"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free...to a time when truth exists, and what is done cannot be undone...From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink--greetings!" - George Orwell, 1984
Friday, October 31, 2008
Harold's Halloween 2008
[Found this in the files. From "The Monk" by M. G. Lewis, 1795]
Alonzo the Brave and Fair Imogine A warrior so bold, and a virgin so bright Conversed, as they sat on the green: They gazed on each other with tender delight; Alonzo the Brave was the name of the knight, The maid’s was the Fair Imogine.
‘And oh!’ said the youth, ‘since tomorrow I go To fight in a far distant land, Your tears for my absence soon leaving to flow, Some other will court you, and you will bestow On a wealthier suitor your hand.’
‘Oh! hush these suspicions,’ Fair Imogine said, ‘Offensive to love and to me! For if ye be living, or if ye be dead, I swear by the Virgin, that none in your stead Shall husband of Imogine be.
‘If e’er I by lust or by wealth led aside Forget my Alonzo the Brave, Your ghost at the marriage may sit by my side, May tax me with perjury, claim me as bride, And bear me away to the grave!’
To Palestine hastened the hero so bold; His love, she lamented him sore: But scarce had a twelve-month elapsed, when behold, A baron all covered with jewels and gold Arrived at Fair Imogine’s door.
His treasure, his presents, his spacious domain Soon made her untrue to her vows: He dazzled her eyes; he bewildered her brain; He caught her affections so light and so vain, And carried her home as his spouse.
And now had the marriage been blest by the priest; The revelry now was begun: The tables, they groaned with the weightof the feast; Nor yet had the laughter and merriment ceased, When the bell of the castle told, — ‘One!’
Then first with amazement Fair Imogine found That a stranger was placed by her side: His air was terrific; he uttered no sound; He spoke not, he moved not, he looked not around, But earnestly gazed on the bride.
His visor was closed, and gigantic his height; His armour was sable to view: All pleasure and laughter were hushed at his sight; The dogs as they eyed him drew back in affright, The lights in the chamber burned blue!
His presence all bosoms appeared to dismay; The guests sat in silence and fear. At length spoke the bride, while she trembled; ‘I pray, Sir Knight, that your helmet aside you would lay, And deign to partake of our cheer.’
The lady is silent: the stranger complies. His visor he slowly unclosed: Oh God! what a sight met Fair Imogine’s eyes! What words can express her dismay and surprise, When a skeleton’s head was exposed.
All present then uttered a terrified shout; All turned with disgust from the scene. The worms they crept in, and the worms they crept out, And sported his eyes and his temples about, While the spectre addressed Imogine.
‘Behold me, thou false one! Behold me!’ he cried; ‘Remember Alonzo the Brave! My ghost at thy marriage doth sit by thy side, Doth tax thee with perjury, claim thee as bride And bear thee away to the grave!’
Thus saying, his arms round the lady he wound, While loudly she shrieked in dismay; Then sank with his prey through the wide-yawning ground: Nor ever again was Fair Imogine found, Or the spectre who bore her away.
Not long lived the baron; and none since that time To inhabit the castle presume: For chronicles tell, that by order sublime There Imogine suffers the pain of her crime, And mourns her deplorable doom.
At midnight four times in each year does her spright When mortals in slumber are bound, Arrayed in her bridal apparel of white, Appear in the hall with the skeleton knight, And shriek, as he whirls her around.
While they drink out of skulls newly torn from the grave, Dancing round them the spectres are seen: Their liquor is blood, and this horrible stave They howl. — ‘To the health of Alonzo the Brave, And his consort, the False Imogine!’
The fourth extradition hearing for Dr Gerald Toben kicked off at a few minutes after 2.00 pm on Thursday 29 October - Joshua Rosenberg of the BBC, affectionately known as 'Lenin' by his sparring partners accompanied by some otherwise nondescript journalists with the exception of one massively over weight individual, trooped into the press area at the side of the court. Judge Daphne Wickham then entered and gave her summing up with forensic precision on the validity of the European extradition warrant. The public - nearly all Toben supporters included David Irving and Lady Michelle Renouf, and were crammed into the public area behind armoured glass where they could hear fragments of the poorly amplified proceedings suitably muffled by the sound of the air-conditioning.
The Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) had been plotting to arrest, or rather pounce on, Toben since January 2008. Judge Wickham stated that the extradition related to 'anti-Semitism's and 'xenophobia, but concluded that the German government had provided no information as to the precise nature of the charges. She quoted a previous extradition case relating to people trafficking in which details had been provided as a precedent. The prosecution case was' vague and imprecise' - inadequate on three grounds - no dates were given relating times of the alleged offences, no places where the offences were committed were specified and no websites or printed material were mentioned. Apart from that the warrant was in perfect order; in other words a monumental blunder by the crazed and arrogant German establishment - not her words, unfortunately. Toben's supporters were startled by this decision though and tried to take in the implications.
However, the sting was in the tail - Dr Toben, in theory, was theoretically free to leave prison, and should, logically have been given his passport, a ticket to leave the UK, the promise of massive compensation payment for wrongful arrest, or rather kidnap, and imprisonment, and the promise of a prosecution of police and politicians for 'conspiracy to pervert the course of justice' which carries a maximum penalty of a life sentence. Kevin Watson for the defence asked for bail and judge Wickam set the amount at £100,000 rather than the £10,000 that had previously informally been indicated - the payment would have to be paid in cash by not more than two persons within a week. Toben would have to report daily to a police station, would not be able to hold press conferences, attend meetings, distribute material, or post on the internet, but would (in act of unparalleled generosity) be allowed to access the internet.
Daphne Cumberland, acting for the prosecution, said the German government wished to appeal and I understand they have a week to seek out a judge in chambers and set a date to appeal on the decision. There is also the possibility that a second, corrected extradition warrant would be served on Dr Toben - however, this is though to be unlikely, as it would not look good. There is now a slight chance of victory due to pressure from some elements of the media, the Liberal Party and even the Jewish Chronicle - presumably aware of the precedent it would set for Israeli war criminals / politicians passing through Britain. I therefore now hope for the best, but I still expect the worse.
[This article is from the British Daily Mail newspaper. It should be noted that Dr. Toben still isn't actually FREE but instead is living under a form of house arrest while the UK and German governments put their heads together and try to find some way of destroying him for the horrible "crime" of publishing dissenting views on the internet. - HAC] Suspected Holocaust denier wins his legal fight against extradition after judge throws case out of courtBy Charlotte Gill
An alleged Holocaust denier has won his fight against extradition to Germany. Dr Gerald Toben, 64, is accused of publishing anti-Semitic material on his website. The Australian academic is wanted in Germany to stand trial for posting the alleged items between 2000 and 2004.
The German authorities claim they are 'of an anti-Semitic and/or revisionist nature'.
Suspected Holocaust denier Dr Gerald Toben walked free from court today in London after a judge threw out an extradition bid from Germany where he is wanted for publishing anti-Semitic material on his website
In the European Arrest Warrant issued in October 2004, he is accused of approving of or playing down the murder of the Jews by the Nazis.But District Judge Daphne Wickham ruled the warrant invalid today at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court in London, saying it contained inadequate detail about the offences.
It neither states the name of the website nor where the propaganda is said to have been published from - only referring to the 'world-wide internet'. After discharging Toben, Judge Wickham granted him bail pending an appeal after imposing strict conditions which include a £100,000 security.Other conditions include residence at an approved address, written confirmation from the Australian High Commission of which passports he holds, and not to access the internet.
He is also banned from giving press interviews.
Judge Wickham added that she had not been required to decide at this stage whether the alleged crimes were valid extradition offences. Grey wavy-haired Toben, smartly dressed in a suit, appeared pleased on hearing the judge's decision from the glass-fronted dock at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court.
The public gallery was packed with supporters of Toben.
Toben claims he will not get a fair trial in Germany.
The controversial author was reportedly jailed in 1999 at Mannheim prison for breaching Germany's Holocaust Law Section 130, prohibiting anyone from 'defaming the dead'.
Toben's Adelaide Institute website has drawn criticism for many years. In 2000 he fought an order by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission in Australia to remove its 'offensive' content. The commission claimed it breached Australia's Racial Discrimination Act.
Toben completed his Doctor of Philosophy course at the University of Stuttgart in 1977 and taught schools and colleges all over the world.He founded the Adelaide Institute and is the author of at least eight books on education, political science and history.
At an earlier hearing he accused the 'world press' of wrongly portraying him as 'horrible, terrible, vicious...I must respond to that, because this is nonsense.' Attempting to reassure the court he would not jump bail, he added: 'The world is my prison. 'I'm well known and to suggest there's no honour in my person is to slander me.'
[This wandered in off the internet, unattributed. I know it's long, and reading it will hurt your head, but it's very close to the bone in its analysis. People, you have got to try and wrap your minds around it. You must recover our ancestors' ability to sit down and read a lengthy block of text for content, because there is vital information that we of the older generation MUST pass on to you, and we simply don't have the technical and computer skills to turn everything into a South Park cartoon with dancing turds and gigantic Barbra Streisand robots. - HAC] The Trans-National Elites and the Populist Response
Recently, Winds of Change put up a post asserting that Obama's probable victory in the race for President signals a new model for electoral success. Boiled down to its essentials, the post argues that trans-national elites have become fed up with America, American patriotism and populism, and are making themselves heard by telling America what to do, how to do it, in an auction available to the highest bidder. The essentials are proposed as this:
*Media support that suppresses any reporting of illegality in fundraising or anything else by Obama.
*Vast monetary advantage by tapping the global pool of (illegal) foreign contributions from trans-national elites, including Saudi, Pakistani, Hamas, and Hezbollah/Iranian money.
*Government funded vote fraud and mass-rallying organizations (ACORN).
*Intimidation and bullying a la The Coming Thugocracy. This model, that of a trans-national elite, taking steps to control the US presidential election, does seem to describe what Obama's campaign really is. There are other data points. San Francisco columnist Mark Morford describes Obama as a Lightworker, a near-parody of the WB series Charmed "White Lighter" characters:
"Here's where it gets gooey. Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul." There could be nothing more trans-national than this statement above. A more stunning repudiation of nationalism, America, and populism could not be imagined.Then there is the Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Jonathon Valania, who argues, seriously, that White people should not be allowed to vote because they are "racist" and won't vote for Obama. Or Barack Obama himself, who noted:
"I’m not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me." You could not invent the more perfect, elitist, yuppie, trans-national statement, hostile to the people and where most of the majority population lives. This is standard stuff in Europe, where trans-national elites run most of Europe, save for Putin's Russia, and parts of Eastern Europe, and Italy. In places like the UK, or France, or Spain, or Germany, or Sweden, liberal and Jewish elites suppress nationalism, nationalist feeling, any measure of populism, and push the agenda of the trans-national elite, who form a sort of new medieval priesthood who try to tear down national institutions and national feelings, not to mention the national peoples themselves, to construct a new trans-national "Peoples of the World." It is why you see considerable effort to replace native European populations with that of North African or African populations, and Dutch or Swedish politicians stating that they eagerly await the day when natives are a minority and Islam rules the land. In most places in Europe, even places like Spain or Ireland, this sort of trans-national elitist politics works, because transfer payments from places like Germany and the UK allows trans-national elites to dispense various goodies, usually in the form of welfare payments or free government services to enough voters to assemble a winning coalition. This is why, even as European nations become overwhelmed with immigrants, who have declared de facto independent states where natives dare not tread and the law does not apply (such as the UK's decision to allow Sharia Law to have the full force of common law in Britain), governments responsible get elected and re-elected. While trans-national elites disparage unifying symbols such as flags, national symbols, national history, voters don't punish them. They have their goodies, and for now, that works. Obama's probable victory is merely a transfer of the successful EU model, of trans-national politics, to America. However, the elites who make up the trans-national elites do have weaknesses, ones that make them vulnerable, and likely to create a world-wide backlash. First, it's useful to note where trans-national elites do not hold sway: Italy, Austria, Russia, and parts of Eastern Europe. Russia was simply too corrupt, violent, and inherently nationalistic for the trans-national elites to hold sway. It's laughable to think that someone like Mark Morford, or Jonathon Valanian, much less Barack Obama, would face down a hardened KGB killer like Vladimir Putin, or any of his crew. In places where violence rules, and guns trump money from afar, trans-national elites are like medieval priests confronting marauding Vikings. Helpless. Eastern Europe was of course, too poor, corrupt, disorganized, and chaotic for trans-national elites to give enough patronage money for local elites to build electoral alliances. The same holds true for Austria and Italy. Italy is quite instructive — notoriously corrupt, plagued by inefficiencies, no one expects anything from the government, and tax evasion and payoffs are a way of life. Indeed, the Lega Nord and other right oriented political groups are successful there, as in Austria, because people are concerned about influxes of immigrants. In Italy, the flood of North African, and Balkan (mostly Roma/Gypsy) illegal immigrants, has not been balanced by successful payoffs or patronage/welfare payments to enough voters to create a winning coalition. Meanwhile, Italians, Austrians, Poles, Bulgarians, etc. are not about to abolish their nations for some hazy notion of "citizenship of the world" and certainly not without lots of money flowing to lots of voters and people. This was the same problem facing the Catholic Church's medieval priesthood. While most of the educated, literate, and money-controlling people in Europe were priests, bishops, and archbishops, as well as the early Jewish banking and financial elite, they could not form patronage networks to rival that of the kings, at the head of feudal patronage organizations. Significantly, the priests could field no direct armies, or put men under arms themselves. The history of Europe from the 1100's onwards is a steady consolidation of power by kings creating nations, and a long slow recession of international power by the Catholic Church. The kings of medieval Europe could not match the production of wealth that the Catholic church's monasteries produced. The kings could not produce the large amounts of educated, loyal to Rome, and absolutely required functionaries that the Church alone provided. But the kings could create alliances to seize said monasteries and distribute the wealth among themselves and barons, such as Henry the VIII. Or found universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, and the University of Paris, to create their own, loyal, literate functionaries. Because while the monasteries were a huge source of wealth, they could not be defended. Defending the wealth required men under arms, something the Church was never able to produce. In the same manner, the Obama model of media in the tank, illegal foreign money (not reported by said in the tank media), voter fraud, and thug tactics has a weakness. By moving entirely outside the media, through building grass-roots organizations, populists can control their message and use it create wedge politics, particularly through using nationalism and populism. This would include such things as various social events, private insurance, entertainment events, and so on. Particularly as the global economic crisis makes the ability of trans-national elites to provide welfare payoffs to broad slices of the electorate very questionable. [I notice this author pointedly avoids the obvious necessity of re-introducing the gun into American and Western politics. - HAC] In addition, populism and the notion that trans-national elites are "traitors" to the nation, putting the interests of illegal immigrants and various minority groups ahead of the nation and native majority have proved quite successful. Italy's Berlusconi, to use one example, used precisely this message to win election and stage a comeback after having been written off as politically dead. The more that Harold Myerson of the Washington Post writes about how America must "abolish Whiteness" by such gems as this:
"In a year when the Democrats have an African American presidential nominee, the Republicans now more than ever are the white folks' party, the party that delays the advent of our multicultural future, the party of the American past. Republican conventions have long been bastions of de facto Caucasian exclusivity, but coming right after the diversity of Denver, this year's GOP convention is almost shockingly -- un-Americanly -- white." The more the trans-national elites take this direction, the more they can be attacked with impunity as the enemy of the nation, it's traditions, and most importantly, it's majority. When Barack Obama's favorite Catholic priest Father Pfleger calls 401K plans "racist" and Obama's advisors write of plans to tax 401Ks to pay for redistribution of wealth, from Whites to blacks, as part of a "reparative" measure to atone for slavery and segregation, this is a golden opportunity for identity politics. As per the 2000 Census, the population breakdown is 75% White, 12% Black, and 13% Hispanic. Now, while Whites may have declined relative to that census, it will be only marginal, and the majority of the nation is still overwhelmingly White. It is not good politics to attack the White majority, without offering a la Britain or France, lots of free services and transfer payments to make those attacks palatable. It's worth noting that both France and Britain are having political problems now that their budgets are being stretched by too much resources devoted to minorities, and not enough to the natives. In some ways, the McCain campaign is the last gasp of the old Republican Party, before the coming wave of identity politics. It is unlikely that future Republican nominees will play nice. Explicit appeals to identity politics and questions of fairness will be the rule. The new populists, in the US and elsewhere, will remind the White majority that the alternative favors immigrants and minorities in spending decisions, and policies. The media, in the tank for the trans-national elites, because they are trans-national elites themselves, will be bypassed in favor of grassroots organizations. Offering entertainment, social events, celebrations of national traditions and holidays, parades, and likely insurance, and other benevolent association benefits that tie people to the populist organizations and offer an alternative from government run programs that will by definition be oriented towards trans-national elites and minorities. Moreover, it's easy to point to all the foreign money and paint the trans-national elites and the media as traitors to the nation, and enemies of the majority of the people. It is a simple matter to show the intimidation and thugocracy of minority-oriented governments, be it an Obama thugocracy, or that of a Sarkozy, or Gordon Brown Sharia-compliant regime, and make the case that the majority, made second-class citizens or worse in their own nation, have no other alternative but the populists. Even more effective, offer money "seized" from affirmative action programs, or minority-oriented programs, to be spent on the majority. One such proposal would be to end affirmative action and guarantee any citizen (but exclude foreigners) free college tuition for a "B" average in high school. This is the equivalent of the kings and barons seizing the monasteries. There is a lot of money and property that the trans-nationals have, and they don't have much power to defend it. [Okay, here the author starts to wander a little closer to the necessity of armed force. - HAC] While their power, like that of the medieval priesthood is considerable, it is not unstoppable. And it is likely to produce a nationalist, populist backlash all around the West as the opposition sees the rules and devises an end-run around them, taking advantage of the weakness.
Media's Presidential Bias and Decline by Michael Malone
The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game -- with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.
The media have covered this presidential campaign with a bias and that ultimately could lead to its downfall.The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.
But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I've begun -- for the first time in my adult life -- to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was "a writer," because I couldn't bring myself to admit to a stranger that I'm a journalist.
You need to understand how painful this is for me. I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I'm cut. I am a fourth-generation newspaperman. As family history tells it, my great-grandfather was a newspaper editor in Abilene, Kan., during the last of the cowboy days, then moved to Oregon to help start the Oregon Journal (now the Oregonian).
My hard-living -- and when I knew her, scary -- grandmother was one of the first women reporters for the Los Angeles Times. And my father, though profoundly dyslexic, followed a long career in intelligence to finish his life (thanks to word processors and spellcheckers) as a very successful freelance writer. I've spent 30 years in every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor. And my oldest son, following in the family business, so to speak, earned his first national byline before he earned his drivers license.
So, when I say I'm deeply ashamed right now to be called a "journalist," you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul.
Now, of course, there's always been bias in the media. Human beings are biased, so the work they do, including reporting, is inevitably colored. Hell, I can show you 10 different ways to color variations of the word "said" -- muttered, shouted, announced, reluctantly replied, responded, etc. -- to influence the way a reader will apprehend exactly the same quote. We all learn that in Reporting 101, or at least in the first few weeks working in a newsroom.
But what we are also supposed to learn during that same apprenticeship is to recognize the dangerous power of that technique, and many others, and develop built-in alarms against them.
But even more important, we are also supposed to be taught that even though there is no such thing as pure, Platonic objectivity in reporting, we are to spend our careers struggling to approach that ideal as closely as possible.
That means constantly challenging our own prejudices, systematically presenting opposing views and never, ever burying stories that contradict our own world views or challenge people or institutions we admire. If we can't achieve Olympian detachment, than at least we can recognize human frailty -- especially in ourselves.
For many years, spotting bias in reporting was a little parlor game of mine, watching TV news or reading a newspaper article and spotting how the reporter had inserted, often unconsciously, his or her own preconceptions. But I always wrote it off as bad judgment and lack of professionalism, rather than bad faith and conscious advocacy.
Sure, being a child of the '60s I saw a lot of subjective "New" Journalism, and did a fair amount of it myself, but that kind of writing, like columns and editorials, was supposed to be segregated from "real" reporting, and, at least in mainstream media, usually was. The same was true for the emerging blogosphere, which by its very nature was opinionated and biased.
But my complacent faith in my peers first began to be shaken when some of the most admired journalists in the country were exposed as plagiarists, or worse, accused of making up stories from whole cloth.
I'd spent my entire professional career scrupulously pounding out endless dreary footnotes and double-checking sources to make sure that I never got accused of lying or stealing someone else's work -- not out of any native honesty, but out of fear: I'd always been told to fake or steal a story was a firing offense … indeed, it meant being blackballed out of the profession.
And yet, few of those worthies ever seemed to get fired for their crimes -- and if they did they were soon rehired into even more prestigious jobs. It seemed as if there were two sets of rules: one for us workaday journalists toiling out in the sticks, and another for folks who'd managed, through talent or deceit, to make it to the national level.
Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.
The Presidential Campaign
But nothing, nothing I've seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.
Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass -- no, make that shameless support -- they've gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and fair press.
I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather -- not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake -- but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to her home state of Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the big leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play.
The few instances where I think the press has gone too far -- such as the Times reporter talking to prospective first lady Cindy McCain's daughter's MySpace friends -- can easily be solved with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha bureau.
No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.
If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.
That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.
Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?
Why? I think I know, because had my life taken a different path, I could have been one: Picture yourself in your 50s in a job where you've spent 30 years working your way to the top, to the cockpit of power … only to discover that you're presiding over a dying industry. The internet and alternative media are stealing your readers, your advertisers and your top young talent. Many of your peers shrewdly took golden parachutes and disappeared. Your job doesn't have anywhere near the power and influence it did when your started your climb. The Newspaper Guild is too weak to protect you any more, and there is a very good chance you'll lose your job before you cross that finish line, 10 years hence, of retirement and a pension.
In other words, you are facing career catastrophe -- and desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if you have to risk everything on a single Hail Mary play. Even if you have to compromise the principles that got you here. After all, newspapers and network news are doomed anyway -- all that counts is keeping them on life support until you can retire.
And then the opportunity presents itself -- an attractive black candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career.
With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived fairness doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there.
And besides, you tell yourself, it's all for the good of the country …
UPDATE: It would appear that on Friday Hawaii's Democratic governor, Linda Lingle, ordered that Obama's hospital-generated birth certificate, or what purports to be his birth certificate, is to be sealed and is not to be released to anyone "under any circumstances." So I guess now we'll never know.
I suppose by now most of you have heard that the Federal judge in the Berg lawsuit in Pennsylvania first admitted that Barack Hussein Obama is "not a natural born citizen of the USA" and then dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that voters "have no legal standing to challenge the constitutional eligibility of candidates for the office of the Presidency." As always, the nigger gets a pass. Jesus Christ on a raft.
[This one is important to think about, so I'm going to leave it up a few days. - HAC] I'm getting just a little bit weary of this constant refrain of "Oh, it would be a good thing if this Chicago street nigger got elected President, because then White people would wake up." Not that this might be just another excuse for us to avoid doing anything to prevent it which might entail commitment, inconvenience, or even God forbid, personal risk! Oh, no no no no no, perish the thought! We're sitting on our hands because it would really be a "good thing" if the seat that once was occupied by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge were to be defiled by having a monkey shit in it, and no, that's not a typo. Shame and national honor has nothing to do with any of this, oh, no no no no no.... Okay, it looks like you're going to get your wish. It looks like you're going to get your simian President. Let's fast-forward to January, 2009. BO has taken the oath with an ook! and an eek! and he and Michelle are now jumping up and down on the desk in the Oval Office going ack! ack! ack! ack! while George Soros and whoever else set this up with all that money gets on with the business of planning, well, whatever the hell they're planning to do with us. Okay, we're "awake." What now? What now, smart-ass? I never ceased to be amazed at these rite-wing Chicken Littles who run around screaming that the sky is falling, and then add in the next breath that it might be a good thing if the Balloon is about to Go Up, because then when the Balloon Goes Up, a bunch of--well, I won't get into what we are, but "us"--there's this idea that after sitting on our butts staring into a television and computer screen for decades, we're all of a sudden going to take all those guns out of the closet, transform ourselves into purple-mohawked Mad Max Road Warriors, and go roaring down the highway on stripped-down jeeps and humvees and start blasting our enemies. Let me tell you what's going to happen when that monkoid becomes President. You're going to moan, and groan, and whine, and weep, and wail, and wring your hands and rend your garments, and over all will be the sound of millions of computer keys going tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap...the epitaph of the White race and the American nation will be composed to the sound of the infernal, yellow, sickening and shameful rattle of tapping keyboards. There are those of you out there, reading these lines, who have closets and basements and garages full of enough guns and ammunition to overthrow a South American banana republic--and there they will stay, rusting and gathering dust, until you die and your wretched liberal kids are cleaning out your house, looting everything of value, and they call the police to come and take them away for the government buyback reward. That's what's going to happen, and don't pretend any different. [Mmmmm...I'm redacting the next two paragraphs, Harold. Better to be safe than sorry. This blog is under government, ADL and SPLC observation, and there's no point in introducing extraneous issues that might serve as a thread they can pull on. They're paranoid enough about their Funky Monkey as it is. He's still got Hillary and possibly the Mossad after his baby-shit brown ass. - Harvey] Yes, I do have a better way, in point of fact. There is a blueprint, if you'reinterested.You can find it at: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1436328020/sr=1-13/qid=1218048036/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1218048036&sr=1-13&seller=
[Do we really want to elect one of these creatures as President of the United States? Blacks haven't yet displayed the kind of civilized behavior that earns such distinctions. - HAC] Dead Whites Don't Count NY Press, 01/9/2001 Scott McConnell The news reached me over New Year's weekend. A horrible murder took place in Wichita, KS, 10 days before Christmas. It had received virtually no coverage beyond the local news.
The victims--three men and two women, white and in their 20s--were gathered in a home in a middle-class neighborhood. Two were teachers; two were engaged; one intended to become a priest.
At 11 in the evening, two black men, Reginald Carr, recently released from prison, and his younger brother Jonathan, allegedly forced their way into the house, abducted the five at gunpoint, drove them around in two cars, forcing them to withdraw money from ATMs. Then they took the victims to a soccer field and forced them to kneel in the snow. They undressed the women, and raped one or perhaps both of them. Then they shot all five execution-style in the head.
Four died, but one woman lived. Bleeding from her wound, she ran naked through the snow for a mile, miraculously reaching a house where she got help. The suspects were arrested the next day. Wichita is shaken and mourning. A thousand people turned out for the funeral of one victim, Jason Befort. Rev. James Dieker, celebrant at the funeral Mass, told those gathered to look not for vengeance, but to the wisdom of Jesus on thecross: "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what to do."
Assuming that the criminal justice system will do its duty, those words may be the right ones. Yet in the current national context--with a divisive confirmation hearing looming for John Ashcroft and leading Democrats littering the airwaves with incendiary charges about the racist Republican heartland--some questions about the (non)reporting of the murder need airing as well.
If Michael McDermott's shooting of seven in their Wakefield, MA, office onthe day after Christmas deserves front-page treatment, or if James Byrd being dragged to his death by three white attackers should become a symbol of national shame, why don't Americans know about Wichita?
They don't because the victims were white, the suspects black. National news editors prefer a different script. Despite the raw drama of the story--the killers might still be at large were it not for the heroic effort of a woman raped, shot and left for dead in the snow--it doesn't conform. What does fit are stories like the Byrd murder: since he was dragged to death by three white men in 1998 the New York Times alone has made references to his killing in 102 separate stories, most published before the NAACP spent millions on a national campaign to boost black voter turnout by linking George W. Bush to the crime.
Occasionally facts are invented to fit the script. Several years ago, America's evening news viewers were inundated for months with stories about an epidemic of burnings of black churches--carried out, it was charged, by racist whites. A federal investigation eventually concluded there was no racist conspiracy behind the church fires, indeed no epidemic of arson at all: just a normal rate of fires, some in white churches, some in black, some set in insurance scams, some as pranks, some because the arsonist wanted to become a hero by reporting a fire he had himself set.
But a few civil rights and anti-hate "watchdog" groups hyped stories of the black-church arson epidemic, probably for their own fundraising purposes, and the press lapped it up. If asked, many editors would claim that one sort of crime (a racially motivated killing like James Byrd's)deserves substantial coverage because it is a "hatecrime," while themurder of four Wichita young people is not.
The distinction is both false and pernicious. First, though no bias crime investigation is under way in Wichita, there is no reason whatever to think that a murder involving so much gratuitous and symbolic humiliation of the victims (forcing one to watch the rape of his fiancee in his last moments) is not motivated by "hate." Indeed, what might a thorough hate crime investigation turn up? Could the suspects have been stirred to anger against whites, for instance, by Jesse Jackson's overheated charges that vicious racism was at work in the Florida election?
The hatecrime rubric itself is a blueprint for corrosive double standards. In law, it requires classifying crimes purportedly motivated by certain kinds of "bias" as more grave and deserving of serious punishment than others. The dual standard at once weakens a force that could unite Americans of all races and cultures (horror at crime) and threatens to transform the criminal justice system into an arena for exacerbating the country's fault lines of race and ethnicity.
I suspect some promoting the dual standard feel virtuous and progressive--that they are advancing the multiculturalist cause by hyping news of crime of one sort and suppressing another. Some might see whites, and particularly the sort of straight, normal heartland Middle American types, as obstacles to desired social change and not deserving of very much sympathy. Others simply adapt to prevailing newsroom expectations, internalizing the double standards. Either way it's a shameful spectacle, which does no honor to American journalism.
[This is an "oldie but goodie". Written about thirty years ago by an anonymous Chicagoan, it is prophetic and just as pertinent today as then. Remember--these are the creatures whom we are about to entrust with control over our country and our lives, by electing one of them President,]
Ten years ago I was a firm believer in racial equality. I lived in Chicago, in a White locality of good homes and handsome apartment buildings. When blacks began moving into the neighborhood I almost welcomed them. Willy-nilly, I watched integration happen before my very eyes.
Six months later, the nice buildings were wrecks, the Whites were gone, and the area was a social and physical shambles. Filth, garbage, drugs and crime were rampant. White skins were the target of vicious, blatant, organized black racism. When it became totally unsafe to live in the neighborhood because of roving trigger-happy gangs, I moved my family to another part of the city two miles distant.
Again, it was an excellent neighborhood, with handsome single-family homes in the $100,000 to $125,000 class, near the South Shore Country Club, dotted with luxury apartment buildings. There I lived through precisely the same experiences I had moved to escape. It was like seeing a movie for the second time. Once again the black tide came rolling in on waves of drugs and crime. Once again roving gangs of heroin addicts and vandals made the night hideous with catcalls, boom boxes, smashing glass and gunshots. I saw blacks copulating behind hedges, standing in doorways, in cars parked along the curb, totally indifferent to public decency. I saw people mugged and autos being stripped. I saw crimes that deserved shooting on the spot. I saw theft in grocery stores. I found piles of human feces in the foyer, without benefit of toilet paper, and our janitor informed us this was a common occurrence in negro apartment buildings.
In our three-story apartment building, containing 120 apartments, it was a nightly occurrence to see men urinating from upper floor windows. Daylight would reveal the dripping, reeking stains down the building's walls. Bloody, screaming fights to the accompaniment of smashing glass and splintering furniture were regular events. Not once did I ever see blacks clean up their mess. Garbage disposal consisted of tenants dumping trash out of windows, breaking every glass bottle in sight, throwing old furniture into the gutter, stuffing rags into broken windows and casting plastic containers and old paper to the four winds.
So I moved again, this time three miles further south to another decent neighborhood. Again I endured the same scenario, line for line, cue for cue. I left Chicago finally with a profound racial prejudice. I came from a background of White poverty every bit as pervasive and humiliating as that of a black slum, but instead of turning to crime or welfare I went to work. I didn't go around whining with my hand outstretched for alms and charity. Even in the midst of grinding poverty my home and the homes of our White neighbors were clean. No filth, no drugs, no public immorality, no illegitimate children, and no physical danger to our persons or our property. We slept with unlocked doors and open windows.
Liberals mouth the myth that the black population is the victim, not the cause, of the deplorable condition of the inner cities. They are wrong. Wholly, completely, entirely, absolutely 100% wrong. They do not know what they are talking about. If they were to undergo the experiences that I and every other White who has lived in a black neighborhood has had, they would not make this palpably ludicrous claim.
Blacks want handed to them on a silver platter what Whites have worked hard for generations to achieve. Blacks try to excuse their rioting, looting, burning and killing on the grounds that they are "oppressed" by the White establishment. They weep tears the size of golf balls because they have been "deprived of their self-esteem." Theywould cheerfully destroy this nation in a racial holocaust beyond imagining. All the White racism in the United States and throughout the world cannot equal the insane, hate-filled racism of blacks.
Intimate contact with blacks proves that there is an unbridgeable gulf between the two races. To perpetuate this lunatic idea of "equality" is to drive further into the heart of this nation the stake of racial conflict. Only when it is understood and accepted as a fact of life that there are fundamental physical and mental differences between blacks and Whites, with new legal, social, and economic policies based on this recognition---only then will there ever be any kind of tranquility. Present-day equalitarianism is a tocsin of doom for America. How anyone can deny this, after what has happened in recent times, is incredible. Yet the government and the media continue to encourage and perpetuate the status quo.
Los Angeles, California-(10/16/2008)-Two jailed writers who were convicted in Britain of Internet hate speech on a U.S.-based web site will be forced to remain in special asylum proceedings with no right to a bail hearing, a Los Angeles Immigration Court judge ruled October 14, 2008. "That is a very bad blow to their hopes of freedom in the near future, and indeed to all asylum seekers and defenders of free speech in the United States," said Paul Ballard from the United Kingdom, coordinator of a legal defense fund for the pair known as the "Heretical Two" (based on the website www.heretical.com ). The pair, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle, have since July 14 been in the custody of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in a Santa Ana, California contract detention facility, after disembarking that same date from a plane at Los Angeles International Airport, where they immediately asked for political asylum. They fled Britain after being convicted July 11 in a Leeds courtroom of inciting racial hatred for publishing writings such as "Don't Be Sheeple" and "The Holohoax," including some published on Sheppard's website operated from a server in Torrance, California. Ballard noted that British law since 1986 allows for criminal conviction for speech if the subject speech is "likely to result" in the "stirring up" of racial hatred. A conviction requires no proof of violence or intent. During the trial competing expert witnesses were called to testify as to whether Jews, an offended group, were a "religious" or "racial" group, since British law does not criminalize stirring up religious hatred. The Heretical Two, who consider themselves political satirists and nonviolent gadflies, are the first persons to be prosecuted in Britain for internet speech made on a Web server in another country, says Ballard. They were charged under Britain's Public Order Act of 1986 and are subjected to penalties enhanced by the British Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2000. Since that time, Britain has arrested another man, Frederick Toben, an Australian, for speech denying "the Holocaust," based on a German arrest warrant issued for Toben. Toben was taken into custody October during a layover at Heathrow Airport. "These two alarming cases are related in that both of them are attempts by the British Crown to criminalize speech regardless of where it takes place and whether it is legal in the place where it was made," noted Bruce Leichty, a San Diego County attorney who was retained in September to represent the Heretical Two. The October 14 Los Angeles Immigration Court decision in the Sheppard and Whittle cases leaves the two in need of the remedy of habeas corpus (literally: we have the body), a process which federal legislators in the U.S. have made more difficult and costly for immigrants in recent years, according to Leichty. Leichty said the actions of the U.S. government to date have added insult to injury. "Here are two British individuals who published speech that was legally protected in the United States, for which they were criminally prosecuted in Britain," said Leichty, "and now the case has taken an even more Kafkaesque turn since the one country that should be protecting them from imprisonment in Britain has instead thrown them into U.S. jail for an indefinite period of time, based only on the fact that they requested political asylum." "Refugees are protected by international treaty; no country should treat political refugees like these two have been treated, particularly where they enter the host country legally." Leichty notes that Homeland Security admitted in its Immigration Court brief that the two were admitted to the United States under the U.S. Visa Waiver Program, and that until they made their request for political asylum at Los Angeles Airport DHS had no reason to suspect or detain them. Once the two told their story to airport officers, however,DHS attempted to revoke its decision admitting them to the U.S. and to declare the two "inadmissible" on the ground that they entered with the intent to stay in the U.S. as immigrants, which Leichty says is both preposterous on the facts of the case and in any event not within the powers of airport officers. "It is well established that an asylum claimant does not give up his nonimmigrant status simply by telling his host country that he needs the protection of political asylum." The special type of proceeding that the two were put into, called an "asylum-only proceeding" where immigration judges do not have the authority to release the alien from detention, is used inc onnection with the Visa Waiver program only for asylum applicants who are not already admitted into the country, or those who have overstayed their authorized periods of stay-neither of which applied to Sheppard and Whittle when they sought asylum. But Leichty says that Immigration Judge Rose Peters turned a deaf ear to these points and ruled that DHS officers had "discretion" to issue the notices that put the two into the special proceedings. Leichty said that, although the recent and more notorious arrest of Frederick Toben in London involves a German extradition request, he is not aware of any request by the U.K. for the extradition of Sheppard and Whittle, and in any case the United tates typically does not extradite persons who are convicted of crimes which are not crimes in the U.S. "It is clear that obsessive security apparatuses in two different countries have now run amok, by respectively making criminals out of dissidents and by locking them up even though they are not criminals. One does not have to share the views or style of the Heretical Two to appreciate the threat posed by this type of case to individual rights and liberties." "The laws under which Sheppard and Whittle were prosecuted could just as easily be used to subject nonconformist American publishers to criminal penalties in Britain." Sheppard has described his website as a mixture of "blasphemies, heresies, and scientific and general interest material" established to promote his ideas on subjects such as politics, race and gender relations. He holds an Honors bachelor's of science degree in mathematics from the University of Sussex and published two medical scientific papers prior to becoming a publisher and web developer. Whittle is a First Class Honors B.A.graduate in languages and linguistic science from the University of York, and has written numerous books. Sheppard says he and Whittle were prosecuted based on the charge that their writings could be viewed by persons in England and Wales, and not even on any evidence that the writings had actually been viewed by anyone other than a police officer who downloaded material for the purpose of bringing charges. "Both men state that they were living peaceably and civilly in Britain until the police disrupted their lives by raiding their flats and seizing their papers and property," says Leichty. The British press has repeatedly referred to them as the "race hate pair." "There are people who want to criminalize `hate speech' in the U.S., too," noted Leichty. "But as officers of the court, attorneys should remind people that even speech perceived as hateful deserves protection. One man's `hate' may be another man's passion or critique, or even another man's creed. The United States should lead the way in showing disapproval of those nations who have sought to restrict the nonviolent expression of opinion and belief. "The Heretical Two are no more criminal than many of our American forebears who fled repression to settle this country--and no doubt they may say repugnant things just like other blogging Americans. Ignore or despise them or ridicule them if you wish, dialogue with them if you dare, but don't imprison them." In choosing Los Angeles as their destination, the pair had hoped to visit with other dissidents at the Institute for Historical Review, Costa Mesa, one of whom had been designated by the defendants as an expert witness in their British case on the historicity of various standard Holocaust accounts, said Leichty. Ballard says the U.S. imprisonment of the two, and the legal costs associated with their defense, caught British nationalist activists by surprise. Asylum claimants are on their own in the U.S. unless they can afford attorneys. "This is such an important case with such far-reaching implications that my colleagues and I could not simply let Simon and Stephen languish in detention without counsel," Ballard said. Ballard is spearheading the Legal Defence Fund that has been set up in the U.K., which he says is accepting contributions in all currencies addressed as follows: Croydon Preservation Society, P.O. Box 301, Carshalton, Surrey, SM5 4QW, United Kingdom. "The need for American participation in legal defense costs is critical," he urged. "American interests are at stake here, too." In a letter from prison, Sheppard wrote: "Detention is stressful and disorienting. [We] appear before the Immigration Court shackled hand and foot..[We] have no access to the legal material and evidence which is stored in the baggage [we] carried on arrival..[We undertook our action to seek asylum] as a matter of principle, as a political gesture to protest an iniquitous British law which inhibits free speech and the democratic process." To win political asylum in the U.S., claimants must prove that they have a well-founded fear of persecution in their homeland, on one of several grounds including political opinion. While U.S. courts have frequently stated that "prosecution" does not equate to "persecution," there are cases where confinement and prosecution under repressive laws have been held to constitute persecution, says Leichty. Leichty is best known previously for representing Ernst Zundel, an internationally known Holocaust revisionist and publisher who in 2003 was arrested in Tennessee, taken away from his U.S. citizen wife, and deported to Canada on the pretext that he had missed an INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) appointment. After Leichty was hired to succeed Zundel's first Tennessee immigration lawyer, Zundel won the right to a hearing in Knoxville federal court, but his initial bid to overturn his deportation on habeas corpus grounds was rejected in an unpublished decision of a federal court of appeals in Cincinnati, and Leichty says he and Mrs. Zundel are now prosecuting Zundel's remaining claims in Knoxville. -Bruce Leichty Simon Sheppard #0800006404 Stephen Whittle #0800006408 Santa Ana Jail, Santa Ana Jail P.O. Box 22003 Santa Ana, CA 92701, USA. Please write, but do not place return address stickers on envelopes; all labels are removed and they would be unable to reply. They can only send two replies per week so would like to thank the many people who have already written with messages of support - please keep writing, as it all helps.
It's pretty obvious that Obongo is getting huge and illegal subsidies of money from someone for his campaign, probably the Goldfinger-like trillionaire George Soros. But leaving aside the fact that he's a monkey and therefore morally ineligible for the presidency or any other public office, once Hussein gets into the White House, where will he get the money then to implement the super left-wing policies that lie behind whoever is backing him secretly? Presumbly our pockets, and yet thanks to the financial crash of Black September '08, our pockets are no longer anywhere near so full ss they once were. Folks, we had better sit down and have a good long re-think about this Jigaboo In The White House thing. Think about it real hard, while we (theoretically at least) still have a chance.
I am not given to exaggeration, but the court proceedings at Dr Toben's third hearing were dominated by an atmosphere of sinister lunacy. It is true that the defence lawyer, Ben Watson, is excellent and produced some very cogent arguments relating to section 2 of the fast track EU wide extradition law, to the effect that this law had not been complied with by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The alleged offences that Dr Toben had committed related to the fact that he was an "anti-Semitic" and a "holocaust denier" and these dastardly deeds were carried between 2000 and 2004. However, the material referred to, the exact dates and the websites or printed material involved, were not named. Clearly it is not possible to defend oneself against something on this cosmic scale. The arguments were noted by the distraict judge, Daphne Wickham, and then promptly ignored - she just sat back and presided over this farce.
The CPS / Mannheim court barrister, Melanie Cumberland, made a number of crazed comments which went unchallenged. These comprised the following gems:
Firstly the internet is a "place."
Secondly denying reality is a crime - presumably relating to the "holocaust," but not specified.
Thirdly "holocaust denial" is equated with terrorism - a precedent quoted for fast-track deportation was that of some ETA terrorists, although the defence brief later pointed out that some details had to be supplied to the court on that occasion relating to command structure etc. The CPS argue that Gerald Toben had already skipped bail on a previous occasion so should not be given bail. This related to an incident where he went to see the German authorities April 1999 to dispute allegations laid against him in and was promptly arrested and held in prison. He was released after his trial because, although he was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, he had already served 7 months - this was on condition a fine (metage) of 6,000 marks ($3,500) - this was paid and he promptly left for Australia. The German court ruled that Gemany had no jurisdiction over Toben's on-line writings. However, the prosecution at the extradition hearing argued that he skipped bail, left the country and therefore forfeited the bail money and there is now so much rancour between defence and prosecution that they are not communicating with each other.
The judge commented that because of Toben's very extensive travelling in North America, the Middle East and Far East, i.e lecture tour, she could not be sure he would stay in the UK and refused to grant bail even to the next hearing on October 29 which is expected to produce a judgement on extradition. Toben is an Australian national and unlike Zundel does not have dual nationality with Germany which he left at ther age of six.
It is clear that last night's arrest of Bill White in Roanoke, Virginia by the FBI is intended to frighten and intimidate any critics of "The One" and have a chilling effect on any dissent against this nigger's elevation to the Presidency. They might as well come for me too, and do it now, because I'm not backing down. -HAC
The San Francisco Examiner tells us: "Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading television ad during the presidential campaign. The report goes on to say that prosecutors and sheriffs from across Missouri are joining something called the Barack Obama truth squad." (Who, exactly, defines precisely what is "false or misleading?" The Obamanable Snowmen, of course.)
The Examiner columnist babbles on: "Look, politicians are all about lies. It may be annoying (I find it entertaining), but that's for their opponents and good-government groups to counter -- not law enforcement. That's especially true since whether or not criticism is misleading is open to debate. What's being said may be simply a different interpretation, a bit of spin -- or a better version of the truth than candidates and their friends like." Welcome to the year 2008, dude, six years after the Patriot Act and two years after the Military Commissions Act of 2006 along with several hundred executive orders and signing statements have erased the Constitution. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, it appears. The Republicans got all these vile laws in place, and now the liberal Democrats are making use of them.
"Even if the officeholders joining the 'truth squad' are nominally stepping out of their official roles in order to put on their (political) party hats and play politics, it's inappropriate. They wield too much power to use it to wag their fingers at people who say un-nice things about political hopefuls. Prosecutors and sheriffs are, after all, normally thought of as people with the clout to put their targets behind bars." (Not if the Obamable Snowmen are beginning the creation of a nationwide secret police organization to stifle all criticism and resistance to President Monkey Meat.)
"By the way, if the report is accurate, it fits all too well with the legal threats the Democratic candidate's campaign is leveling against TV stations that run NRA ads critical of Barack Obama. John Lott, a noted economist and firearms scholar, has copies of the Obama campaign's cease-and-desist letters on his Website. He also defends the content of the ads, emphasizing the debatable nature of misleading.'"
After BO gets frauded into office, I think we can all guess what's coming. We have the example of dozens of episodes of black rule from Haiti to Zimbabwe to Detroit and Atlanta to guide us. And we blithely allow the Baby-Shit Brown Messiah to sashay into the Oval Office without lifting a finger to stop it. Are we out of our minds?
[This one was posted back in November of '05, and I've noticed that I'm STILL getting nasty comments (which I don't approve for posting) and hysterical e-mails about it. This is interesting, because it indicates that the kikes have discovered this blog and they're reading all the posts in it back to the beginning, which I suppose is a compliment of a sort. Anyway, since this article seems to get under their crocodilian skins, I figure I'll re-post it.] A friend and I were nattering on line about Jews in Hollywood, and he mentioned that while the Jewess Lauren Bacall was actually quite a fox in her Casablanca days, in later life she was a genuinely horrible-looking old yenta. This set off my standard rave about Jewish women as evidenced by their Hollywood exemplars, and it strikes me I haven't ever blogged that one. Fact is, Jewish women really just aren't that sexually attractive on the whole, and this probably has something to do with the general neurosis that appears both among them and Jewish men. You'll notice that in great "classics" of Joosh literchur like Portnoy's Complaint, as well as in real life, it's always the Gentile woman that Sammy Glick and Portnoy and his counterparts lust after. JAPs have a very grim reputation along that line as ugly, greedy, arrogant, self-absorbed, crazy as loons, and sexually frigid. Gina Gershon may have a certain exotic air, but you look close and you get the impression of body hair and odor. Okay, I'll grant you, some Jewesses are pretty cute when they're in their teens, especially the Hollywood variety who have the benefit of the most skilled makeup artists, trainers, plastic surgeons, and cosmetologists in the world. But when they hit about age 21 they start to get porky, misproportioned, saggy-titted and camel-faced really quick. Good example #1, Alicia Silverstone, whom I saw in some bow-wow the other day. I think her face must have been plastic-surgeried as to the nose, since that's still pretty pert, but I'll swear she's already had her first face lift and it still hasn't completely done in the jowls and chubby cheeks. Despite liposucting a whole barrel of lard off her thighs and gut, she's still thick in the middle. In that Aerosmith video she did at 15 she was an incredible edible, but even by the time of Clueless she was starting to get noticeably heavy hips. No wonder her career is in the toilet, given Hollywood's obsession with thinness. Supposedly Alicia won't do nude scenes as a matter of principle. Well, maybe. But more likely, she can't find anyone who's interested in seeing her nekkid. Producers don't want their male audiences yelling "Put it back on! Put it all back on!" I hear Alicia, as well as some others I won't name, are on something unofficially called the "Buchenwald Diet" (invented by a Jew doctor, of course) of 900 calories a day. Jesus, imagine being a millionaire many times over and having to live on a "Buchenwald diet?" Even movie stars have their crosses to bear, it would seem. Good example #2: Mila Kunis. Ukrainian Jew, born in Kiev in 1983. During her first couple of seasons of That 70s Show (she more or less stole the part by lying about her age; she was 14 when she tried out) I will grant you, she was cute as a cut-button in a black-haired gypsy kind of way. It didn't last. I saw her last night doing an interview about Family Guy (she does the voice of Meg.) Either she did it without makeup, or else someone on the set really screwed up, because she looked like a hag. She's 25 now and her face is really going Golda Meir, lips thickening, first crow's feet appearing, cheeks starting to sag, hair lank and rough-looking, and her skin is really dark--you can tell she's got a lot of Tatar in her. Mila's small-boned and short enough so she won't have the blowsy, tit-sagging Jewess look as she gets older, but the small hard brown Jewess look, if you get my drift, the one that reminds you that Jews are an Asiatic people. She could play Gina Gershon's daughter, easy. Final example, lest this turn into a Hollywood gossip column: Natalie Portman. Israeli. At age 13 in The Professional she was a charming, impish little waif. She's 29 now. I caught her in the Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith flick a week or so ago, and she's headed straight for Yenta City. Face rounding, cheeks and lips swelling, nose flaring, typical Jewish camel-face heading her way like an oncoming train. She better start making appointments with some of those Beverly Hills plastic surgeons pretty soon or she won't be able to get any parts besides Yiddishe mamas. Speaking of which, you want to see the result of a Jewess trying to stay Aryan-looking and marketable thereby? Jane Seymour, nee Wilhelmina Frankenberg. She damned sure ain't no Bond Girl no more. She's had so much facial surgery and strategic botox the skin is stretched across her cheeks and the side of her skull tight as a drum, to where it looks about to split and her nose looks almost like it will start to melt like a candle, like Michael Jackson's. She finally "agreed" to do a topless scene in The Wedding Crashers and supposedly had to have a support system surgically installed to get her sagging Yiddishe rack up off her waist. Hmm...maybe I could make it as a Hollywood gossip columnist... Seriously, though, in the sheer beauty department, none of these JAPs can hold a candle to Jennifer Aniston, Meg Ryan, Drew Barrymore, Reese Witherspoon, Kirsten Dunst, Dominique Swain, or even Lindsay Lohan. Okay, granted, morality-wise, Hollywood corrupts the whole lot of them, and I'm certainly not claiming your average Gentile actress is someone you'd want to bring home to mother. But look at your big Jew producers and directors and studio heads--and who they choose to marry for their trophy wives when they can afford it, as they can. Maybe Jewish men know something about Jewish women we don't.