Diversity and enrichment

Read More

Evolution: Basis for Racism

By Dr. Don Boys

Darwin and his disciples were not only pseudo-scientists, but they were also radical, rabid racists! Ernst Haeckel was a German biologist, and a contemporary of Darwin, who laid the foundation of racism and imperialism that resulted in Hitler's racist regime.

Edward Simon, a Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, wrote, "I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible."

I wonder what the "climate" is doing to students in public schools as they are taught they came from animals and are without any purpose in life? Could the incredible number and depth of our social problems be the result of Darwinism? I am convinced this is so, for if one believes that life has no purpose, and man came from beasts, then dignity, fairness, kindness, honesty, faithfulness and justice have no relevance and importance.

Sir Arthur Keith, a well-known evolutionist, assessed Darwin's impact on Hitler and Germany: "We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy....The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter which has drenched Europe in blood."

The unreasonable, unbiblical, unscientific philosophy of Darwin and his disciples laid a foundation for hundreds of years of hatred, barbarity and unbelief reaching into the future and impacting millions of innocent lives.

If Darwin were alive today, he would be hooted out of the scientific community because he was not a trained scientist and because of his outrageous views about black people. Darwin thought that blacks were closer to man's ape "ancestors" than the white race! Wonder what Jesse Jackson thinks of that?

Darwin's disciple, T. H. Huxley, wrote, "It may be quite true that some negroes [sic] are better than some white men, but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro [sic] is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man....The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins...." (I "siced" the above places not because he used the term, negro but because he did not capitalize it.)

"Dusky cousins!" How would that be received down at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? But it gets worse. Henry Osborne, who was professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University, said that blacks were further back on the evolutionary ladder (nearer the apes) than whites, and "The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens." Blacks aren't human! Wow! the most KKK nut doesn't believe that!

Edwin Conklin, professor of biology at Princeton University and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said that blacks had not evolved as far as whites and "Every consideration should lead those who believe in the superiority of the white race to strive to preserve its purity and to establish and maintain the segregation of the races, for the longer this is maintained, the greater the preponderance of the white race will be." Well, there goes any possibility of Ed ever becoming a life member of the NAACP. Too bad.

The major haters of the last 100 years have been evolutionists. Men like Nietzsche (who often said God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race, and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, and Stalin were all outspoken evolutionists, and these people and their theories have been responsible for the slaughter of multi-millions of people, and the destruction of freedom all over the earth. It is amazing that so many liberals, radicals, fascists, communists and the easily impressed worship at Darwin's shrine.

Yes, the foundation of racism, hatred and violence in the last hundred years is based in evolutionary teaching.

© 2000 Cornerstone Communications

http://www.cstnews.com/Code/BasisForRacism.html

Read More

The Zebra Killings': A forgotten hate crime

Most serial killings in America take on a life of their own through movies, books and documentaries. The crimes of Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer and The Son of Sam are still well remembered years after they were committed. Yet there is one set of serial killings that has been almost completely forgotten and is rarely mentioned in popular culture.

The Zebra Killings occurred in the San Francisco bay area between 1972 and 1974 and left 71 people dead. They were dubbed the Zebra Killings because of the radio channel used by the police investigating the case (channel Z). The name would take on a more sinister meaning as it became apparent that a group of blacks was systematically stalking and killing whites simply because of the color of their skin.

The majority of the attacks were carried out by five members of a group within Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam called the “Death Angels.” Jesse Lee Cooks, J.C. Simon, Larry Green, Manuel Moore and Anthony Harris were part of this group which believed that whites were created 3,000 years ago by a black mad scientist named Yacub who wanted a race of inferiors to rule over. Death Angels believed they could earn “points” towards going to heaven when they died if they killed whites. For them, whites were not human beings but “grafted snakes,” “blue-eyed devils” and “white motherf—–s.”

Howard describes the vicious and cowardly nature of the attacks, which were made at gunpoint and mostly carried out against women and weak or old men who could not fight back. The first victims in San Francisco were a couple named Richard and Quita Hague. The Hagues were out for an after dinner walk when they were abducted at gunpoint and forced into a van. They were bound and Richard was beaten over the head with a lug wrench and knocked unconscious. Quita was sexually molested and hacked with a machete. While begging for her life she was decapitated. Before leaving, the attackers hacked at the face of the still unconscious man. Miraculously, he survived and was able to give valuable information to the police.

Brutality and a lack of remorse on the part of the criminals mark the attacks. Vincent Wollin was shot in the back and killed on his 69th birthday. Mildred Hosler, an obese, older woman was shot while frantically trying to get away from her younger, faster attacker. Ilario Bertucci, a 135-pound, 81-year-old man, was killed while walking home from work. Marietta DiGirolamo, a 5’1? white woman was shot and killed on her way to a neighborhood bar. In none of these cases did the victims do anything to provoke the murderers. They simply had white skin and were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The increased police presence had the effect of angering the black community.

Twenty years before the Los Angeles riots and O.J. Simpson trial, blacks were already making statements to the press that showed a stunning lack of remorse for what was happening to their white neighbors. Howard quotes from interviews conducted by the San Francisco Examiner in 1974. Among the responses by blacks were, “I don’t feel comfortable with all the police around. But then, I never have felt safe around them.” A young housewife stated, “I’m really glad the police are concerned for a change. I just wonder if they would be as much concerned if it were black people getting killed.” A black lawyer added, “I commend the police for their beefing up of the force, but I hope it’s not just directed at blacks. I hope blacks aren’t being harassed.”

Still other blacks blamed “unemployment” and “oppression” for the attacks. One man said, “the madness that drives black men to kill innocent people . . . involves a sickness that is as American as apple pie.” Black Panther leader Bobby Seale declared, “every black man in the Bay area is in danger of losing his life.” 

The Reverend Cecil Williams claimed that the entire black community was “under a police state that could erupt into a racial war.” Howard observes, “although they were responding only to a question about Operation Zebra, it was curious that none of the blacks interviewed took the occasion to condemn the unknown street killers or express sympathy for the victims.”

The Nation of Islam paid for the legal representation of every one of the killers except Cooks, who immediately admitted to his murders.

It has been almost 40 years since the Zebra Killings and, with the exception of Clark Howard’s book, little has been written about the murders. That is why they have disappeared from the public consciousness. At least one filmmaker who tried to get funding for a documentary on the killings has said that producers will not touch it, as it involves the taboo of black-on-white racism. Needless to say, there is no such taboo on discussing white-on-black racism.

But a society that memorializes Emmett Till, Medgar Evers and James Byrd should also make room for the victims of the Zebra Killings. Justice demands it.

Source

----------------------

While serial killers are usually loners, they do sometimes murder as a group. This was one of those relatively rare instances.

And while many of the most infamous serial killers tend to be driven by lust, or greed, this case is different. These monsters simply wanted white blood on their hands.

And they got what they wanted.

Now, these horrific killings clearly fit the definition of “hate crimes.” But of course, such a classification of crime did not exist in the 1970s.

But one wonders if such vile acts, were they to occur today, would be prosecuted as “hate crimes.” After all, it was black-on-white, not the reverse. And prosecutors have been extremely reluctant to pursue convictions for “hate crimes” if the defendants are black.

Is this a particularly obvious example of a “hate crime”? Yes. But is it also obvious that this would be prosecuted as such, if it were to happen today? No.

And that is the problem with “hate crime” legislation: Unequal protection under the law.

Read More

The Talk: Nonblack Version

There is much talk about “the talk.”

“Sean O’Reilly was 16 when his mother gave him the talk that most black parents give their teenage sons,” Denisa R. Superville of the Hackensack (NJ) Record tells us. Meanwhile, down in Atlanta: “Her sons were 12 and 8 when Marlyn Tillman realized it was time for her to have the talk,” Gracie Bonds Staples writes in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. 

Leonard Greene talks about the talk in the New York Post. Someone bylined as KJ Dell’Antonia talks about the talk in The New York Times. Darryl Owens talks about the talk in the Orlando Sentinel.

Yes, talk about the talk is all over. 

There is a talk that nonblack Americans have with their kids, too. My own kids, now 19 and 16, have had it in bits and pieces as subtopics have arisen. If I were to assemble it into a single talk, it would look something like the following. 

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

(1) Among your fellow citizens are forty million who identify as black, and whom I shall refer to as black. The cumbersome (and MLK-noncompliant) term “African-American” seems to be in decline, thank goodness. “Colored” and “Negro” are archaisms. What you must call “the ‘N’ word” is used freely among blacks but is taboo to nonblacks. 

(2) American blacks are descended from West African populations, with some white and aboriginal-American admixture. The overall average of non-African admixture is 20-25 percent. The admixture distribution is nonlinear, though: “It seems that around 10 percent of the African American population is more than half European in ancestry.” (Same link.

(3) Your own ancestry is mixed north-European and northeast-Asian, but blacks will take you to be white.

(4) The default principle in everyday personal encounters is, that as a fellow citizen, with the same rights and obligations as yourself, any individual black is entitled to the same courtesies you would extend to a nonblack citizen. That is basic good manners and good citizenship. In some unusual circumstances, however—e.g., paragraph (10h) below—this default principle should be overridden by considerations of personal safety.

(5) As with any population of such a size, there is great variation among blacks in every human trait (except, obviously, the trait of identifying oneself as black). They come fat, thin, tall, short, dumb, smart, introverted, extroverted, honest, crooked, athletic, sedentary, fastidious, sloppy, amiable, and obnoxious. There are black geniuses and black morons. There are black saints and black psychopaths. In a population of forty million, you will find almost any human type. Only at the far, far extremes of certain traits are there absences. There are, for example, no black Fields Medal winners. While this is civilizationally consequential, it will not likely ever be important to you personally. Most people live and die without ever meeting (or wishing to meet) a Fields Medal winner

(6) As you go through life, however, you will experience an ever larger number of encounters with black Americans. Assuming your encounters are random—for example, not restricted only to black convicted murderers or to black investment bankers—the Law of Large Numbers will inevitably kick in. You will observe that the means—the averages—of many traits are very different for black and white Americans, as has been confirmed by methodical inquiries in the human sciences 

(7) Of most importance to your personal safety are the very different means for antisocial behavior, which you will see reflected in, for instance, school disciplinary measures, political corruption, and criminal convictions.

(8) These differences are magnified by the hostility many blacks feel toward whites. Thus, while black-on-black behavior is more antisocial in the average than is white-on-white behavior, average black-on-white behavior is a degree more antisocial yet

(9) A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of blacks—around half—will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event. They will do this out of racial solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague feeling that whites have it coming.

(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense 

(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally

(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods

(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).

(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.

(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible

(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians

(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white

(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway

(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving 

(11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations. “Life is an IQ test."

(12) There is a magnifying effect here, too, caused by affirmative action. In a pure meritocracy there would be very low proportions of blacks in cognitively demanding jobs. Because of affirmative action, the proportions are higher. In government work, they are very high. Thus, in those encounters with strangers that involve cognitive engagement, ceteris paribus the black stranger will be less intelligent than the white. In such encounters, therefore—for example, at a government office—you will, on average, be dealt with more competently by a white than by a black. If that hostility-based magnifying effect (paragraph 8) is also in play, you will be dealt with more politely, too. “The DMV lady“ is a statistical truth, not a myth.

(13) In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks. (I’ll use IWSB as an ad hoc abbreviation.) You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice.

(14) Be aware, however, that there is an issue of supply and demand here. Demand comes from organizations and businesses keen to display racial propriety by employing IWSBs, especially in positions at the interface with the general public—corporate sales reps, TV news presenters, press officers for government agencies, etc.—with corresponding depletion in less visible positions. There is also strong private demand from middle- and upper-class whites for personal bonds with IWSBs, for reasons given in the previous paragraph and also (next paragraph) as status markers.

(15) Unfortunately the demand is greater than the supply, so IWSBs are something of a luxury good, like antique furniture or corporate jets: boasted of by upper-class whites and wealthy organizations, coveted by the less prosperous. To be an IWSB in present-day US society is a height of felicity rarely before attained by any group of human beings in history. Try to curb your envy: it will be taken as prejudice (see paragraph 13). 

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

You don’t have to follow my version of the talk point for point; but if you are white or Asian and have kids, you owe it to them to give them some version of the talk. It will save them a lot of time and trouble spent figuring things out for themselves. It may save their lives. 

Source

Read More

UK female tourist suffers 14hr rape

A British woman was repeatedly raped at gunpoint at the Long Tom Pass in the Drakensberg Mountains, KZN during a savage 14-hour ordeal after she and her boyfriend were kidnapped at a South African beauty spot.

Now she faces a nightmare wait to see if she has been infected with HIV in a country where Aids is rife. The couple were blindfolded and bundled into their car by four (black) thugs and driven for 200 miles.
The only stops were when the gang visited illegal drinking dens (‘shebeens”) and when the 29-year-old woman was raped.

As the attackers got more drunk, they invited other drinkers from shanty town shebeens to come and taunt their two white victims trussed up in the back of the vehicle.

The men grew increasingly violent as the night wore on, stabbing the 26-year-old South African boyfriend in the leg and beating him repeatedly. The couple were told that they would be driven over the border to Mozambique and their bodies dumped.

“They escaped only because their attackers lost control of the car and it overturned. The tourists scrambled out of the wreckage and fled.

PASSING MOTORIST SHOT DEAD, PASSENGER WOUNDED:

A passing motorist, who stopped to help after seeing the crash, was shot dead and his passenger wounded as the attackers tried to steal their car.

The rape victim, from Gloucestershire, has told friends she feels she is under ‘a death sentence’ from Aids. She has been prescribed anti-Aids drugs. But it will be months before doctors can say if she has been infected.

The Foreign Office said yesterday it was reviewing advice to visitors to South Africa, and especially Mpumalanga province where the rape happened and where a British woman was shot dead in a robbery last month. The rape victim arrived in South Africa two weeks ago for a three-month visit.

Source

Read More

Democrats - Then and Now

Read More

Racist black man

Read More

Black man says: "Stupid Blacks Who Still Support Obama"

Check out his site.

Read More

Why There Aren’t Many Trayvon Martin Types in Arizona

Read More

Media Manipulation – Political Correctness and Cultural Marxism Exposed

Source

Kyle Rogers from Examiner.Com deserves major credit for having the fortitude and courage to track, investigate, research and write about something the media refuses to discuss. Hate Crimes. Specifically, Black Hate Crimes. Kyle even assembles an interactive map of the known hate crimes from the month of May. This is a must read for any Truth Seeker willing to confront the rabid and insufferable culture of political correctness.

Over the past couple years major media bosses have publicly admitted to censoring black crime. Editors from the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, New York Times, and the Associated Press have all publicly confessed to censoring black crime. Recently I’ve personally been able to obtain statements from two media outlets admitting they have a policy of censoring black crime. This includes the Newark Star-Ledger and WYFF, the Greenville, SC NBC affiliate.

This censorship is all about politicizing the news. In 2007 the LA Times made an official statement saying that accurately reporting crime would “unfairly stigmatize racial groups.” In other words, politically correctness trumps public safety. This censorship is most blatant when the crime involves a black perpetrator and a white victim. Especially if racial hatred was a motive.

Since the media frenzy over Trayvon Martin, there have been a few sizable public scandals over the censorship of black on white crime. A few major media outlets have discussed the censorship of black on white crime including World Net Daily, The Blaze, Daily Caller, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O’Reilly. However, as I am about to show you, the censorship has not slowed down.

for an interactive map CLICK HERE

The month of May appears to have been a particularly bad month for black on white crime. The most shocking examples are two major crimes committed in foreign countries by black American’s working overseas.

A white Irish tourist was murdered after attending an American rap concert in Japan. Two black Americans working for the tour have been arrested. James Blackston, the main suspect, is a backup dancer for Nicki Minaj. An employee of the tour videotaped the backup dancer menacing elderly Japanese people on a train the day before the concert. The murder was a major news story in Japan and Ireland, but not the United States.

Four days after the murder in Japan, black members of the US Airforce participated in a racial mob attack on some white Australian soldiers outside a bar in Sydney. Video shows seven or more black men assaulting three white men. One of the attackers is using his belt as a whip. Two of the perps were arrested at the scene and discovered to be members of the US Airforce.

It seems that black on white crime is so widespread and common that the US is actually exporting it to foreign countries.

Two particularly heinous public murders occurred in London, England. On May 20th, a large black mob viciously attacked a father and son at random in a crowded area. The son was beaten to death. On May 9th, a black mob pursued a white family as they left a tavern. The father was stabbed to death in front of his daughter on her birthday. In both cases, there is no doubt that racial hatred was the sole motivation for the murders. Racially motivated violence against white people is not limited to the United States. It is common in Britain and Western Europe as well.

I found numerous black on white murders that occurred during the month of May, where little if anything was stolen. In each case, the murder was a thrill killing in which the victim was probably targeted because they were white.

In Dallas, TX, Portland, OR, and Santa Cruz, CA, very attractive white females were stabbed to death in public places by black males. All three were random. In Schereville, IL another very attractive white female was attacked at random and strangled to death right in front of her apartment. In Jonestown, MS, a rural all black village, a white nun was the victim of a near fatal stabbing. She had been helping the local black community for decades and someone stabbed her for the fun of it.

In Atlantic City, NJ a black female fatally stabbed two Asian women in a thrill killing. She laughed about the killings in court.

In northwestern Mississippi, a black suspect was arrested for murdering two whites at random. Police believe the suspect would have continued killing more white people if he not been caught. If the races had been reversed, this would have been a major national news story. Instead it was just a local Mississippi story.

When an American Indian and a white accomplice killed three blacks in Tulsa, it was the biggest news story in the entire Western world. I talked to one woman who watched it on the news in Finland. Ask yourself why the racially motivated killings of two white people by a black man is only a minor local story.

There was a particularly cruel attempted murder in Garland, TX that would have been the biggest news story in the North America had the races been reversed. A black man robbed a gas station. After getting the money, he doused the 76 year old white female clerk with gasoline and set her fire. The woman was horrifically burned and almost died. The perp torched her purely for the fun of it. The media aggressively censored this heinous crime. It only received minor local coverage and most outlets censored the race of the victim.

Young white males were shot and killed, at random while sitting in their cars, by black males in Kannapolis, NC and St. Louis, MO. In Kansas City, MO a sixty year old white man was shot at random, while jogging, by two black male suspects. Another young white man asked a black man for directions near Atlanta, Georgia. Police say the black man shot and killed him for the fun of it. Another US soldier was killed at random by two black suspects near Fort Campbell, KY.

In Smyrna, GA a white Marine Corps veteran was invited to an all black party by a co-worker. After he got there, he was chased out and beaten to death by a black mob. If the races had been reversed, this would be made of tv movie material. Instead it was only a tiny blip in the local news.

The month of May also saw widespread racially motivated mob attacks against white people. Baltimore, Newark, and New York City saw multiple attacks each. There were also mob attacks in Denver, CO, Coral Springs, FL, Sacramento, CA, Tampa Bay, FL, and Saint Louis, MO.

You can rest assured that many more violent black on white crimes occurred in the month of May that were not mentioned in this article. Ask yourself how many of these victims would have received national media attention if they were black and the perpetrator was white?

It is time to put real pressure on the so-called “mainstream” media to accurately report crime. US Attorney General Eric Holder says that white people who won’t talk about race are “cowards.” So let’s give Holder what he wants and start speaking up. (visit article)

Read More

Black man says: "Black people are too ignorant "

Youtube

Read More

Is Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, a 1978 case rejecting academic racial quotas, the smoking gun behind Obama’s Kenyan identity?

Source

Barack Obama has kept carefully hidden all of his college records. Many of us have assumed that this secrecy is because those papers show that he took nothing but Leftist Mickey Mouse classes and ended up with lousy grades.

Now that we know that Obama marketed himself to publishers as a Kenyan, though, we’re beginning to suspect that the papers hide, not only academic mediocrity, but the same Kenyan identity Obama was using to market himself in the publishing world. The question, of course, is why would Obama pretend to be African? After all, when it came to college admissions, wasn’t being black good enough for affirmative action purposes?

Normally, in the years since the Civil Rights movement, the answer would be “Yes, being half-black (not half-white, but half-black) should have given Obama the leg-up he needed to parlay mediocre grades and a drug habit into a shiny diploma from one of America’s best institutions of higher education.” Obama’s problem, though, was that he came of age at a very specific time in the annals of affirmative action. To appreciate this, you have to know that Obama, who graduated from high school in 1979, must have started looking at colleges in 1978.

When it comes to college admissions, 1978 isn’t just any year. It’s a very special year. It was the year that the Supreme Court decided Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) 438 U.S. 265.

Allan Bakke was a young man with an excellent academic record, who nevertheless got turned down by 12 medical schools. When he applied to the medical school at UC Davis, and was again rejected, he learned that he had almost certainly lost out on the opportunity to attend that medical school because UC had set a quota for admitting non-white people in order to meet the University’s “diversity” requirements. Bakke sued. In a deeply fragmented decision, the Supreme Court held that this race-based admission process was unconstitutional.

With that decision, Obama, who was a self-confessed slacker in high school, suddenly lost his e-ticket to a good college. He couldn’t know then (nor would it have mattered) that the various concurrences in this deeply divided opinion would eventually open the door to colleges and universities making race a “factor” in admission, so much so that this “factor-ness” eventually created a whole new quota system.

My best guess is that, denied an opportunity to use quota systems to parlay a lousy academic record into a quality college admission, Obama searched around for other means of bypassing his academic failings. It was this search that led him to announce that he was Kenyan. I’m sure that a certain amount of digging will reveal that, just when the Bakke decision came down, American universities were engaged in some sort of pro-active policy involving increasing the number of African nationals on America’s college campuses. Obama was happy to oblige the universities in this effort by co-opting his father’s nationality, and burying the fact that he was a garden-variety American black kid.

There’s the nexus — In 1978, Obama, who already then was willing to lie to achieve his goals, created a false identity to deal with the changes the Bakke decision wrought on college admissions.

UPDATE: This isn’t so much an “update,” as it is further thoughts. Although this post might explain why Obama did what he did, it’s really less of a post about Obama himself than it as an indictment showing the rot in the whole race/affirmative action system.

I actually came at the theory bass ackwards, when I was writing about the commonality between Warren and Obama. I began by looking at affirmative action’s origins as a well-intentioned paving stone on the road to Hell. In the beginning, do-gooders felt that it made sense to give the then-current generation of blacks a leg up, rather than making them wait the two to three generations it took other disenfranchised people (Irish immigrants, Italian immigrants, Jewish immigrants, etc.) to “make it” in America. After all, we had forced upon these blacks their sufferings, and it was up to us to fix it, and to fix it quickly.

Once it affirmative action became institutionalized, however, it inevitably became corrupt. From the institution’s side, it was a numbers game and a way to boast about liberal credibility, irrespective of whether the student or employee benefiting actually suffered handicaps from his or her race. (Witness the way Harvard milked Elizabeth Warren’s Native Americanism, despite the fact that, even if true, it never handicapped her upbringing or denied her educational opportunities.)

From the point of view of ordinary Americans who were willing to say anything to advance, it became a ginormous loophole. For example, back in the 1970s, I knew a rich Jewish girl with average grades who got into Lowell, San Francisco’s academic high school, by using a dark complexion and a fake accent (~) on her lily-white name to pretend to be Hispanic. Fearing a charge of racism, the district caved and let her in, despite the fact that other students who did not run from their white heritage had better grades. Elizabeth Warren is not the first to play this game.

Thinking about this history, I asked myself why Obama didn’t just leverage himself through the system based upon his being half-black? Why did he have to be African? It was those high school memories that let me to the answer. Like me, Barack Obama, who is almost exactly my age, graduated in the shadow of Bakke. It didn’t affect me, but it sure as heck must have affected him.

Standing alone, my Bakke theory does nothing more than prove, once more, that Obama lies, which is something we’ve seen in real time over the last 3.5 years. Nevertheless, I think this theory has a larger utility insofar as it lays bare one of the rotten pillars of the Leftist race hustlers.

Read More

Israel expels illegal immigrants

Source

It should be fascinating to see how the "conservative" Jewish columnists who have long advocated open borders in America react to this immigration-related news out of Israel:

Illegal infiltrators threaten Israel’s character as a Jewish and democratic country, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said at the beginning of the weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday. Calling the issue “very grave” and a threat to the “social fabric,” Netanyahu said, “If we do not stop the entry, the problem, there are now 60,000 illegal infiltrators; could easily grow to 600,000 illegal infiltrators. This would inundate the state and, to a considerable degree, cancel out its image as a Jewish and democratic state.”

The prime minister spoke of the importance of finishing construction of the Egyptian border fence and working to send away “those [illegal migrants] who are already inside.”

Netanyahu said the latter will be done in part by punishing employers who hire illegal migrants....

Also on Sunday, Interior Minister Eli Yishai (Shas) repeated his call to jail illegal African migrants, most of whom he said were involved in crime. “I repeat what I said – we must jail all of them or deport them with a stipend. The moment they are put in jail – others won’t want to come here anymore,” Yishai said, in an interview with Army Radio.

Now, I support Netanyahu's position, and Yishai's as well. I support it for Israel, I support it for the USA, and I also support it for the nations of Eastern and Western Europe. And for every other nation on the planet as well. Multiculturalism is not merely a failure, but a lie. So I should be very interested to hear how avid immigration advocates such as Jon Podhoretz, whose advocacy of open immigration is overtly and explicitly based on his Jewishness, explain the dichotomy between Netanyahu's position and their own. Podhoretz once said: "[A]s a Jew, I have great difficulty supporting a blanket policy of immigration restriction because of what happened to the Jewish people after 1924 and the unwillingness of the United States to take Jews in."

But why should the United States not have been any more unwilling to take Jews in than the Jews are to take in Africans? Given that some Jews are still more than willing to whine about having been deported from Spain more than 500 freaking years ago, it seems more than a little ironic that the current leaders of the Jewish state should now claim the right to deport non-Jews from their own country. If the Jewish people want to claim some sort of human right to immigrate into every country in the world, then they have absolutely no grounds for deporting 60,000 African immigrants, or 600,000, for that matter. I already know how at least one of our resident Israelis will answer, since we are of the same opinion on this issue, but I'm interested to hear what Chelm and other Jewish readers have to say about these statements by the Israeli government. Do they believe Netanyahu and Yishai are wrong, do they believe the historical expellers of the Jews were justified to expel them, or do they believe in one law for themselves and another for non-Jews?

It seems to me that if Israel is justified in deporting these African immigrants, that action will provide a powerful ex post facto justification for the many non-violent historical deportations of the Jewish people from European countries during the medieval period. I am, of course, distinguishing these non-violent deportations from the historical massacres that took place from time to time during the same historical epoch, especially in Germany and Russia, which cannot be justified regardless of what the current Israeli government ends up doing. It will also offer similar ex post facto justification for the more recent expulsion of Jews from the Arab nations. One also wonders how an excess of Africans can be said to threaten Israel's existence as a democratic state.

Now, it seems likely that Chelm will consider this post to be "dangerous", in the sense that he describes in his post entitled The Dangerous Nature of the Alternative Right. That's his call, of course, but I find his assertion that doing nothing more than pointing out incontrovertible facts and asking the questions they obviously raise is tantamount to "attempting to put together an intellectually, socially palatable basis for a more modern brand of anti-semitism" to be more than a little dubious.

After all, if it's so easy to put together a sound and popular basis for a new anti-semitism, doesn't that tend to suggest that any such anti-semitism must be based on grounds much more solid and justifiable than irrational hatred? What Chelm can't seem to understand is that if one can "undermine Israel" by simply observing what Israel is undeniably doing, it isn't the observer who is doing the undermining. Nor does he appear to grasp that when a person insists genuinely neutral people are not only lying about their lack of interest in him, but are in fact his secret enemy, his paranoid assertion is likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy over time. You can only attack people for so long before they get tired of your antics and start to find you irritating. And this is as true of groups as it is of individuals.

As I have previously noted, some Jews appear to be determined to create enemies where none previously existed. And while it's certainly a profitable strategy for the likes of Abe Foxman and the Southern Poverty Law Center, I would suggest that it is a ludicrously suboptimal survival strategy for a group that currently represents around 0.3 percent of the global population.

As to Chelm's defense of referring to various non-Jews as Amalekites, I note the following from Wikipedia: "Of the 613 mitzvot (commandments) followed by Orthodox Jews, three refer to the Amalek: to remember what the Amalekites did to Jews, to not forget what the Amalekites did to Jews, and to destroy the Amalekites utterly. The rabbis derived these from Deuteronomy 25:17-18, Exodus 17:14 and 1 Sam. 15:3." Now, perhaps he's not an Orthodox Jew and was simply using the term as colorful rhetoric, but it is simply ridiculous to attempt to somehow turn this around and claim that I am engaging in any sort of psychological projection by noting that the label, at the very least, potentially implies violence.

Read More

What's Princeton concealing for Michelle Obama?

Source

Whichever, there's little doubt that the void in Michelle left by a lack of pride in America and gratitude for affirmative action was filled by suspicion of whites not nearly as justified as her faith in the black bloc vote going to a young black man instead of a much more mature and experienced white woman whose ex-President husband had been called America's first black President by Maya Angelou, a black female icon of the civil rights movement.

Princeton University made the former Michelle Robinson's senior sociology thesis, titled 'Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community,' unavailable to the public until after Election Day 2008.

If it simply reflected well on its author, would it be being kept from public view?

Surely not.

With (1) The New York Times publishing a scurrilous hit piece, based solely on anonymous sources, on presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain, (2) The Washington Post and other newspapers NOT even telling their readers that the former Michelle Robinson, now 44-year old First Lady hopeful Michelle Obama, had solemnly said that she had never been really proud of the nation of which she wants to be First Lady until she noticed that her rookie United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama's presidential campaign was being favorably received and (3) Newsweek doing a laudatory cover story on Michelle with the title "Barack's Rock" and an implicit (but not completely fulfilled) cover promise to reveal "The Real Michelle Obama," people should demand that Princeton lift the embargo on Michelle's thesis (instead of the embargo on Castro's Cuba, regardless of which Castro brother is the dictator down there).

Candid Michelle: "I'm a statistical oddity. Black girl, brought up on the South Side of Chicago. Was I supposed to go to Princeton? No ... They said maybe Harvard Law was too much for me to reach for."

Due to affirmative action, Michelle went to both elite educational institutions.

According to Newsweek, "The Real Michelle Obama" was quite pleased to be an affirmative action beneficiary, but perturbed by her perception of white classmates at those institutions.

Newsweek: "At Harvard, she felt the same racial divide [she felt at Princeton]. Verna Williams and Michelle became friends in their first year of law school. She remembers many of their fellow black students worrying that white classmates viewed them as charity cases. But she suggests Michelle was not among them. 'She recognized that she had been privileged by affirmative action and she was very comfortable with that,' Williams recalls."

Michelle seems to be into revisionist history.

Newsweek: "Michelle recalls things differently. A campaign spokeswoman says she had an edge getting into Princeton not because of affirmative action, but because her older brother was there as a scholar athlete. She was a 'legacy,' just like any other applicant with family ties to Princeton."

Who do you believe — Verna or Michelle?

Whichever, there's little doubt that the void in Michelle left by a lack of pride in America and gratitude for affirmative action was filled by suspicion of whites not nearly as justified as her faith in the black bloc vote going to a young black man instead of a much more mature and experienced white woman whose ex-President husband had been called America's first black President by Maya Angelou, a black female icon of the civil rights movement.

Newsweek: "One senior adviser, who asked for anonymity talking about a private meeting, recalls fretting to Michelle early on that Obama's support among Southern black voters wasn't picking up quickly enough. Michelle told him to relax. 'Don't worry,' she said. 'It will be just like [Obama's Senate campaign in] Illinois. The numbers will all move our way.' As it turned out, she was right."

Newsweek on young Michelle: "She did well in school (she skipped second grade), but she was not at the top of her class. She didn't get the attention of the school's college counselors, who helped the brightest students find spots at prestigious universities.... Some of her teachers told her she didn't have the grades or test scores to make it to the Ivies. But she applied to Princeton and was accepted."

Reality: If Michelle's ancestors had come from Asia instead of Africa, she probably would not have been admitted to Princeton, no matter how good a basketball player her brother was.

Yet Newsweek accepted the notion that the Princeton that admitted Michelle was hostile to her: "Overwhelmingly white and privileged, Princeton was not an easy place for a young black woman from the inner city. There weren't formal racial barriers and black students weren't officially excluded. But many of the white students couldn't hide that they regarded their African-American classmates as affirmative-action recipients who didn't really deserve to be there. Angela Acree, a close friend who attended Princeton with Michelle, says the university didn't help dispel that idea."

Even Princeton's special efforts to acclimate minority students were perceived by Michelle as insulting: "Black and Hispanic students were invited to attend special classes a few weeks before the beginning of freshman semester, which the school said were intended to help kids who might need assistance adjusting to Princeton's campus. [Michelle's friend] Acree couldn't see why. She had come from an East Coast prep school; Michelle had earned good grades in Chicago. 'We weren't sure whether they thought we needed an extra start or they just said, "Let's bring all the black kids together."'"

White students reportedly slighted Michelle:

"Acree, Michelle and another black student... became inseparable companions. The three of them talked often about the racial divide on campus — especially how white students they knew from class would pass them on the green and pretend not to see them. 'It was, like, here comes a black kid,' says Acree. The black students tended to hang out together at the Third World Center, a social club on campus, while the white party scene revolved around Princeton's eating clubs.

"Michelle felt the tension acutely enough that she made it the subject of her senior sociology thesis, titled 'Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community.' The paper is now under lock and key, but according to the Chicago Sun-Times, Michelle wrote that Princeton 'made me far more aware of my "blackness" than ever before.' She wrote that she felt like a visitor on the supposedly open-minded campus.'Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with Whites at Princeton,' she wrote, 'it often seems as if, to them, I will always be Black first and a student second.' (Today, Michelle says, not quite convincingly, that she can't remember what was in her thesis.)"

But Princeton, which is supposed to be about the pursuit of knowledge, is hiding that thesis until after Election Day 2008!

© Michael Gaynor

Read More

North Carolina Teacher Yells At Student For Criticizing Obama…Says It’s A “Criminal Offense”

Via GWP

Read More

Blacks Can Murder Whites, and It Won’t Make National News

Doug Giles

If you’re a 20-year-old black male, you can beat an 85-year-old white woman to death and pummel her 90-year-old white husband straight into ICU, and it won’t make the national news.

Yep. Tyrone Woodfork, a black male who -- much like Trayvon Martin -- looks like Obama’s son, allegedly killed Nancy Strait and broke her husband Bob’s jaw, several ribs and shot him in the face with a BB gun last month in Tulsa. 20-year-old Tyrone also raped the nearly blind 97-pound Mrs. Strait, a great-great-grandmother, before he murdered her.

Did the above monstrous crime make the national news? Are you kidding me? Why, hell no. Of course not, silly!

Why wasn’t it fit for primetime, you ask? Well, it starred the wrong races in the wrong roles, and it thus did not fit into the fairytale the Left’s trying to foist on us goobers of Obamaland.

For those of you who have not heard diddly squat about a black twentysomething’s senseless, atrocious burglary, rape, battery and murder of an elderly white couple, here are the details regarding the couple, the crime and the culprit(s):

-Bob and Nancy Strait, the victims, grew up in rural Oklahoma during the Great Depression.

-Bob and Nancy met on a blind date in 1946 and married a month later. They had 6 kids, 18 grandkids and about 50 great- and great-great grandchildren.

-The Straits just celebrated their 65th wedding anniversary.

-Bob served in the 101st Airborne Division in WWII.

-Bob loved woodworking, and Nancy loved quilting.

-The couple used to sit on their porch and play the guitar and sing together during the warm summer evenings.

-On either Tuesday evening (3/13) or Wednesday morning (3/14) Tyrone invaded their home and stole $200 in cash as well as the Strait’s TV and Dodge Neon after raping Mrs. Strait and severely beating Mr. Strait.

- As noted, Nancy died from her injuries. Bob is in serious condition and is being treated at a nearby hospital.

-Mrs. Strait’s funeral was on Friday, March 23, 2012.

-The family has set up a fund—The Nancy Strait and Bob Strait Support Trust—to help pay for Nancy’s funeral service and Bob’s medical care.

-The Tulsa cops are looking for five more murderous morons suspected in this sick and twisted tale.

I wonder if President Obama is going to lecture the nation on this despicable act and tell us something similar to what he said regarding Trayvon’s shooting, namely:

“It is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together—federal, state and local—to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened. I think all of us have to do some soul searching to ask ourselves how does something like this happen? And that means that we examine the laws, the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident.”

Will Spike Lee and the New Black Panther Party tweet Tyrone’s address and put out a bounty on the remaining pieces of crap who have yet to be arrested for killing Nancy and brutally beating Bob? Spike and his ilk are all about “justice,” correct? Or is it more about “just us”?

For two more (out of many) recent black-on-white crimes that have ranged from unreported to insanely underreported, click here and here.

SOURCE

Read More

In Attempt to Get George Zimmerman Killed, Spike Lee Retweets the Wrong Address

Source

Left-wing director Spike Lee, a favorite of particularly phony liberal trendoids, retweeted George Zimmerman’s address to his moonbat followers, in hopes of getting him killed or at the very least getting his house burned down as punishment for the neighborhood watch captain defending himself from the vicious punk who was bashing his head against the sidewalk. Spike not being very bright, he sent out the wrong address:

An elderly Florida couple have been forced to move into a hotel after their home address was wrongly tweeted as belonging to the man who shot teen Trayvon Martin.

The tweets were traced back to a man in California and the address was also reportedly retweeted by director Spike Lee to his almost 250,000 followers.

The couple, aged 70 and 72, have been harassed with hate mail, been hassled by media and had scared neighbors questioning them since the tweet, their son Chip Humble told the Orlando Sentinel.

Fearful for their safety, and hoping to escape the spotlight, the couple have temporarily moved to a hotel.

The confusion seems to stem from the fact the woman’s son is named William George Zimmerman and he lived briefly at the address in 1995.

When William Zimmerman pleaded with the man who tweeted the address, the man responded, “Black power all day. No justice, no peace” along with an obscenity.

That is the closest thing to a reasonable conversation you can have with the sort who would glorify Trayvon Martin.

Spike Lee: almost as stupid as he is vile.

Read More

Why Derrick Bell is important

BREITBART - Both Obama and Bell demanded that Harvard hire professors on the basis of race. Obama and other students rallied to Bell’s side after Bell quit teaching in an attempt to force Harvard to implement race-based hiring policies.

Other archived video tapes I have reviewed reveal that Bell espouses racial ideas deeply at odds with American values–and did so, adamantly, while at Harvard Law School.

The Obama-Bell connection is the latest in a pattern of Barack Obama’s associations with individuals who promoted a racially divisive America.

…

Professor Derrick Bell’s racial world view is now manifesting in the policies of the Obama administration, particularly in Eric Holder’s Justice Department. That’s why Obama’s radical associations in the past matter.

That’s also why Senator Obama’s appearance with New Black Panther Party President, Malik Zulu Shabazz in Selma, Alabama, matters. I detail the 2007 Selma event and photographs with Obama and Shabazz in my book, Injustice.

…

Contrary to those who might praise Derrick Bell, America is the worse off because of his ideas.

Bell did more than advocate for race-based hiring. He was perhaps the worst Johnny Appleseed of a nasty racialist legal theory called Critical Race Theory. Critical Race Theory, in a nutshell, argues that the law is a weapon of the majority whites to oppress “people of color.” It argues for “structural racism”–the idea that American institutions are aligned against blacks, whether the oppressor is the criminal justice system, a cabdriver without a fare, businesses, government, Domino’s Pizza, banks, or the police.

Critical Race Theory does not view the law as applying equally to all Americans, but advocates for racially unfair implementation of the law to right past injustice.

Most of the crackpot racial grievance you hear today has a philosophical foundation in Critical Race Theory. It is a counter-American, collectivist idea. Reparations, race-based hiring and excusing New Black Panther voter intimidation are some of the evil fruits of Critical Race Theory.

Bell’s history might be insignificant if he kept it to himself. But he didn’t. He used his professorship to export this worldview to students–students like Obama, who later used their teaching posts to bring Bell’s views to the next generation.

In the Obama tapes (that have been revealed so far), we find the future President calling on Harvard students to “open up your hearts, and your minds to the words of Professor Derrick Bell.” Race relations in our country are worse off because too many people followed Obama’s advice.

Read More

Where are Obama's mormons?

"Punk faggot" house negro does it again.

Read More

Is Obama a racist?

Read More