for starters”, adding: “He is naturally more Atlanticist”.

Mr Obama has appeared less interested in relations with London than Mr Bush. He repeatedly rebuffed Gordon Brown when the then-prime minister sought a meeting at the UN in 2009 and was criticised for responding to an elaborate gift with a set of DVDs that did not work in Britain.

A change in tone was reflected by the enthusiastic welcome extended to Mr Cameron during an official visit and dinner in March. However, British diplomats remain frustrated by their “transactional” relationship with the Obama White House and lack of support on issues such as the Falkland Islands.

Mr Romney has not made any commitments on the Falklands, but several in his foreign policy team favour backing Britain and publicly rejecting claims of sovereignty by Christina Kirchner, the Argentine president. Under Mr Obama the US remains neutral.

The advisers could not give detailed examples of how policy towards Britain would differ under Mr Romney. One conceded that on the European crisis: “I’m not sure what our policy response is.”

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Nearly 1200 official Georgia agencies in violation of state illegal immigration law – here is a list

Friday, June 29th, 2012

from the state Department of Audits, is a list of the nearly 1200 official agencies in Georgia who are still ignoring state law on even reporting that they have or have not taken the required steps to protect jobs for Georgians. Scroll through to find the agency closest to you.

Believe it or not, the number of violators in government is coming down since Georgia’s first comprehensive illegal immigration laws was passed in 2006

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Uganda anti-gay bill draws church, donor battle lines

Friday, June 29th, 2012

“I’m so, so afraid. I just live indoors,” he says, sitting in the semi-darkness of the cramped two-room dwelling where he has lived since his family and friends turned on him after the bill was introduced in 2009.

In this conservative east African country, the bill that initially proposed hanging gays has pitted veteran President Yoweri Museveni‘s government against two influential but opposing forces: the evangelical church and western donors.

Existing legislation already outlaws gay sex. The new legislation introduced by David Bahati, a backbench lawmaker in Museveni’s ruling National Resistance Movement party, would go much further.

It would prohibit the “promotion” of gay rights and punish anyone who “funds or sponsors homosexuality” or “abets homosexuality”.

Denounced as “odious” by U.S. President Barack Obama, the first draft, which threatened the death sentence for what it called “aggravated homosexuality”, languished in parliament for two years, never making it to the chamber’s debating floor.

Bahati re-introduced a mildly watered-down second draft in February and is confident of a “yes” vote even though the bill’s progress has stalled at committee level.

The death sentence clause is gone, as is the demand Ugandans report gays to the authorities, he told Reuters.

But the damage has been done, gay rights campaigners in Uganda say. A vitriolic homophobia is rising in Ugandan society, they say, pointing to the meteoric rise of the evangelical church as a driving force.

In the most recent clampdown, Uganda said last week it was banning 38 non-governmental organisations it accused of promoting homosexuality.

Two days before the announcement, police raided a gay rights conference outside Kampala, briefly detaining activists from around east Africa.

“Things were much better before the evangelical movement,” said Frank Mugisha, director of the gay rights group Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG). He accuses Uganda’s born-again pastors of spreading propaganda, including that homosexuals are “recruiting” young children.


Mugisha and other prominent gay rights campaigners say Bahati’s initial bill was introduced directly after a March 2009 conference in Kampala that hosted representatives from the U.S. “ex-gay” movement.

U.S. evangelical pastor Scott Lively, who spoke at the conference, said it focused on the “recovery from homosexuality” and warned Ugandans the gay movement sought to “homosexualise society” and undermine the institution of marriage.

Ugandan activists have filed a civil complaint against Lively in the United States, alleging he incited the persecution of gays in Uganda, violating international law.

A former lawyer who is now pastor of the Redemption Gate Missionary Society in Springfield, Massachusetts, Lively said his legal team has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

“The narrative of their case is that my speaking against homosexuality in Uganda led to a climate of hate and fear that led the government to take actions they wouldn’t otherwise have taken,” he told Reuters.

“The list of things they have put in their complaint do not amount to anything close to crimes against humanity.”

Lively said he received a copy of the draft anti-gay bill from an anti-gay activist in Uganda ahead of its introduction, and disagreed with language included in it.

“It was very harsh,” he said, referring to the proposal to execute homosexuals.

Lively, a reformed alcoholic who sees homosexuality as a “behavioural disorder” akin to alcoholism, said he sent back alternative language urging a focus on prevention and rehabilitation.

Some of Uganda’s pastors have been some of the bill’s most outspoken supporters.

“Would you accept that a thief should be licensed, that a prostitute should be licensed? There is no difference between a thief, a robber, a prostitute and a homosexual,” said Pastor Joseph Serwadda, who heads Kampala’s 6,000 member-strong Victory Christian Centre Church.

A wave of persecution followed the introduction of Bahati’s bill.

One local publication, Rolling Stone, embarked on a campaign to out Ugandan gays, publishing photos of more than two dozen of them and their names, sometimes under the banner “Hang them”.

“People didn’t pay much attention before. When the bill came out, they started noticing gays,” said Peter, whose three-year relationship ended when his partner became afraid to be associated with him after another tabloid outed Peter’s roommate.

Peter’s extended family called a meeting when they got suspicious.

“My sisters, my brothers, my aunties, my uncles, my grandpas, everybody needed me to change. They asked, ‘What seduced you to do that?’,” Peter said.

“(They said) if I didn’t change from what I am to what they called normal, I should just get out of the family.”

He withdrew from the outside world. Home alone for hours at a time, Peter reads the Bible he keeps by his bed for comfort. A wall decoration reads: “Jesus cares”.


While the proposed legislation has pushed many like Peter underground, for others it had the opposite effect.

“Biggie” Ssenfuka knew she was attracted to women from the age of seven. When she read the word lesbian in a dictionary, she says she immediately recognised herself.

Raised a Christian, Ssenfuka prayed to God and fasted in a desperate bid to alter her sexuality. She burned every letter she had received from other girls and tried dating a man.

“But still I didn’t change. I woke up and told myself this is life, be what you want to be and let people say what they want to say,” said Ssenfuka, who sports dreadlocks and baggy, boyish jeans.

“People thought that homosexuals are these beasts … they didn’t expect people from next door,” said Ssenfuka.

The 29-year-old finally came out of the closet in 2009 after the bill was introduced. “I said, now I am going to be open.”

Still, activists like Ssenfuka are in the minority. The majority of gays are too afraid to go public.

Sitting in an open-air bar in Kampala on a Saturday afternoon is her girlfriend of one year, a woman with long braids who has children from a previous relationship.

Asked about her relationship with Ssenfuka, Patience was evasive. “I’m not exactly her friend,” she said, and refused to elaborate.

Ssenfuka and Patience are careful not to act like a couple openly.

“It’s tricky. You have to watch out, especially in public. You can’t just kiss, you can’t just touch and be happy,” Ssenfuka said.


The bill’s floundering in parliament since 2009 signals Museveni is reluctant to proceed.

Stephen Tashobya, who chairs the parliamentary legal affairs committee tasked with scrutinising the bill before a vote, said the committee had been “busy with other affairs”.

“The president made general remarks sometime back, more than a year ago, (that) he didn’t think that the bill was very urgent,” Tashobya said.

The one-time rebel leader is widely regarded as a shrewd political operator who knows how to curry favour from Western powers, as he has by sending troops to Somalia, and when feathers ought not be ruffled.

John Nagenda, among Museveni’s top advisers, told Reuters the president believed it was evil to indulge in homosexual acts.

“But on the other hand … while he himself doesn’t agree with it himself, he thinks that there must be a fair way of going about (things),” Nagenda said.

Museveni’s gripe, Nagenda said, was with donors threatening to cut aid to impose moral values.

“It treats us like children,” he said.

In October, British Prime Minister David Cameron threatened to cut aid to countries that did not respect gay rights. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton followed up in December.

“That is blackmailing, that is neo-colonialist and oppression. Attaching sharing of resources to a lifestyle of people is completely unacceptable,” said Uganda’s Minister of Ethics and Integrity Simon Lokodo.

“If you want to give (aid), you give it irrespective of our customs and cultures.”

London appears to have since softened its rhetoric. The British High Commission in Kampala told Reuters in a statement that the UK government had no plans to cut aid in connection with the bill.

However, the statement also said Britain’s diplomats were raising concerns over the proposed legislation “at the most senior level of the Ugandan government”.

Bahati is optimistic his bill will prevail in parliament.

“There is no amount of pressure, no amount of dirty tricks, that will prevent the parliament of Uganda from protecting the children of Uganda,” he said.

“We are not in the trade of values.”

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Mitt Romney Bids to Attract Hispanic Vote with Día Uno Ad

Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012

Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney has launched an aggressive campaign to woo Hispanic voters away from Barack Obama.

A Spanish-language version of a campaign ad will air this week in key states—the first political ad produced by the Romney campaign since his last Republican rival dropped out of the race.

The ad is called Día Uno, which means day one in English, and features Romney speaking a Spanish-language version of the “I approve this message” tagline that all American presidential candidate put on official TV ads. “Soy Mitt Romney y apruebo este mensaje,” the former governor of Massachusetts says stiffly.

The move comes only days after the latest figures released by the US Census showed that for the first time there are more Hispanic and black and other minority babies being born in America than white ones.

Among US minority groups Hispanics are the largest and fastest-growing, now making up more than 50 million people, which is one in six Americans. Romney’s campaign is keen to make inroads into the demographic group, often stressing socially conservative issues such as opposition to abortion and gay marriage that chime with the Republicans‘ traditional white base as well as often devoutly Roman Catholic Hispanics.

There are also some senior Hispanic figures in the party. Marco Rubio is a junior senator in Florida of Cuban background. He is popular with the Tea Party base and often cited as an example that the Republican’s conservative message can resonate with Hispanic groups.

In lists of Romney’s possible vice-presidential picks, Rubio is frequently mentioned and seen as a way of attracting Hispanic voters. Another possible running mate would be Susana Martinez, the Republican governor of New Mexico. The party has also appointed Hispanic outreach directors in six battleground states. Romney himself even has personal links to Mexico as his father, George Romney, was born there.

But the task facing Romney is not going to be easy. In 2008 Obama won 67% of the Hispanic vote compared with Republican John McCain’s 31%. A Pew Research poll found that Romney’s position had weakened, with his support at 27% while Obama’s remained steady at 67%. A Quinnipiac University poll found Romney’s support even lower at 24%.

Those figures show that a socially conservative message, based on faith and traditional families, is not quite enough for Republicans to do well in Spanish-speaking America. “There is a faith-based small “c” conservatism that could make Hispanics into natural Republicans. But the problem for Republicans is that Hispanics are also liberal on issues such as social welfare and the role of government,” said Professor Shaun Bowler, a political scientist at the University of California at Riverside.

But an even bigger issue for the Romney campaign when it comes to wooing Hispanic supporters is immigration. During the nomination race Republican leaders jockeyed with each other to come up with the strictest plans for a border fence until Herman Cain even suggested building an electrified fence.

“There was some crazy stuff coming out,” said Bowler. In eventually winning the contest, Romney tacked far to the right, opposing a law that would have allowed the children of illegal immigrants to go to college, praising a controversial Arizona law that many critics have said is racist, and urging illegal immigrants to “self-deport” from America before a planned crackdown on benefits they can claim.

None of those sentiments will have endeared him to Hispanic voters. Indeed they even infuriated Martinez, who criticised Romney in an interview with Newsweek. “Self-deport? What the heck does that mean?” she told the magazine. She went on to say Republicans needed to change their language and adopt more nuanced policies on the issue. “I have no doubt Hispanics have been alienated during this campaign. But now there’s an opportunity for Governor Romney to have a sincere conversation about what we can do and why,” she said.

It will not be easy. Any softening of Romney’s hard line on immigration will see him anger his Tea Party base. However, many experts believe the long-term demographic trends of America mean the Republicans will have to work out a way of appealing to Hispanic voters eventually or potentially face a permanent exile from the White House.

“The Republican party is becoming older, whiter and more Protestant at a time when America is becoming younger, browner and less Protestant,” said Bowler.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Putin flexes muscle in shunning US-hosted G8 talks

Friday, May 11th, 2012

Of all the signals and symbols that shapeRussian foreign policy, this one seemed particularly blunt: Vladimir Putin, in one of the first decisions of his new presidency, will shun a Group of Eight summit hosted by U.S. President Barack Obama.

The May 18-19 visit was to have been Putin’s first foreign trip since he returned to the Kremlin on Monday, a chance to begin putting U.S. ties back on track after a growth in tension over missile defence, Syria and Russia’s presidential campaign.

Instead, Putin is sending his junior partner, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev – and a message that as long as he is in charge, Russia will not bend to Washington’s will when its interests are at stake.

“I think the signal he wants to send to America … is that agreements with America will be built on a balance of the strategic interests of America and Russia,” said Dmitry Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center think-tank. “Russia will not make any unilateral concessions.”

It is a message Putin has repeated, from an inauguration-day decree on Monday in which he said Russia would demand U.S. respect to a warning on Wednesday against modern-day violations of sovereignty, delivered before tanks and missiles trundled across Red Square to mark the 1945 victory over Nazi Germany.

More starkly, the military chief of staff said last week that Russia could launch pre-emptive strikes against future NATO missile defence facilities in Europe if sufficiently threatened.



The warning indicated Putin will hold out U.S. plans for an anti-missile shield as a big barrier to better relations and, specifically, to Kremlin approval of deeper nuclear arms cuts.

Washington says the shield is meant to counter a potential threat from Iran and poses no risk to Russia. Moscow maintains that it could give the West the capability to intercept Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles, upsetting the strategic equilibrium between the former Cold War foes.

Putin has made clear Russia, a veto-wielding permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, will seek to undercut U.S. global might and oppose what he says is unjustified, destabilising U.S.-orchestrated interference in the affairs of sovereign states, including Syria and Russia itself.

The public reason for Putin’s decision to skip the G8 summit was the need to focus on appointing a new cabinet.

With liberal and conservatives close to the Kremlin wrangling over cabinet posts and policy direction, Putin – by staying home – may be eager to pose for a domestic audiences and show he is not weakened by the biggest protests of his 12 years as Russia’s paramount political leader.

“Foreign policy … will play the role of a servant to Putin’s domestic agenda,” said Lilia Shevtsova, an author and expert on Putin. “And his main goal domestically is to preserve the status quo and survive.”

After the anti-American atmosphere that prevailed during his presidential campaign, in which Putin accused the United States of stirring up protests, it might look strange to his supporters to make Washington his first foreign destination.

Relations have been strained by the treatment of U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul, architect of Obama’s “reset” of Russian ties, who has been portrayed by Russian media as a troublemaker out to incite revolution.

Instead, Putin’s first trip abroad could be to China in early June, symbolising that he is looking eastward – to the former Soviet states of Central Asia and beyond.

His first meeting with Obama as president is likely to come on neutral territory in Mexico, where the Group of 20 nations gathers in June.



For reasons both political and personal, Putin will be far more comfortable at the broader G20 than the mostly Western G8, where he feels out of place, like “a white crow”, Trenin said.

His big-power friends from his previous presidency from 2000 to 2008 – France‘s Jacques Chirac, Germany’s Gerhard Schroeder and Silvio Berlusconi, the former Italian leader who attended his inauguration on Monday – are gone.

Obama and the rest will instead once again meet Medvedev, who presented a warmer face to the West in his 2008-12 presidency and clicked with Obama, from their signing of the 2010 nuclear arms limitation treaty known as New START to chummy talk at a “cheeseburger summit” that same year.

By contrast, Obama’s breakfast meeting with Putin at his residence outside Moscow in 2009 featured a monologue in which the then-Russian prime minister listed his complaints about the United States at length.

While it seems like a serious snub, the last-minute substitution of Medvedev for the G8 meeting could have an upside for Obama, whose likely Republican opponent in the November election has said he is nowhere near tough enough on Russia.

The United States has criticised the Kremlin over the detentions and violence against Russians protesting at Putin’s return to the presidency, and two prominent opposition leaders will still be in jail when the G8 meets.

Obama “has no need to be photographed with Putin right now – as it is, the Republicans criticise him as a Russian puppet. So in this case it happens to suit everybody,” Fyodor Lukyanov, edit of Russia in Global Affairs, said of Putin’s decision.

“It is a strange, unusual step (to avoid the G8 summit), however – but Putin is a master of such steps. We’ll get used to it.” (Editing by Alissa de Carbonnel and Mark Heinrich)

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Nation of Islam; undermining race relations in America

Wednesday, May 9th, 2012

The Nation of Islam [NOI] is a large religious cult that forms the core of the American “Black Power” movement. They own several large properties that form their regional headquarters. They run numerous Mosques and businesses around the nation. They even have several black only schools that receive taxpayer support. Prior to the US war on Libya, they had a major foreign sponsor. The man whom Obama describes as his “mentor” is closely tied to the group. Major black celebrities, such as Snoop Dogg, Ice Cube, and Dave Chapelle are members.

The NOI was founded by Wallace Fard. He was born in Hawaii to a white father and a Hawaiian Native mother. He was also a convicted drug dealer. He started the NOI in Detroit in 1929 and claimed to be a prophet of Allah. He vanished in 1934, and was never seen again.

Elijah Muhammad took over the NOI. He “revealed” to followers that Wallace Fard had been Allah, and that Fard had left in a space ship. Today the NOI teaches that Fard was the “Grand Mahdi” of Islam and was “all knowing.” Fard, according to NOI, was “an Arab from Mecca.” NOI teaches that Elijah Muhammad was a prophet of Allah.

Muhammad wrote several books, which the NOI treats as holy books. His book Message to the Black Man explains the origin of the races. The entire book can be read online.

  1. It says that black people were building space ships before the creation of white people.
  2. White people were created by an evil wizard 6,000 years ago.
  3. White people are literally devils and demons.
  4. Monkeys, Dogs, and Swine are descended from white people.
  5. Black people taught white people how to walk on two legs and be civilized.
  6. White people have tormented black people relentlessly since their creation.

Elijah Muhammad also wrote Fall of America. This book details an apocalyptic race war. Muhammad says that Allah will burn America with fire and the white race will be exterminated from North America. He says that eventually all white people will be exterminated from the earth.

The NOI surged during the 50s and early 60s with a charismatic spokesman named Malcom X. However, after Malcom X visited Mecca, he split with the Nation of Islam. He said that he had met “white Arabs” and decided that not all white people were bad. He was gunned down in a crowded Mosque shortly after.

The son of Elijah Muhammad, Warith Deen Muhammad, took over the NOI for one year after his father’s death. His father had excommunicated him repeatedly for disputing the divinity of Wallace Fard, but always let him back in. In 1976 Warith Muhammad renounced NOI theology and led a group of NOI followers in a mass conversion to Sunni Islam. He formally disbanded the NOI.

Louis Farrakhan started a new NOI with himself as the leader. Farrakhan is usually accused of being behind the murder of Malcolm X. In 1993, Farrakhan gave a speech in which he appears to accept responsibility for and justifies the killing on Malcolm X for “treason.”

Farrakhan is well known for his belief in UFOs. He says “they follow me wherever I go.” Farrakhan claims that a giant ship known as “the mother plane” is orbiting the earth. He says it was built by black people before the creation of the white race. Sitting on top of the mother plane is New Jerusalem. Inside the giant ship are1,500 UFO bombers. These bombers will destroy the United States military and aid in the extermination of all white people.

​Farrakhan has his own uniformed elite guard known as the “Fruit of Islam.” They are sometimes seen wearing matching suits with bowties and sometime in matching uniforms with “FOI” on their hats.

There are numerous groups associated with the NOI. One is the 5% Nation of Gods and Earths. This is an NOI splinter group that also counts major black celebrities as members.Rap stars Busta Rhymes, Nas, and the members of Wu-Tang Clan belong to the 5% Nation.

However, the most high profile group is the New Black Panther Party [NBPP]. The NBPP advocates NOI theology and calls Louis Farrakhan their “spiritual father.” The group was taken over by Dr. Khallid Muhammed in the 90s. He was the former National Youth Minister of the NOI. Its current leader is Malik Zulu Shabazz, who says “there is no division between the NBPP and the NOI.”

Khallid Muhammed called himself “Farrakhan’s Flamethrower” and was notorious for violent rhetoric. Numerous leaders of the NBPP have been recorded calling for violent race war.The groups claims that it is involved in paramilitary training. Despite their rhetoric, the group has no problem getting black celebrities to associate with them

Al Sharpton spoke at a NBPP rally in Harlem in 1998. Rap star Master P provided financial support for the rally. In 2010, grammy winning pop star Andre 3000 spoke at a NBPP conference in Atlanta, GA. Former US congresswoman Cynthia McKinney also spoke at the 2010 conference and has numerous connections to the group.

There are also associated groups. Rev. Jeramiah Wright, who Obama calls his “mentor,” has close ties to the NOI. Wright studied Islam in college. His masters’ degree is in Islam, not Christianity. He preaches something he calls “Black Liberation Theology.” Christianity is second to the goal of “Black Liberation.” Wright is a follower of James Cones, who started Black Liberation Theology and wrote Black Theology and Black Power. Malcolm X is widely credited as being Cone’s biggest inspiration.

Wright is part of Louis Farrakhan’s inner circle and accompanied Farrakhan to meet Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi twice.

There are also multiple “Jewish” versions of the NOI. The Black Hebrew Israelites and the Nation of Yahweh are militant Black Power religious cults based around Judiasm instead of Islam or Christianity. Members of the Nation of Yahweh have been convicted of fourteen murders in Florida. These groups preach that blacks are “Gods’ Chosen People,” and that an apocalyptic race war is coming.

The greatest proliferators of NOI theology, including its belief in a race war, are black celebrities in the hip hop and ganster rap music genres. The greatest offender is probably rap star and actor Ice Cube. Not only did he place NOI theology and race war lyrics in many songs, he gravatated towards the most extreme personalities. In the early 90s, he brought then NOI Nation Youth Minister Dr. Khallid Muhammad into the recording studio. He recorded voice overs of Khallid making derogatory statements about white people for at least two of his albums. Both albums reached #1 on the R&B/HipHop charts and reached #2 and #5 on the Billboard 200.

In the song “Enemy,” Ice Cub lays out the NOI belief in a coming race war. It starts off with a voice over from Khallid Muhammad calling white people “the Enemy” and calling the rhetoric of Martin Luther King “sick.”The following are some lyrics from the song.

​bust a gloc, bust a gloc, devils get shot [“devils” means white people]
nappy-headed, no-dreded look where ya read it
​buck the devil, buck the devil, look who said it
listen what I say after 1995 not one devil will be alive
god will survive, him protect the civilized [“civilized” means a black Muslim]
who really cares if the enemy lives or dies?

with the boom ping ping is the ring from the fire
me not afraid, cause me know Elijah [Elijah Muhammad, prophet in the NOI]

I know that Farrakhan is your baby Jesus
devil don’t you know I’m a soldier?

now it’s Judgement Day, and Allah’ll never play
“freedom got an AK,” them Guerilla say
Bobby Seale said, “please make it rough, bro” [Bobby Seal was a Black Panther Leader]
when God give the word, me herd like the buffalo [Waiting for a sign to begin murdering white people]
through your neighborhood, watch me blast
tribe of Shabazz, get in that ass [Tribe of Shabazz are the original black people in NOI theology]

sent me a subpoena
cause I kill more crackas then Bosnia, Herzegovina

now you treat me like a germ
cause your scared of the super sperm
please don’t bust til you see, the whites of his eyes
the whites of his skin, the whites of his lies

Ice Cube brought the Nation of Islam, and its belief in an apocalyptic race war, into the homes of an entire generation of black youth.

Nation of Islam theology has inspired atrocities. The San Fransisco Bay area “Zebra Killers” are among the most prolific serial killers in US history. They were a group of NOI followers who wanted to start the race war early. They formed a cell called the “Black Angels of Death.” They awarded points for killing white people. Several members eventually went to prison for the murder of twelve whites, and several attempted murders, during 1973 and 1974. However, local police believed them to be responsible for many more.

Retired SFPD Lt. Lou Calabro was an officer who investigated the Zebra Killers. I brought him to speak in Greenville, SC back in 2007. He said that police believe the Zebra Killers claimed seventy two victims or more. In 2011, three more Nation of Islam followers were convicted  for three murders. One was a random white man. The triggerman was an admirer of the Zebra Killers and wanted to “earn his death wings.” Another victim was a black newspaper editor, they accused of being a race traitor.

One of the DC snipers was a former member of Farrakhan’s “Fruit of Islam.” In fact, he served as a bodyguard to Louis Farrakhan during the “Million Man March.”

​The Nation of Islam presents a serious problem for US race relations. Since race war is a religious tenet, the group must show that race relations are getting worse. If race relations improved, it would undermine the group’s theology.

Farrakhan recently concluded a speaking tour. He hinted that the prophesied race war is coming. At the University of Arkansas he said that he knew how long white people “were set to live.” Then he said “unless you [white people] change, your end has come.” At another speech he stated “let me acquaint you [America] with your destruction.”

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Obama an ignoramus on the causes of high fuel prices

Monday, April 9th, 2012

“Right now the key thing that is driving higher gas prices is actually the world’s oil markets and uncertainty about what’s going on in Iran and the Middle East, and that’s adding a $20 or $30 premium to oil prices,” President Obama said March 23. It’s complete and utter nonsense. Oil is trading in lockstep with expectations for economic growth, as reflected in stock prices. There’s not a shred of evidence that geopolitical uncertainty has added a penny to the oil price. Obama’s $20 to $30 per barrel risk premium is a number pulled out of a hat, without a shred of empirical support. In effect, the President is blaming Israel for high oil prices.

On April, 3, Vice-President Biden blamed higher oil prices on “talk about war with Iran“; fear that Iran might “take out the Saudi oil fields and Bahraini oil fields”; the Arab Spring movement; “war in Libya”; the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood; and a potential for unforeseen political unrest, such as “chaos in Russia.” It’s all complete and utter nonsense. Oil prices are going up because the world economy is consuming more oil and supply has not increased to meet the demand – in part because the Obama administration discourages North American energy development, most recently by stopping the proposed Keystone pipeline from Canada. It’s easier to blame foreign phantoms for high gas prices at the pump than the administration’s business-killing politics

One might argue that the market should price strategic risk into the oil price, but the fact is that markets are not especially good at assigning prices to possible events whose probability can’t be measured.

Goldman has some nifty charts to prove his point. Here’s one, courtesy of Bloomberg, that shows the price of oil vs. the S&P 500 for the last three years. Note how closely they track:

Goldman continues:

During the past three years, oil prices have tracked equity prices almost perfectly, with a regression coefficient of nearly 90%. (For statisticians, the correlation of daily percentage changes in the two markets is 51%). Equity prices embody expectations of future economic growth, and higher growth means more demand for oil. If oil supply cannot keep up with demand–because the Obama administration has restricted development, among other factors–the oil price goes up.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

CNN’s Soledad O’Brien, Liberal Guest Team Up to Attack Breitbart Editor Over ‘Critical Race Theory’

Friday, March 9th, 2012

When Breitbart.com’s Joel Pollak went on CNN and connected then-law student Barack Obama to radical Harvard professor Derrick Bell, CNN guest Jay Thomas of Sirius radio began creepily asking Pollak if he was afraid of violence from black people, on Thursday morning’s Starting Point.

During the chippy segment, host Soledad O’Brien fiercely defended Bell and insisted that Obama’s previous support of him was a non-story. She accused Pollak of “misreading” Bell’s critical race theory, even though the professor has clearly espoused radical views in his past, including writing a fictional account of how blacks would be sold to aliens as slaves. O’Brien also failed to disclose that she herself is an admitted admirer of Bell’s. [Video below the break.

At every point in his life when he [Obama] could have followed the path of Martin Luther King, he threw in his lot with the Jeremiah Wrights and the Derrick Bells of the world,” asserted Pollak. “And it’s important not just because of what Obama believes but it’s important to vet the media.”

Jay Thomas stepped in to bully the conservative editor. “Can I say something as a white person? What are you frightened of?” he pointedly asked.  “Are you frightened that some black people are going to do something to you?”

Then when Pollak explained his case against Obama and the media’s cover-up of his support for Bell’s critical race theory, Thomas again offered a non sequitur retort. “So, you want him to take it easy on the white supremist [sic] groups?” he posed.

And O’Brien herself was not happy that Pollak attacked the President. After all, she’s a fan of Bell’s work.

A transcript of the segment, which aired on March 8 on Newsroom at 8:09 a.m. EST, is as follows:

SOLEDAD O’BRIEN: Okay. So then let’s go back to the clips that I just showed. What part of that was the bombshell? Because I missed it. I don’t get it. What was a bombshell?

POLLAK: Well, the bombshell is the revelation of the relationship between Obama and Derrick Bell. Obama didn’t just lead a protest –

O’BRIEN: Okay. So he’s a Harvard law student and Harvard law professor, yeah?

POLLAK: That’s correct. And Derrick Bell is the Jeremiah Wright of academia. He passed away last year, but during his lifetime he developed a theory called critical race theory which holds that the civil rights movement was a sham and that white supremacy is the order and it must be overthrown.

O’BRIEN: So, that is a complete misreading. I’ll stop you there for a second. And then I’m going to let you continue. But that is a complete misreading of critical race theory, as you know. That’s an actual theory. And you could Google it and someone would give you a good definition of it. So, that’s not correct, but keep going.

POLLAK: Well, in what way is it – in what way is it a critical misreading? Can you explain to me? Do you what critical – explain to your readers what critical theory race is. Explain to your viewers.

O’BRIEN: I’m going to ask you to continue on. I’m just going to point out that that is inaccurate. Keep going. Tell me what the bombshell is. I haven’t seen it –

POLLAK: Well, wait a minute. You’ve made a claim – you’ve made a claim that my characterization of critical race theory is the opposite of Martin Luther King, is inaccurate. You’re telling your viewers that. But you’re not telling why it is.

O’BRIEN: Critical race theory looks into the intersection of race and politics and the law – and as a legal academic who would study this and write about it, he would advance the theory about what exactly happened when the law was examined in terms of racial politics. There is no white supremacy in that. It is a theory. It’s an academic theory. And as one of the leading academics at Harvard Law School, he was one of the people as part of that conversation. So that is a short definition of it.

POLLAK: I’m glad we’ve got you saying that on tape because that’s a complete misrepresentation. Critical race theory is all about white supremacy. Critical race theory holds that civil rights laws are ineffective, that racial equality is impossible because the legal and constitutional system in America is white supremacist –

O’BRIEN: What I just said the intersection of race and politics when it comes to under the law –

POLLAK: You said white supremacy is not part of it.

O’BRIEN: I’m trying to figure out what’s the bombshell. Get back on track. What’s the bombshell?


POLLAK: No, this is critical. This is critical.

O’BRIEN: It’s not critical. What’s the bombshell?

POLLAK: This is critical. You can’t derail this, Soledad. White supremacy is the heart of critical race theory and Obama knew it.

And by the time Obama embraced him at Harvard Law School, Derrick Bell had already given a speech in Chicago just two months before that caused a sensation which was about how white supremacy was still the order of the day and that black people were fooling themselves if they thought civil rights and equality were achievable goals. He said this. And one of the people who came to his defense, by the way, was Jeremiah Wright with whom Bell had correspondence over the years. This is a connection that is very important.

O’BRIEN: So your point, you’re trying to make the point that Derrick Bell was somehow a serious radical. Is that what you’re trying to say, and by connecting President Obama to Derrick Bell, a Harvard law student to a Harvard law professor, the first black tenured professor at Harvard Law School, you’re trying to make that connection? Is that the bombshell?

POLLAK: Don’t believe me, believe Henry Louis Gates, Jr., who said that Derrick Bell had a blind spot for anti-Semitism. Don’t believe me, believe one of Derrick Bell’s fellow African-American colleagues at Harvard –

O’BRIEN: There are plenty of people who debated – there are plenty of people who debated that theory. There’s no question about it. But if your point – if your bombshell is that Derrick Bell is a radical, is that what you’re trying to say? I’m just trying to understand what the bombshell is, because I haven’t seen a bombshell yet.

POLLAK: The bombshell – the bombshell is happening right here on this program where we’ve got a story and you’re not interested in telling your viewers who Derrick Bell actually is. You want to come in and obfuscate and tell me that I don’t know what critical race theory is, that white supremacy has nothing to do with it, that Barack Obama was just embracing a guy.

This is about Barack Obama’s connection to a radical legal theory that he didn’t just embrace when he was a student at Harvard. When he was a teacher at the University of Chicago, he forced his students to read Derrick Bell, including some of the most inflammatory readings –

O’BRIEN: A lot of law students read Derrick Bell. It’s part of the – you really do not understand critical race theory, number one –

THOMAS: Can I say something as a white person? What are you frightened of?

O’BRIEN: I don’t know. I don’t get it.

THOMAS: Are you frightened that some black people are going to do something to you? You have a group of individuals – if you and I were black we would be madder than hell, but we’re not. And so, we are white people. There are more white people than black people. And so there’s a struggle that’s been going on and so in a struggle you talk about a lot of things. There’s anger. There’s resentment.

And so, what are you frightened of? What do you think Barack Obama’s going to do? Is there a secret black movement that’s going to start killing white people? What are you talking about? As a white guy.

POLLAK: I’m glad that you – I’m glad you played the racism card. You’ve accused me of being a racist.

THOMAS: White. I’ve accused you of being white. It’s all I’ve accused you of.

POLLAK: No, you’ve accused me of being afraid of black people. And it doesn’t even deserve a response. But let me respond anyway.


POLLAK: No, I’m not afraid that black people are going to be violent and take over the country. What I’m pointing out is that there’s a pattern in Barack Obama’s associations with Derrick Bell, with Reverend Wright, and it carries over into his governance because his Justice Department won’t treat black civil rights violators the same way that it treats white civil rights violators. That there’s a racial pattern in which justice is enforced in this country. And it also gives us a sense into how Barack Obama thinks about these issues.

At every point in his life when he could have followed the path of Martin Luther King, he threw in his lot with the Jeremiah Wrights and the Derrick Bells of the world. And it’s important not just because of what Obama believes but it’s important to vet the media. The mainstream media covered this up –

THOMAS: So, you want him to take it easy on the white supremist [sic] groups?

POLLAK: That’s exactly the opposite.

THOMAS: Is that it? I’m just asking. You know, I mean it. I’m just asking.

POLLAK: Yes. Why don’t you just ask the question – why don’t you ask the question without knowing a thing about me or what I believe. This is typical mainstream media behavior. I’m challenging you –

THOMAS: I’m just looking at your skin. That’s all I’m looking at. I’m just talking white guy to white guy.

POLLAK: So you’re – oh, you’re judging me by the color of my skin.

THOMAS: Yes, I am. I sure am.


Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Libya apologises for attack on World War II graves

Wednesday, February 29th, 2012

Benghazi, Libya: Libyan authorities on Tuesday condemned the desecration of World War II graves in the eastern city of Benghazi by protesters angry over US troops burning the Koran in Afghanistan.

The interim government, in a statement, expressed “strong condemnation of the attack on non-Muslim graves by subversive elements who have no respect for religion or international law.”

“This action is contrary to the values of our Islamic religion and law,” said the statement obtained by AFP.

The government vowed to find and put the perpetrators on trial.

An unidentified group on Friday entered Benghazi military cemetery and shattered headstones of British and allied servicemen who fought in North African desert campaigns against the Nazi during World War II, according to local media reports.

The reports said the group comprised Salafists angered by the burning of the Koran at a NATO military base in Afghanistan earlier this month.

US President Barack Obama has apologised for the burning of the Muslim holy books, which officials said were inadvertently sent to the incinerator.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

I’m Racist!

Monday, February 27th, 2012

I’m a racist!
I know many people have touched on this subject be for, and I may be just spewing out what’s probably a common opinion. But anyway.
Am I’m a racist? Yes. You don’t like people of color? True, but I don’t hate! I just prefer the company of my own kind, and who doesn’t? BET wouldn’t exist if people didn’t seek their own.

What makes me a racist? Ummm… nature? Natural law? Instinct? Take your pick. How ever, I never declared ” Hello word! I’m a racist!” what I said was. “that’s not right” “they shouldn’t do that” ” can you believe what their doing” “what kind of people do that?”. The answer to these questions was ” Your a Racist!” yelled by whom ever was standing near me when I instinctively spoke out as a reaction to seeing or hearing something. I was declared a racist! By people with less moral character and more guilt. I can almost understand the ” less moral character” you know the saying ( it takes all kinds)
But the guilt? Really? I should feel guilty for winning the genetic lottery? They call us racist out of fear, envy, and ignorance. That’s rooted in a deep seeded knowledge that they need us a lot more than we need them. Because we don’t.

So yes I’m a racist, not because I chose to hate, or feel superior. I just feel different. Like a wolf is different from a dog. And like wolves we thrive in an environment dominated by wolves.
Economically speaking with geographical and political environments aside we can see that the whiter and area is the more prosperous it is.

The word racist/ racism stem from a time where ist and ism were placed on word to give them negative a sounding stigma, to advance a political or social agenda.
” who wants to be called a racist?
Who supports racism?”
and it works great! We can’t deny it. It’s shut us up for decades! They are such new words in fact,

Wikipedia says ; (As a word, racism is an “ism”, a belief that can be described by a word ending in the suffix -ism, pertaining to race. As its etymology would suggest, its usage is relatively recent and as such its definition is not entirely settled.)
it’s the second paragraph under definitions.


It’s so new it’s definition isn’t entirely settled! That means its up for grabs! “it’s racist to make whites feel guilty”.
“forcing multiculturalism on whites only is racism” Wow!

So knowing that being a racist is new, and it’s still undefined. Is it bad to be a racist? It doesn’t feel bad.
I’m called a racist because I’m confident, intelligent, creative, have strong moral character, and work ethic, because I care about the future of my people and want them to prosper in the future. Well, maybe the new definition of racist should be

Racist, adj. One who is proud of his people’s heritage and history. One who wishes to see his people flourish in the future and grow in numbers. And remain pure and untainted

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Taliban deny their leader sent letter to Obama

Saturday, February 4th, 2012

The Afghan Taliban on Saturday denied that their leader Mullah Omar had written to President Barack Obama last July.

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said reports that Omar had sent a letter indicating an interest in talks key to ending the war in Afghanistan were “baseless allegations.”


“The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is strongly condemning these rumors and allegations,” Mujahid said in an email to media organizations, referring to the Taliban by the name Afghanistan had while under their rule.

He added that the reports were aimed at sowing confusion among Afghans.

Current and former U.S. officials told The Associated Press the letter purportedly from Omar was unsigned. It was passed through a Taliban intermediary and intended for the White House. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the letter and its contents are part of sensitive diplomacy with a fighting force that still targets U.S. troops.

The previously undisclosed communication was considered authentic by people who saw it, but skeptical administration officials said they cannot determine it actually came from Omar.

The Obama administration did not directly respond to the letter, two officials said, although it has broadened contacts with Omar’s emissaries since then.

Sources who described the letter did not disclose its precise contents, but one current and one former official said it addressed Taliban willingness to build trust with the United States. One official said Omar complained that the United States had not done enough to establish good faith for negotiations, such as arranging the release of Taliban prisoners held in the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

An administration official would say only that the message represented views consistent with what Taliban emissaries had been telling U.S. officials during the clandestine meetings. Those preliminary sessions opened the way for more formal talks that U.S. officials now publicly welcome.

A direct message from Omar could be a strong signal that the Taliban movement is interested in negotiation at the highest levels.

The Obama administration is trying to foster talks among the Taliban and the US.-backed government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, but remains wary of Taliban motives.

Omar is the spiritual leader of the Taliban movement, and directs the organization’s guerrilla military campaign. He was the de facto head of state in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan prior to the U.S. invasion that toppled the Taliban government in 2001. He has not been seen in public in years, and his exact whereabouts are unknown. He is wanted by the U.S. government for harboring Osama bin Laden and helping the al-Qaida terror network.

The Obama administration is now considering release of five top Taliban leaders from Guantanamo as a starting point for negotiations. The five would be sent to custody in the Gulf nation of Qatar, where the Taliban plan to establish a negotiating office. Republicans in Congress oppose the release of the prisoners.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Boston media reaction to Tim Thomas’s Barack Obama snub (and was a TSN tweet racist?)

Thursday, January 26th, 2012

Most of the blowback aimed at the admitted Glenn Beck admirer is negative


The decision by Boston Bruins goaltender Tim Thomas to skip the presidential White House invitation has knickers in a knot all over the place, perhaps not least because, other than Steven Kampfer, he was the only American citizen on the Bruins’ cup-winning roster last season.

It’s hard to tell exactly how much the negative reaction has been influenced by Thomas’s public acknowledgement of his admiration for the barking-mad Glenn (too “eccentric” for Fox News) Beck, but even Boston-area media outlets are mostly disapproving in their opinions about the reigning Stanley Cup MVP. (And a tweet from TSN’s Dave Hodge has people bandying about the R word.)

Margery Eagean writes for BostonHerald.com and labelled Thomas “embarrassing”, “classless”, and “a spoiled brat” in that paper’s news-and-opinion page. About Thomas’s political philosophy as a reason for the Barack Obama snub she wrote: “I’m just not sure how any of that translates into not showing up for a five-minute White House photo-op—unless Thomas thinks shaking Obama’s hand would somehow taint him, contaminate him, mark him as consorting with the enemy. Unless Thomas thinks Obama’s policies make him an evil, contemptible person.”

Gethin Coolbaugh, regional editor of SB Nation Boston, writing in the Hub sports blog: “For taking a stand for the greater good, Thomas should be praised, not scorned….His actions were done in the interest of the American people….Kudos, Timmy. Thanks for standing up for what you believe in.”

Patrick Brennan, recent Harvard grad and William F. Buckley Fellow at the National Review Online, writing in The Corner blog: “Thomas’s choice wasn’t unpatriotic, but it was, in some sense, immature and self-centered.…Thomas took a patriotic and effectively apolitical celebration focused on a sports team and made it into a noteworthy and intensely political event focused on his opinions”.

Two other BostonHerald.com writers, Dave Wedge and Stephen Harris, this time in the sports section, said Thomas “brazenly snubbed” Obama, and they supplied reaction from some prominent Democrats, including this quote from Massachusetts Democratic Party spokesperson Kevin Franck: “I think anyone who really cares about the lives, liberty and happiness of the American people wouldn’t miss an opportunity to shake the hand of the man who got bin Laden.”

The Boston Globe’s Kevin Paul Dupont was unstinting in his condemnation of Thomas, calling him: “Shabby. Immature. Unprofessional. Self-centered. Bush league.” He went on: “It was the same government yesterday, and will be today, that protected his country, his security, his family, and his right to make $5 million a year, all last season.”

And speaking of Thomas’s place on the U.S. men’s hockey team that won silver at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, he wrote: “Someone so disgusted with our government ought to turn in the sweater and the medal. It must be a horrible burden, if not a pox, to have them in his house.”

ESPNBoston.com’s Joe McDonald weighed in with this: “It was odd that Thomas chose this stage to make a statement by not attending the White House visit with the rest of his teammates, especially given the fact that he is one of only two Americans on the Cup-winning team.…There’s no way any player on this team will publicly disagree with Thomas’s decision, but this one could come back to kick him between his goalie pads.…Thomas’s absence was uncalled-for.”

The Bleacher Report’s Dan Levy called Thomas “a coward. It’s one thing to disrespect the office of the president of the United States…but to justify that decision by blaming all of government and not having the guts to admit you aren’t going because you fundamentally disagree with the politics of this particular administration is downright deceitful.” He went on to label his “public lack of respect” as “borderline treasonous”.

Filmmaker Michael Moore, who attended the same school in Davison, Michigan, as did Thomas, tweeted: “Tim Thomas & I went to the same high school. I can tell u this: People in Flint [Michigan] LOVE Obama, desperately need Obama, & DETEST Thomas’ actions.”

And, finally, we leave you with a tweet from TSN’s Dave Hodge, one that was published online on thepensblog.com under the headline “TSN reporter insinuates Tim Thomas is a racist”: “Don’t know if it’s fair to point this out, but Tim Thomas has three children named Kiley, Kelsey and Keegan.” (emphasis added)

No, Dave, not fair.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

NYT and the Racism Bog

Tuesday, January 24th, 2012

When a Republican presidential candidate goes around talking about Barack Obama as the “food stamp president,” eventually reporters are going to have to write about racism. But how they talk about the issue in instructive. In today’s New York Times (1/18/12), Jim Rutenberg has a piece headlined “Risks for GOP in Attacks With Racial Themes,” where we learn this about Newt Gingrich‘s food stamp rhetoric:

Mr. Gingrich was clearly making the case that he is the candidate most able to take the fight to Mr. Obama in the fall, but he was also laying bare risks for his party when it comes to invoking argumentsperceived to carry racial themes or other value-laden attack lines.

This is the kind of language one expects to encounter when reporters have to figure out ways to talk about racism without calling it racism. In Monday’s Times (1/16/12Martin Luther King Jr. Day),  John Harwoodreported on why several Republicans didn’t pursue the presidential nomination:

Political heavyweights who declined to enter the 2012 race all had uniquely personal reasons. Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana faced family resistance; former Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi feared being bogged down in the politics of race; Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey doubted his readiness for the Oval Office.

People who remember the Barbour story might not recall anything about a bog. Barbour talked to the Weekly Standard in late 2010, and he professed fond memories of the white supremacist Citizens Council groups in Mississippi. In Barbour’s mind they were anti-Klan activists, which as critics pointed out, is a rather remarkable description of groups that were founded to oppose school integration and protest civil rights advocates.

That controversy brought up other unpleasant Barbour stories, like this anecdote from a 1982 New York Timesarticle (dug up by Ben Smith at Politico) about Barbour’s Congressional campaign:

But the racial sensitivity at Barbour headquarters was suggested by an exchange between the candidate and an aide who complained that there would be “coons” at a campaign stop at the state fair. Embarrassed that a reporter heard this, Mr. Barbour warned that if the aide persisted in racist remarks, he would be reincarnated as a watermelon and placed at the mercy of blacks.

That the obvious racism on display is characterized as “racial sensitivity” suggests the Times hasn’t changed a whole lot over the years.

One point that Rutenberg’s piece today makes is that the pointed questions that were posed to Gingrich at the recent debate were asked by a black reporter: Fox‘s Juan Williams.  To Williams, there’s nothing subtle about what Gingrich is doing here; it is  “more than a dog whistle…. It’s a hoot and a holler.”

It could be that journalists of color would be more likely to call out a candidate making these kinds of appeals.  That’s less likely when there are few journalists of color covering the campaign. To take just one outlet as an example, Richard Prince recently noted in his Journal-isms column (1/4/12) that Time magazine does not have any blacks or Latinos covering the 2012 political season.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

New US plan to stop drug flow over northern border

Sunday, January 22nd, 2012

Buffalo, N.Y. —

Federal law enforcement agencies will help tribal officers obtain equipment and training on Indian lands near the U.S.-Canadian border as part of the White House’s newly released strategy for reducing the flow of illegal drugs and drug proceeds between the two countries.

Tribal officers also should be included in criminal intelligence sharing and inter-agency task forces, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy report released Friday.

Drug smugglers have been known to seek out tribal jurisdictions in order to smuggle illegal drugs into the United States,” said the report, the first of its kind since being required under the Northern Border Counternarcotics Strategy Act of 2010.

The goal is to stop Canadian marijuana, Ecstasy and methamphetamine from entering the United States and to keep cocaine that originates in South America from flowing north. Authorities have also targeted bulk cash smuggling in both directions that finances criminal organizations.

President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper signed a Feb. 4 agreement to share more information on travelers and better coordinate cross-border investigations.

The report identified more than 60 miles of the northern border classified as “Indian country” and under tribal jurisdiction.

Tribes with lands directly adjacent to the border include Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa Tribe in Michigan, the Blackfeet Tribe of Montana, the Grand Portage Band and Red Lake Band of Chippewa in Minnesota and St. Regis Mohawk Tribe in New York.

To intercept drugs elsewhere along the more than 5,000-mile border, the policy office recommended enhancing already established partnerships among U.S. and Canadian law-enforcement counterparts, along with intelligence sharing and cooperation among federal and local agencies. The strategy also relies on those living near the long and geographically diverse border to fill in the gaps.

“The U.S.-Canada relationship already supports successful bi-national and multi-agency task forces, but it must work to improve these entities with limited resources,” the report said. “Law enforcement agencies must reach out to community coalitions to develop effective prevention, treatment and law enforcement partnerships.”

Agents seized about 9,470 pounds of marijuana along the northern border in fiscal 2011, according to Customs and Border Protection statistics, less than 1 percent of the roughly 2.4 million pounds seized along the southwestern border.

Recent arrests have highlighted the northern boundary’s porousness. In May 2010, a Canadian kingpin confessed to running 2,000 pounds of marijuana a week through the forests of upstate New York. Later that year, in December, Canadian officials arrested 29 smugglers on charges of using boats to run tons of marijuana, Ecstasy and methamphetamine across the Great Lakes to Michigan and New York.

“Vast drug networks along our northern border are exacerbating violence in communities all across the state … This is the right strategy to fight this scourge at its source,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., said of the written strategy.

The 2010 law requires the Office of National Drug Control Policy to release a northern border plan every two years.

“Improving communications between the courts, immigration officials and law enforcement and increasing accountability, as this plan will, should enhance our ability to keep drugs off our streets and out of our schools,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

NYT Editorial Page Editor Calls Boehner Racist for Asking Obama to Delay Speech to Congress

Thursday, January 5th, 2012

Is House Speaker John Boehner an anti-Obama racist? Editorial Page editor Andrew Rosenthal all but accuses him in his Tuesday blog from Des Moines, “Nobody Likes to Talk About It, but It’s There.” (The web headline is blunter: “Republican Attacks Have Racist Undertones.”)

Actually, Rosenthal is all too happy to talk about racist Republicans if it helps Democrats politically, as he did on November 1, in one of his first blog posts: “…it was the Republicans who perfected the art of injecting racial fears into modern-day politics (remember Willie Horton in 1988?) and have conducted an unrelenting personal attack on President Obama that sometimes has not-so-subtle racial overtones.”

From Rosenthal’s Tuesday post:

Talking about race in American politics is uncomfortable and awkward. But it has to be said: There has been a racist undertone to many of the Republican attacks leveled against President Obama for the last three years, and in this dawning presidential campaign.

You can detect this undertone in the level of disrespect for this president that would be unthinkable were he not an African-American. Some earlier examples include: Rep. Joe Wilson shouting “you lie” at one of Mr. Obama’s first appearances before Congress, and House Speaker John Boehner rejecting Mr. Obama’s request to speak to a joint session of Congress – the first such denial in the history of our republic.
As for decorum during presidential appearances before Congress, Rosenthal has apparently forgotten the rumbles and hisses, hoots and hollerings of “No! No!” thrown at President Bush by Democrats (documented in his own newspaper) at Bush’s February 2005 State of the Union address when he spoke on Social Security reform.

In addition, Speaker Boehner did not “reject” Obama’s request to address Congress, but instead suggested that the president delay the speech for one day, to avoid it being held on the same night as a Republican presidential debate. (And that’s what happened.) Rosenthal’s suggestion that Boehner’s move was somehow racist is too pathetic to even merit a response.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

R.I.P. Bill of Rights 1789 – 2011

Monday, January 2nd, 2012


One of the most extraordinary documents in human history — the Bill of Rights — has come to an end under President Barack Obama. Derived from sacred principles of natural law, the Bill of Rights has come to a sudden and catastrophic end with the President’s signing of theNational Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a law that grants the U.S. military the “legal” right to conduct secret kidnappings of U.S. citizens, followed by indefinite detention, interrogation, torture and even murder. This is all conducted completely outside the protection of law, with no jury, no trial, no legal representation and not even any requirement that the government produce evidence against the accused. It is a system of outright government tyranny against the American people, and it effectively nullifies the Bill of Rights.

In what will be remembered as the most traitorous executive signing ever committed against the American people, President Obama signed the bill on New Year’s Eve, a time when most Americans were engaged in the consumption of alcohol. It seems appropriate, of course, since no intelligent American could accept the tyranny of this bill if they were sober.

This is the law that will cement Obama’s legacy in the history books as the traitor who nullified the Bill of Rights and paved America’s pathway down a road of tyranny that will make Nazi Germany’s war crimes look like child’s play. If Bush had signed a law like this, liberals would have been screaming “impeachment!”

Why the Bill of Rights matters

While the U.S. Constitution already limits the power of federal government, the Bill of Rights is the document that enumerates even more limits of federal government power. In its inception, many argued that a Bill of Rights was completely unnecessary because, they explained, the federal government only has the powers specifically enumerated to it under the U.S. Constitution. There was no need to have a “First Amendment” to protect Free Speech, for example, because there was no power granted to government to diminish Free Speech.

 This seems silly today, of course, given the natural tendency of all governments to concentrate power in the hands of the few while destroying the rights and freedoms of their own people. But in the 1780’s, whether government could ever become a threat to future freedoms was hotly debated. By 1789, enough revolutionary leaders had agreed on the fundamental principles of a Bill of Rights to sign it into law. Its purpose was to provideadditional clarifications on the limitation of government power so that there could be absolutely no question that government could NEVER, under any circumstances, violate these key principles of freedom: Freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, freedom from illegal searches, the right to remain silent, the right to due process under law, and so on.

Of course, today’s runaway federal government utterly ignores the limitations placed on it by the founding fathers. It aggressively and criminally seeks to expand its power at all costs, completely ignoring the Bill of Rights and openly violating the limitations of power placed upon it by the United States Constitution. The TSA’s illegal searching of air travelers, for example, is a blatant violation of Fourth Amendment rights. The government’s hijacking of websites it claims are linking to “copyright infringement” hubs is a blatant violation of First Amendment rights. The government’s demand that all Americans be forced to buy private health insurance is a blatant violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution — the “commerce clause.”

Now, with the passage of the NDAA, the federal government has torpedoed the entire Bill of Rights, dismissing it completely and effectively promising to violate those rights at will. As of January 1, 2012, we have all been designated enemies of the state. America is the new battleground, and your “right” to due process is null and void.

Remember, this was all done by the very President who promised to close Guantanamo Bay and end secret military prisons. Not only did Obama break that campaign promise (as he has done with nearly ALL his campaign promises), he did exactly the opposite and has now subjected all Americans to the possibility of government-sponsored kidnapping, detainment and torture, all under the very system of secret military prisons he claimed he would close!

“President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Obama’s signing statement means nothing

Even while committing an act of pure treason in signing the bill, the unindicted criminal President Obama issued a signing statement that reads, in part, “Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded…”

Anyone who reads between the lines here realizes the “the flexibility on which our safety depends” means they can interpret the law in any way they want if there is a sufficient amount of fear being created through false flag terror attacks. Astute readers will also notice that Obama’s signing statement has no legal binding whatsoever and only refers to Obama’smomentary intentions on how he “wishes” to interpret the law. It does not place any limits whatsoever on how a future President might use the law as written.

“The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield,” says the ACLU.

What this means is that the next President could use this law to engage in the most horrific holocaust-scale mass round-up of people the world has ever seen. The NDAA legalizes the crimes of Nazi Germany in America, setting the stage for the mass murder of citizens by a rogue government.

United States of America becomes a rogue nation, operating in violation of international law Furthermore, the NDAA law as written and signed, is a violation of international law as it does not even adhere to the fundamental agreements of how nations treat prisoners of war.

The ACLU also says, “…the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.”

In 1789, today’s NDAA law would have been called “treasonous,” and those who voted for it would have been shot dead as traitors. This is not a call for violence, but rather an attempt to provide historical context of just how destructive this law really is. Men and women fought and died for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. People sacrificed their lives, their safety and risked everything to achieve the freedoms that made America such a great nation. For one President to so callously throw away 222 years of liberty, betraying those great Americans who painstakingly created an extraordinary document limiting the power of government, is equivalent to driving a stake through the heart of the Republic.

In signing this, Obama has proven himself to be the most criminal of all U.S. Presidents, far worse than George W. Bush and a total traitor to the nation and its People. Remember, Obama swore upon a Bible that he would “protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and yet he himself has become the enemy of the Constitution by signing a law that overtly and callously nullifies the Bill of Rights.

This is nothing less than an act of war declared on the American people by the executive and legislative branches of government. It remains to be seen whether the judicial branch will go along with it (US Supreme Court).

The Bill of Rights, signed in 1789 by many of the founding fathers of our nation, was based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, drafted in 1776 and authored largely by George Mason, one of the least-recognized revolutionaries who gave rise to a nation of freedom and liberty.

Mason was a strong advocate of not just states’ rights, but of individual rights, and without his influence in 1789, we might not even have a Bill of Rights today (and our nation would have slipped into total government tyranny all the sooner). In fact, he openly opposed ratification of the U.S. Constitution unless it contained a series of amendments now known as the Bill of Rights.

SECTION ONE of this Virginia declaration of rights states:

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

Section Three of the declaration speaks to the duty of the Citizens to abolish abusive government:

“That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.”

By any honest measure, today’s U.S. government, of course, has overstepped the bounds of its original intent. As Mason wrote over 200 years ago, the People of America now have not merely a right but a duty to “reform, alter or abolish it,” to bring government back into alignment with its original purpose — to protect the rights of the People.

Obama violates his Presidential Oath, sworn before God

Article II, Section I, of the United States Constitution spells out the oath of office that every President must take during their swearing in:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

In signing the NDAA law into office, Obama has blatantly and unambiguously violated this sacred oath, meaning that his betrayal is not merely against the American people, but also against the Divine Creator.

Given that the Bill of Rights is an extension of Natural Law which establishes a direct heritage of sovereign power from the Creator to the People, a blatant attack upon the Bill of Rights is, by any account, an attack against the Creator and a violation of universal spiritual principles. Those who attempt to undermine the Bill of Rights are attempting to invalidate the relationship between God and Man, and in doing so, they are identifying themselves as enemies of God andagents of Evil.

Today, as 2012 begins, we are now a nation led by evil, and threatened with total destruction by those who would seek to rule as tyrants. This is America’s final hour. We either defend the Republic starting right now, or we lose it forever.

Read the language analysis of WHY and HOW the NDAA applies to American citizens 

Many people have been fooled by the obfuscated language of the bill, and they wrongfully believe the NDAA does not apply to American citizens. They have been hoodwinked!

In this follow-up article, I parse the language of the NDAA and explain, in plain language, how and why the NDAA does apply to American citizens.

Also, read this explanation by Rep. Justin Amash, who voted against the bill.

Make no mistake, folks: The U.S. government has just declared all Americans to be “enemy combatants,” and that the USA is now a “battleground” over which the military has total control. We are now a nation living under military dictatorship, whether you realize it or not.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Defense Act threatens our freedoms

Saturday, December 24th, 2011

President Obama told Americans to “Hold fast to our freedoms” during a speech on the tenth anniversary of 9/11. Why then is he about to sign The latest National Defense Authorization Act which will give him and future presidents the power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without charge, trial, evidence or consultation with a lawyer? Is it because that since 9/11 and the signing of the Patriot Act the federal government has been eroding the Constitution before our very eyes? Well now there is even less to hold onto.

Section 1031 of Senate Bill 1867 requires the military to indefinitely detain anyone suspected of being a terrorist or of aiding and abetting one. Some have argued that Section 1032 claims that U.S. citizens are exempt, although the ACLU and other observers note that the language of the bill has been written so that the military has the power but does not have to unless ordered to do so.

Congressman Justin Amash of Michigan writes, “Senators McCain and Levin are promoting one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation of our lifetime. It permits the federal government to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without charge or trial at the discretion of the president.” Is this the change President Obama spoke of? In fact, he is continuing to destroy a document that he swore under oath to protect.

This is nothing new of course. Look through the Patriot Act and other Defense Authorization Acts that have become

law since 9/11 and one will find more of this. Americans still hear in speeches that we were and are attacked because of our freedoms, so is that why the government is taking them away? To make us safer? Sounds to me like our government is trying to make itself safer from us. Benjamin Franklin once said those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.


Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Man faces sentencing in fire at black church

Thursday, December 22nd, 2011

SPRINGFIELD — A white man convicted of burning down a predominantly black church because he was angry with President Barack Obama’s election faces sentencing in federal court.

Michael Jacques was convicted in April of various charges in connection with the fire, including conspiracy against civil rights. He is scheduled to be sentenced Thursday in U.S. District Court in Springfield. He faces 10 to 60 years in prison.

Prosecutors say Jacques and two friends burned down the under-construction Macedonia Church of God in Christ in Springfield the night of Obama’s 2008 election in an angry act of racism. The two other men have pleaded guilty in connection with the fire.

.No one was injured. The church has since been rebuilt.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook


Wednesday, November 9th, 2011

PATRICK SWAYZE’s’s niece has stunned her family by marrying a violent neo-Nazi skinhead who’s linked to a plot to assassinate OBAMA!

Danielle Swayze – the 23-year-old daughter of the late “Ghost” star’s brother Don – secretly wed convicted felon Joshua Steever in August, and her fam­ily is reeling at the news, The ENQUIRER has learned.

Steever, 31, bragged about being a leader of the Supreme White Alliance, a racist group which had members that reportedly planned to kill President Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign.

He’s also the self-proclaimed president of the Aryan Terror Brigade as well as the New Jer­sey representative of the neo-Nazi skinhead group Blood & Honor USA. He had the word ‘rac­ist’ tattooed across his entire forehead and a swastika tat­tooed at the corner of his right eye.

Danielle met Steever online and married him just days after their first face-to-face meeting at a neo-Nazi event, sources say. When word of their wedding leaked out, she posted a Facebook rant threatening to “extermi­nate” the “rat” behind the leak.

But even her own father didn’t know she’d tied the knot!

“What marriage?” Don Swayze, 53, blurted out when The ENQUIRER informed him of his daughter’s nuptials. “Why would she marry a neo-Nazi? Are you sure? That is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of.”

When contacted by The ENQUIRER about his mar­riage to Danielle, Steever boasted: “It’s legal, it’s the real deal.”

Swayze – a longtime character actor who starred in the TV series “True Blood” – added: “I had no idea she was getting married. And let me make it clear – I would never in a million years approve of her marrying a neo-Nazi.”

When The ENQUIRER contacted Danielle’s mother Marcia for comment, she shrieked: “There’s no story here! Don’t ever call me again!”

Danielle’s parents divorced in 1993 after an eight-year marriage, and she hasn’t spoken to her father for at least five years, according to an insider.

But at one time she was close to her late uncle Patrick, attending the opening of the play “Lone Star” with him in April 2005. Sadly, the “Dirty Dancing” star was diag­nosed with pancreatic cancer in January 2008 and passed away at age 57 in September 2009.

“To have a family member marry a Nazi skinhead would have made Patrick’s hair stand on end,” said a source. “If he hadn’t already passed, this would have killed him.”

Meanwhile, skinhead sources familiar with Steev­er are warning his new bride to pull the plug on their quickie marriage.

“In my opinion, Josh is a walking time bomb,” a former pal told The ENQUIRER. “I think he’s evil and filled with hate. “He openly brags about the violent acts he’s com­mitted, and he’s so proud of his arrests that he com­monly refers to his rap sheet as his ‘resume.’”

In 2005, Steever was busted on felony aggravated assault charges in Texas, after beating someone with an ax handle, earning the nickname “Hatchet,” sources say. He was eventually convicted on a re­duced charge of deadly conduct.

He was arrested again in 2006 after three African- American high school students told police he pulled a knife on them and threatened to blow up Newark Memorial High School in California.

According to Alameda County court documents obtained exclusively by The ENQUIRER, Steever was charged with three separate felony counts, plus one misdemeanor charge of exhibiting a deadly weapon.

In a bid to get a light­er sentence, Steever had the tattoo “racist” partially removed from his forehead. He was eventually sentenced to a year in jail and five years probation.

But Steever’s most heinous allegiance is with the Supreme White Alliance (SWA), an organization that boasts of being racist on its website.

“Josh used to brag about being a leading member of SWA,” the source divulged. “And he was very close friends with Daniel Cowart, one of the guys behind the Obama assassination plot.”

Cowart, 20, and an 18-year-old accomplice were arrested in October 2008 after confessing to a scheme to kill Obama, then the Dem­ocratic presidential nominee. They’d also planned to murder 88 African-Americans in Tennessee.

While Danielle apparently married Steever de­spite his arrest record and neo-Nazi leanings, she exploded when someone leaked details of their private wedding ceremony.

On her Facebook page, a furious Daniellewrote: “Alright Comrades … If anyone can find out any info on … who is the little anti-informant… 500$ bucks for their name and picture … There’s a “skin” rat amongst us who needs to be exterminated!”

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook