Monday, April 24, 2017

Karl Mannheim and Me

Back in West Germany, circa 1983, I read Karl Mannheim’s classic work, Ideologie und Utopia. Yeah, the title is virtually identical in German and English.

Although the book was lucidly written, I honestly can’t remember more than what I had previously read about Mannheim, and what I’ve since seen about him—the idea of a “frei-schwebende Intelligenz,” a “free-floating intelligentsia.”

I thought to myself, That’s me!

Unfortunately, it doesn’t work like that. Even wealthy intellectuals feel the need for a home, and they get one, even multiple ones. Once an alleged scholar or intellectual proves he doesn’t need the money, people throw it at him.

The first law of Stixian economics is, Money helps money.

Well, none of my donors is rich, and yet they give me money!

Please hit the “Donate” button at the top of the page, and make a generous contribution to WEJB/NSU.

I thank you, and your posterity will, too.


Nicholas Stix

The Answer to the Totalitarian Left’s Program to Silence All Normal, Patriotic Americans: Live Free or Die

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

I thank the old friend who sent me this article.

Liberals Want To Kill Free Speech, So We Patriots Must Fight Back
By Kurt Schlichter
April 24, 2017 12:01 A.M.
Town Hall

Understand that if America is stupid enough to let liberals take power again, they will persecute and prosecute normal Americans like us who dare to dissent. That’s not a guess or a prediction – that’s a commitment they have made to their fascist followers. They’ve seen what the truth can do to their schemes. After 2016, there’s no way they are going to take a chance on another electoral rejection by us normals, so they don’t even pretend to support free speech anymore. It will be one gender neutral being-one vote, one more time, and then never again.

Hold on. That’s clearly nuts, right? This is obviously crazy talk that’s talking crazy, isn’t it? Don’t liberals love free speech?


We know they don’t love free speech because they tell us they don’t, in both words and deeds. The whole free speech thing lost a lot of its luster for the libs when people like us decided to try it out. The liberals didn’t count on that – free speech was supposed to be their jam, a way to offend, annoy, and outrage us squares, to blow our bourgeois minds with their transgressive, no-holds-barred free thoughtery and critical thinkery. But they never intended for it to allow those banjo-strumming rubes living between I-5 and I-95 to express wrong thoughts and thereby win elections.

So now the progressives are trying to do something about it. Recently, every single Democrat voted to effectively repeal the First Amendment. You see, the words “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” were too expansive for liberals’ tastes because they prevented Congress from making laws abridging the freedom of speech.

This creepy idiocy was in response to Citizens United, a Supreme Court case that, to people who actually believe in free speech and not liberal fascism, conforms to the First Amendment by telling the federal government that no, you can’t put people in jail for making a movie critical of Hillary Clinton.

Yes, you read it correctly. Democrats think that Congress should be able to make laws to put people in jail for making movies critical of Democrat politicians. Roll that around in your head for a while.

Now, they call it “campaign finance reform,” and their argument is that they aren’t really limiting speech - just limiting how people spend their own money. Apparently, under the First Amendment, we are allowed to say anything we want, but Congress can pass a law telling us that we just can’t spend any money to actually be heard.

It would mean the government can tell us we can’t buy paper, we can’t buy ads, we can’t buy video tape, we can’t pay a film crew or writers, and we can’t pay for airtime. Congress could even tell us we can’t buy internet access to post our thoughts on Twitter or Facebook. And Congress, in the Dems’ utopia, could even pass a law not letting you spend a few measly pennies to buy my awesome book about how liberals will split our country in two.

Yes, they want to be able to ban books.

Other than that, under the liberals’ paradigm, we can speak to our hearts content, though only to people within shouting range. But don’t worry. The official, approved mainstream media would be exempt – and unofficial, unapproved media, well, not so much. “Fake news” and all that – “fake” being defined as “critical of liberals.” Fortunately, we’d have such unbiased, nonpartisan, objective outlets like the New York Times and CNN (starring noted free speech scholar Fredo Cuomo) to provide us open forums to air our conservative views. Also, we could get unicorns to skywrite our opinions for free using rainbows spewing from beneath their fluffy tails.

What’s still unclear is what prison sentence Democrats would impose upon someone who breaks the law by exhibiting a film or writing a book critical of Hillary Clinton. One year? Five years? Life in SuperMax? Come on Democrats, how long would you imprison someone for illegal speech?

And what should the penalty be for climate change denial? Since rejecting their weird climate religion is Earth-murder, or something, you would think they’d want to burn you at the stake – or is that too carbony?

Then there’s that clinical moron Howard Dean, who is ironically famous for his own bizarre exercise of the First Amendment. Leveraging all his intellectual fire power, he recently unloaded his mental squirt gun upon those of us who think the First Amendment means what it actually says. “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment,” he announced on Twitter, apparently having discovered a constitutional exception that would allow Democrats to stifle any speech they choose to stick the “hate speech” label on. Which would, of course, be anything and everything we normals want to say.

This “I don’t like what you are saying so it’s hate speech now shut-up” footnote to the First Amendment is well-known at our colleges and universities. These bastions of free thinking freely admit thinking that we normals have no right to think freely at all. The fact that California law enforcement is regularly ordered to stand back and allow conservative speakers and their audiences to be intimidated and beaten in order to silence them is just a preview of the new America that liberals dream of. If you imagine the unholy love child of the economic basket case/police state of Venezuela and the grim intolerance of your local campus, you have a pretty good idea of the new, fascist America the Democrats seek to breed.

Think that analysis is wrong? Well, here’s a complete list of all prominent Democrats standing up against these free speech abominations:


Liberals should be ashamed of themselves, but then they wouldn’t be liberal if they were born with shame genes. So, since we patriots are the only ones who actually support free speech, what do we patriots do to protect it?

Whatever it takes.

We fight peacefully in the political arena, in the courts, and in the shrinking marketplace of ideas while we can, but we must also be ready to fight in the streets when those punky puffboys try to shut us up. No quarter, no compromise, no surrender – we fight and win, or they shut us up forever.

Look, the left has told us what it wants – the power to force us to be silent and submit. That’s not wacky supposition; that’s not fevered imagination. They are open about their agenda, and it’s happening before our eyes. To pretend that our republic is not facing an existential threat from progressives who would use violence to silence their political opponents is to willfully ignore the evidence, just like a climate cultist ignores cold weather. And the violence has already begun: in fact, it is key to their plan for a free speech-free future. Today it’s gangs of masked thugs attacking us. Tomorrow, it’s uniformed men with guns – or at least those few spineless cowards among our security forces will ignore their oaths to defend the Constitution in exchange for a paycheck and a pension – dragging us off to jail for illegal speech. Or worse.

We patriots face a stark choice. We could choose the easy path of submission and hope that the left will leave us be if we just give in to their demands and give up on our right to participate in our own governance. But that won’t ever work – the true joy of leftism comes from imposing the leftists’ collective will upon its designated villains, and one guess as to the identity of those designated villains.


No, they don’t want to leave us alone – that misses the whole point of being a leftist. A leftist yearns to be the one doing the bullying and dominating. If we give in, we will spend the rest of our lives with their soft, girly hands around our necks.

And if we are so gutless as to give up our God-given rights in exchange for “peace,” we deserve that pathetic, dishonorable fate.

But we won’t give up. We won’t surrender. No matter how hard they punch, as Instapundit urges, we’ll punch back twice as hard.

It was funny seeing those antifa dorks get wedgies in Berkeley, but our enemies are serious about stripping us of the rights that our Creator endowed upon all men and women. Many of us are veterans or law enforcement, and our oaths to defend the Constitution even at the cost of our lives did not come with an expiration date. Millions more who did not take one of those oaths subscribe to them nonetheless. We promised not to let a fascist regime take hold, and we intend to keep our promise.

The First Amendment is followed by the Second Amendment for just this reason – history will record that our people’s unique refusal to be disarmed by those who seek to steal our liberties was a key factor why we will never be Venezuela II: The Revenge.

Our only chance of avoiding a catastrophe is if our would-be progressive overlords understand that for us normal Americans, there are only two possible outcomes. And living at their mercy as their serfs is not one of them.

The outcome we want is that we normals live free in a democratic republic exercising the rights enshrined in the Constitution, whether because leftists choose to respect our civil rights, or because we force them to respect our civil rights.

The other alternative is that we die on piles of spent brass surrounded by the bodies of our enemies. Either one’s cool – but submission to slavery is not an option.

That un-American, wannabe fascist Howard Dean need only look at a license plate from neighboring New Hampshire to understand how this is going to end. We’ll either live free or die.

Remembering Lawrence Auster


Lawrence Matthew Auster January 26 1949—March 29, 2013, picture taken shortly before his death.


Remembering Lawrence Auster, After a Year
By Nicholas Stix
March 29, 2014

America lost Lawrence Auster to pancreatic cancer one year ago today— March 29, 2013. editor Peter Brimelow immediately noted Larry’s passing, VDARE’s Henry McCulloch wrote a lengthy obituary, and several Dissident Right bloggers, some of whom began maintaining vigils for Auster during the last days of his struggle, paid their last respects here, here, here, here, and many more, including my partner-in-crime, David in TN, and yours truly.

The American Conservative’s Scott McConnell had already written a sort of pre-obituary bizarrely claiming that Auster was reminiscent of Meir Kahane, Sam Francis, and “various European fascist intellectuals” like Robert Brasillach and Julius Evola (though he admitted to not even being familiar with the last two). [Extremism in the Defense of Tradition, February 15, 2013.]

Auster responded with characteristic savagery—remember, only days before he died—here.

But the Main Stream Media, Leftist and “conservative”—including outlets like National Review and Front Page Magazine—completely ignored Auster’s passing. Never mind that he had written for them, or that his blog, View from the Right, was one of the most popular, free-standing political blogs on the Web. Never mind the depth and breadth of his postings, covering multiculturalism, black-on-white crime, politics, Christian theology, Homer, popular culture, immigration and the damn Yankees, or his prominent, pre-Internet writing career.

Auster was born a Jew in 1949, but was never observant. He became a hippie in his twenties, and in middle age converted to Christianity, progressing from Episcopalianism to a deathbed conversion to Catholicism.

During the 1990s, Auster was one of the first major writers—with Peter Brimelow and Chilton Williamson—to warn Americans about the dangers of mass Third World immigration. He wrote a series of rigorously-argued essays for the American Immigration Control Foundation (AICF): Path to National Suicide (PDF, 1990); Huddled Clichés (1997); and Erasing America: the politics of the borderless nation (2003).

Path to National Suicide showed, among other things, how the 1965 Immigration Act applied the attitude behind the 1964 Civil Rights Act to the entire world. If one of the consequences of the CRA was that American blacks were to be treated in effect as American whites’ superiors—because whites were to be denied freedom of association—the consequence of the Immigration Act was to make all foreign non-whites legally superior to white American citizens. Auster wrote:
“At a time when increasing racial and ethnic diversity makes the re-affirmation of our common culture more vitally important than ever, we are, under the mounting pressure of that diversity, abandoning the very idea of a common American culture. We are thus imperiling not only our social cohesiveness but, as I will try to show, the very basis of our national existence….

Under this new dispensation we owe, as it were, an obligation to all the peoples in the world to let them migrate here en masse and recreate American society in their image….

“One can only wonder what would happen if the proponents of open immigration allowed the issue to be discussed, not as a moralistic dichotomy, but in terms of its real consequences….
But the tyranny of silence has prevented the American people from freely making that choice….
[A Word to the Reader, introduction to The Path To National Suicide]

Senator Sam Ervin (D-NC) — later, ironically, to become a liberal hero because of his role in the Watergate hearings—was the most prominent opponent of the 1965 immigration bill. Auster recalled: “Senator Ervin argued that the bill did not eliminate discrim¬ination, as its sponsors claimed, but only exchanged some types of discrimination for others.” In Chapter One of Path To National Suicide, Auster quotes Ervin’s epochal challenge to Secretary of State Dean Rusk:
Mr. Secretary…you take the English-speaking people, they gave us our language, they gave us our common law, they gave us a large part of our political philosophy….The reason I say this bill is discriminatory against those people is because it puts them on exactly the same plane as the people of Ethiopia are put, where the people of Ethiopia have the same right to come to the United States under this bill as the people from England, the people of France, the people of Germany, the people of Holland…

I don’t know of any contributions that Ethiopia has made to the making of America. The point I am making is, we discriminate every day in every phase of life, we make discriminations in law, we make them in our personal actions, we discriminate in our opinions…we discriminate by the girls we marry, choose one and object to the choice of another, or they object to us.

The only possible charge of discrimination in the McCarran-Walter Act is that it discriminates in favor of the people who made the greatest contribution to America, and this bill puts them on the same plane as everybody else on earth.”

Finally: I do not think you could draft an immigration bill in which you do not discriminate. I think discrimination is ordinarily the exercise of intelligence to make conscious choices…I think there is a rational basis and a reasonable basis to give a preference to Holland over Afghanistan, and I hope I am not entertaining a very iniquitous thought when I entertain that honest opinion.
[Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Hearings on Immigration Reform Act of 1965, 2/10/65 to 3/11/65., P. 66]
Auster showed how opponents refuted the Immigration Act supporters’ claims that it would increase annual legal immigration by only “8,000” or “60,000”—whereas it actually allowed for potentially unlimited immigration:
[O]pposition witness, Myra C. Hacker of the New Jersey Coalition…. pointed out that the bill would not only increase the number of immigrants under the quota by taking places away from countries that were not using their quota and giving them to others, but that further increases in nonquota immigration would lead to an actual increase of 125,000 over the then current total of 275,000, making a total of 400,000. “However,” she added “the bill offers such broad discretionary powers to the Attorney General that the overall yearly number could well rise to a half million or more. . . . At the very least, the hidden mathematics of the bill should be made clear to the public.”
Auster noted that the bill’s supporters (most notoriously, floor manager Sen. Ted Kennedy) kept from the public the role that the bill would give to “chain migration,” making it in effect a Third World Mass Immigration Act.
Auster’s were powerful words in 1992. They are even more powerful now, in a public culture where speaking honestly about race, or merely in support of America, increasingly results in a professional death sentence.

In Huddled Clichés, Auster demolished one immigration myth after another as factually false (the economic value of mass Third World immigration), vacuous, or emotional nonsense (“we are a nation of immigrants”). But he also wrote:
Even if all of those [romantic Open Borders] assertions were true, they would be completely beside the point. If you learned that a glass of milk you were about to drink contained an ingredient that would make you seriously ill, the fact that the milk also contained lots of vitamins and minerals would not matter to you. Similarly, if current immigration is causing irreversible harm to our country, then the fact that immigration may also provide some benefits is irrelevant. It is the total impact of immigration that matters. Immigration proponents who stress the positive, transient effects of immigration while ignoring the negative, irreversible consequences are engaged in a dangerous con game….
When immigration advocates say that immigration “can’t be stopped,” what they really mean is that they don’t want to do anything to stop it….

Sure, there are many immigrants who do love America—for its fantastic wealth and opportunities, for its freedoms, for its government hand-outs, or for its emerging character as a multicultural society created in the image of the immigrants themselves. But how many immigrants love America as a historic nation and people that they want to join and help preserve?

In my experience, the immigrants who truly love America are deeply alarmed about the fact that excessive immigration is destroying the very things that they love about America. These immigrants support immigration restrictions….

Even if we accepted the premise that America’s whole identity depends on immigration, where would that leave us? If immigration continues as at present, the nation will continue to lose more and more of its historical character and political cohesion, which also means that we will “stop being America.” So, which manner of “ceasing to be America” do we prefer?…
Auster subsequently extended his criticisms of unassimilable foreigners to Moslems, whose immigration he called on the government to halt and reverse in his 2009 speech, “A Real Islam Policy for a Real America.”

Auster’s ability to reach audiences through the Main Stream Media was cut off, due to his insistence on remaining a conservative when outlets such as National Review, where he briefly published, submitted to the Left.

From 2002-2007, Auster was a frequent contributor to David Horowitz’ Front Page Magazine, where he penned 39 commissioned articles, including an important exposé on black-on-white rape. Then Horowitz abruptly excommunicated him. It turned out that a race hustler named David Mills,  a TV writer who called himself “Undercover Black Man” because he had black ancestry and white appearance,  had secretly sent Horowitz a poison pen letter, denouncing Auster as a “racist.” Instead of ignoring or condemning Mills, Horowitz panicked and folded like a cheap suit.
But Auster’s influence was also limited by his unsparing criticisms of allies on the paleo and racial realist Right. Some of them were friends and privately considered his attacks to be treachery. I dunno. I think Auster was a son of Socrates, and felt morally compelled to do what he did, even if it meant burning his bridges behind (or even before) him.

Larry Auster was extremely courageous—but a difficult, nay, impossible man. I speak from long experience. For years, he argued what I considered to be a mistaken position, that the Left believes in “egalitarianism,” “tolerance,” and “non-discrimination.” In fact, as I have pointed out for years, the Left actually believes in power—and is willing to accept the most extreme inequality, intolerance, and discrimination. But Auster proclaimed that, in denying that Leftists had any principles, I was rejecting political science.
Larry and I first met in person at a book release party for Michael Hart’s magnum opus, Understanding Human History, on a sweltering day in 2008, in one of those zillion-dollar, uptown Manhattan apartments that take up an entire floor in a former mansion.

At the party, I was conversing with a beautiful and gracious lady of a certain age, whose interest was education but whose failing memory made serious conversation futile. Larry was sitting nearby, so I recounted a previous virtual interaction I’d had with him.

Larry and I had corresponded via e-mail, but at one point he had demanded that I use the nasty little standard font, as opposed to the larger, more attractive font that I preferred. After that incident, I told the gentle lady, we went for a number of years without talking (or its e-equivalent).
“But he’s talking to you, now!” she piped up.

“No, he isn’t,” I responded, “he’s shoving raisin bread into his mouth to avoid talking!”

Later, we saw each other socially for a year or so, as members of a New York Dissident Right dinner club. But neither of us were clubbable and both dropped out. Thereafter, we were reduced to occasionally responding to each other’s blog items.

His blog about my experience during 2012’s Hurricane Sandy, a catastrophe for my beachfront Rockaway community, was vintage Auster. On the one hand, he was kind enough to try to call to see what had happened to me. But then he depicted me as callous because I did not contact anyone to say I was alive. Never mind that I had no telephone, Internet service, or even electricity! I eventually had to travel to Brooklyn, buy a cell phone, and call Peter Brimelow from there.

As the end grew near, Auster and I clashed because he was even discussing his stools at his blog. That’s what happens when you don’t have a wife with whom to share such joys.

A few weeks before Auster died, a publisher showed interest in the huge manuscript on immigration that he had written during the 1990s. He was trying to cut it down by 70 percent, to a 250-page book, when he died. His friends then sought to get the book project done, but I haven’t heard anything about it since. Perhaps this will give them a push.

As time ran out on Auster, he blogged so heroically that I thought he might be in remission. Thus I held back on publishing a humorous blog about going with Lubavitcher Chassidim in a “Mitzvah tank” for an intervention, to bring him back to the Tribe.

Alas, my chief advisor knew better.

In 2010, I wrote that Larry Auster was an  intellectual slugger who swung for the fences every time at bat. He struck out a lot, but that was the price for all those dingers.

Nicholas Stix [email him] is a New York City-based journalist and researcher, much of whose work focuses on the nexus of race, crime, and education. He spent much of the 1990s teaching college in New York and New Jersey. His work has appeared in Chronicles, The New York Post, Weekly Standard, Daily News, New York Newsday, American Renaissance, Academic Questions, Ideas on Liberty and many other publications. Stix was the project director and principal author of the NPI report, The State of White America-2007. He blogs at Nicholas Stix, Uncensored.

The Fight for America was Not Won Last November: Citizens Must Battle the Campaign against Real Immigration Enforcement

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Editor's Note: The Campaign against Real Immigration Enforcement

By Wayne Lutton, Ph.D.
Volume 27, Number 3 (Spring 2017)
Issue theme: "A new era for immigration enforcement"
The Social Contract

Printer friendly page
Articles by this author
View original PDF format

immigration law enforcement

Our immigration laws are intended to safeguard the American people from dangerous foreign nationals entering the country and to protect American workers from unfair competition for jobs here at home. As TSC readers are only too well aware, an unholy alliance of Left activists has long seen the masses of immigrants from around the world as recruits against the American middle class and our traditional political order, while corporate businesses want a steady supply of cheap labor. The election of Donald Trump poses a threat to these interests for the first time in generations.

After the new administration issued an Executive Order temporarily freezing the issuance of visas to certain previously designated terror-risk nations, several states went to court seeking a temporary restraining order to block the implementation of these sensible proposals. But as Dale L. Wilcox, executive director of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, points out, “More than a hundred years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, ‘The right to exclude or to expel aliens, or any class of aliens, absolutely or upon certain conditions, in war or in peace, is an inherent and inalienable right of every sovereign nation.’” The President’s authority is found in 8 U.S. Code, Section 1182(f), which clearly states:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
The Trump Administration has requested an additional $6.6 billion spread across twelve appropriation bills to fund the hiring of 10,000 additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and 5,000 new Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officers. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) has promised to prevent the increases in funding for enhanced border security and interior enforcement. Public opposition is being orchestrated by organizations associated with far-Left Democratic funders, led by international currency manipulator George Soros (cf. Fredreka Schouten, “George Soros-aligned group weighs funding anti-Trump activists,” USA TODAY, March 20, 2017). And the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has launched what they call the “Freedom Cities” organizing initiative to increase the number of Sanctuary Cities trying to shield illegal aliens from federal immigration agents.

The campaign against enforcing our immigration laws has just begun. Citizens cannot rest upon last year’s election results. We are in the fight for America.

About the author

Wayne Lutton is editor of The Social Contract.

Black Baton Rouge Chief Administrative Officer Troy Bell Gets Caught Lying about Master's Degree on Resume



By A Texas Reader

New Baton Rouge Chief Administrative Officer Troy Bell lies about master's degree on resume

Update, 5:33 p.m.: Troy Bell has resigned. Click here to read more.

N.S.: On the one hand, it’s so easy for a black to get a graduate degree, including a doctorate, today, that you wonder why anyone would bother lying about it. Blacks can’t walk across a college campus without a motorcycle helmet on. Administrators stand on hills, and toss framed B.A.s, M.A.s, and Ph.D.s at every black face that passes by.

On the other hand, thanks to what Mickey Kaus calls “due diligence, diversity-style,” most blacks can blithlely lie about having college and post-graduate degrees, because they know that nobody will force them to prove it.

Brandon Judd, of the National Border Patrol Council, on Our John Kelly Problem (DHS)

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

I thank the old buddy who sent this along.

I wish we were talking about the fictional “John Kelly,” as played by David Caruso, on NYPD Blue, who was one of the greatest dramatic characters in TV history, but alas, this John Kelly is all too real.

BRANDON JUDD (President, 18,000-member National Border Patrol Council) on JOHN KELLY, (Secretary, Department of Homeland Security)

Transcript from Breitbart News Daily (audio). At the link below, scroll down to April 18, 2017, Track #6. Begin listening at 5m55s for the exchange below:

JUDD: “President Trump mentioned our endorsement of him in every single major political rally that he had. He mentioned this after he was president at CPAC, our endorsement. So we’re begging him to drain the swamp within the CBP [Customs and Border Protection]. You’re talking about the murkiest swamp in the entire federal government. And it’s just getting murkier as we continue to promote people from the last administration… And that’s what leads me to scratch my head about Secretary [John] Kelly.”

“We’re talking about a very distinguished general… Yet now that he’s the secretary of DHS, all he does is praises Jeh Johnson, the former secretary who we know did not enforce any of the laws, and brought all these problems about, and he continues to praise Jeh Johnson and he continues to promote people that were under the Jeh Johnson regime. And that just doesn’t make any sense. So, yeah, the swamp has to be drained within the CBP.” (7:01)

Mommie and Boyfriend Dearest: What’s Your Price to Murder Someone?


Sara Packer, l, confessed rapist-murderer Jacob Sullivan, and the late Grace Packer

By Nicholas Stix

At ABC News New York.

The New Social Contract is Out, and You Can Read It for Free Here!

By Nicholas Stix


Just hit this link.

Missouri’s Easter Murder


Suspect Thomas Easter (no picture of victim John Easter was available)

At the Westplex Daily News.

A tip ‘o the hate to Countenance Blog.

Sunday, April 23, 2017

The Cuba Gooding Jr. Affair

[“Lester Holt and NBC News Successfully Sabotaged Bill O’Reilly and Fox News.”]

By Jerry PDX
Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 3:35:00 P.M. EDT

I can't recall any black liberals being hounded out of their jobs for sexual harassment, there was, of course, Clarence Thomas, but he wasn't liberal and considered an Uncle Tom by many blacks, plus he didn't lose his job.

Black men, in general, practice a more aggressive form of sexual harassment than white men do, especially toward white women, but that doesn't fit the liberal narrative, so it gets ignored or brushed under the carpet.

It doesn't help that many white women are reluctant to be outraged when black men sexually harass them. A recent example is Cuba Gooding Jr. lifting up Sarah Paulson's skirt onstage. She just laughed it off.

If it had been a white man, I doubt she would have done that. It was clear that Gooding was saying to the white world: Look what I can do to a white woman in public!

There was some hoopla over the incident but it lost steam pretty quickly, and there have been no calls to boycott Gooding's movies or blacklist him from Hollywood. Only white men are punished that way.

At Opposing Views.

N.S.: Note that Sarah Paulson is an emphatically “out” lesbian. If a normal white man did to her what Cuba Gooding Jr. did, she might well have called the police, and demanded he be arrested for what nowadays passes for “sexual assault.”

Witness to Fresno Nation of Islam Mass Murder Thought She Would be Shot, too

By Reader-Researcher RC

At first, Edna Lopez thought the two loud bangs were car backfires. She looked around, then spotted a black man with a white hat, a black jacket – and a gun. Lopez told her daughter, Serina Carrillo, to get back in their car. There’s been a shooting, she

Fresno woman saw shooting spree suspect and thought she would be shot: ‘He looked angry’

Edna Lopez thought she, her daughter and grandson were going to get shot when the man with a gun approached their car near downtown Fresno Tuesday, April 18, 2017, as they were trying to flee. They were the lucky ones, among the few few [sic] ...

N.S.: This is ridiculous. Edna Lopez is a Hispanic woman. NOI mass murderer Kori Ali Muhammad was only targeting non-Hispanic white men. This is a Fresno Bee diversion tactic.

After the shooting was over, a news media picture showed a group of five bystanders watching the crime scene. Every one of them was a Hispanic. Thus, Muhammad showed great “care” in his murders and attempted murders.

Get Your Sunday Multicultural Wrap-Up!

By Nicholas Stix

At Countenance—where else?

Bodies Keep Piling Up in Grand Rapids, Most of Them Murdered by Blacks (the Rest by Hispanics); the Mayor’s Solution? De-Policing Blacks!


An old mug shot of suspected war criminal Derin Michael Roy. I could find no photograph for war crime victim Barry Roger Cooper.

By Grand Rapids Anonymous

Lester Holt and NBC News Successfully Sabotaged Bill O’Reilly and Fox News

Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 7:39:00 P.M. EDT


There's a war going on out there.

A different war in Grand Rapids, as two more dead bodies (unidentified) found on a street and in a park today. Getting to be normal around here.

Readr-Researcher A.L.:
Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 10:26:00 A.M. EDT
Updated on Sunday, April 23, 2017, at 8:02 P.M.

It used to be Benton Harbor was the main transshipment point for the distribution of cocaine for all of Michigan. I wonder if that has shifted to Grand Rapids now?

Grand Rapids Anonymous
Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 7:21:00 P.M. EDT

To Anonymous 1: A shifting, or more accurately, a sharing of illegal activity by blacks in Grand Rapids, is very true. Every city that participates in allowing blacks to live in their city limits eventually finds itself drowning in drug crime, filth, and violence. It creeps in slowly at first, but then one day you look around and your town is dead.

Last night, four blocks away from a murder I highlighted a few weeks ago (on Lincoln and Bridge-unsolved, but probably Mexican thugs), a car driving on Pine Street poured 20 bullets into a residence.

WOOD TV sent a reporter to the scene, who talked with some poor older white folks, who unfortunately still live in that jungle.

One man said that when he bought his house 20 years ago, he “could sit on the porch and hear crickets. Now, I wouldn't walk from here to there without carrying a gun. Last week I heard 5 bullets.”

But you don't hear those reports on the news. The owner of the house that was shot at, did not go on camera, but innocently wondered why anyone would target her house. I'd bet a week’s pay on my suspicions.

Meanwhile, one of the dead bodies found on Front Street was declared a murder. Another body, found in a city park, has yet to be autopsied for cause of death.

Ultra-liberal mayor Rosalynn Bliss, who continues the previous mayor’s destructive “pro-diversity” agenda, came out today with a comment on yesterday’s study, concerning “blacks being stopped by police at a greater rate than whites.”

The study found “certain streets on the West Side of town (my side) have a ratio of 2.5 to 1 of blacks being stopped more than whites.”

I salute the police for that. But Bliss said predictably, “I am disappointed in this study. We will use this information to improve ourselves and the way police stop our citizens.”

The humorous part of the report detailed certain areas where blacks were NOT stopped as much as whites: Lake Eastbrook Street and Sparks. Why? There aren't any blacks that live in that high income part of town... [chuckle].

But in MY section, yes, blacks get stopped—and I hope it continues at an even greater ratio. It’s necessary law enforcement in the New Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Two Murders in Grand Rapids, One Arrest

Update: Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 11:37:00 P.M. EDT

BLACK THUG ARRESTED for murder of 54-year-old white man in Grand Rapids.

I posted earlier in the week about two people that were found dead in one day. Police arrested a black thug in one of them, the shooting death of middle aged white man, Barry Cooper. It took place in one of the many hellish parts of town. Finally, after many unsolved criminal deaths, police have notched a successful arrest.

This white man, just as much as Mr. [Jamie] Urton, did not deserve to be shot and murdered by a black. Just as Mr. Urton, Barry Cooper wound up in the wrong place at the wrong time. [I.e., around blacks.] At least an arrest has been made fairly quickly.

[N.S.: The story GRA sent in has since been revised into these two, and possibly other stories: here and here.]

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) — Grand Rapids police say they’ve made an arrest in the murder of a Grand Rapids man whose body was found on the city’s southwest side.

Officers Friday identified the victim as 54-year-old Barry Roger Cooper. Police found him in the 600 block of Letellier Street SW Wednesday afternoon. He was not breathing and had blood on his face, according to officers.

GRPD: Man found dead on SW side was shot
Police investigating death of man in Grand Rapids
The Kent County Medical Examiner later determined Cooper died from a gunshot wound.

It’s unclear if Cooper knew his alleged [sic] killer.
[Since Cooper was murdered, the issue is whether he knew his real, not his “alleged” killer.]

Derin Michael Roy was arrested Thursday on one charge of felony homicide in connection to the shooting death of Cooper, according to Kent County jail records. He is scheduled to be arraigned on Saturday.

GRA: More of the same black-on-white violence that is exploding in Grand Rapids and around the country.


I have invested heavily in tuna fish. How heavily? I was down to a mere 34 cans, and in a panic the other day.

This didn’t become a big issue until a couple of weeks ago. I found two cans sitting on the kitchen counter, looking like a grizzly bear had broken into the house, and crushed and squeezed the life and fish meat out of those cans. The lid was crushed into the middle. The sides had what looked like paw and nail marks.

They were empty, sort of.

Veteran crime reporter that I am, I hunted down the story.

It seems the gut of a certain 17-year-old, who shall remained otherwise unidentified, had started growling during the night, and he responded by attacking the tuna fish cans with a big, ailing, old, right-handed can opener. You know, the kind with shiny, black rubber handles?

The 17-year-old, like yours truly, is a southpaw.

I’ve been using right-handed can openers for … ever. So, I showed him how to work one. Truth be told, that can opener’s been on its last legs for years.

To make a short story long, the kid has discovered tuna fish salad.

I’ve of course occasionally made it, and forced it on him over the years, but he suddenly has an insane passion for it, almost as bad as the aliens and canned cat food in the picture, District 9.

He has since mastered the can opener, but you how 17-year-olds eat.

I was down to 34 cans (solid white and chunk light), or so I thought, and I went to the supermarket formerly known as Waldbaum’s, and picked up 11 cans one day, and 13 the next—Starkist chunk light, at .99 a can. (Starkist’s has apparently been running campaigns, now for solid white, now for chunk light, for weeks.) Then I found a forgotten cache of 20 cans of Starkist chunk light in a kitchen cabinet—the kind that are wrapped in plastic as four packs? They look very nice, but they’re still just chunk light. I think they went for $3.99 for each four-pack.

So, that got me back up to 78, a career high. But that was Wednesday. Today, it’s Sunday, and my Tuna stocks are down to 71, and falling like a rock. And it’s not just the 17-year-old—Tuna Madness has hit The Boss, too!

Please hit the “donate” button at the top, and make a generous donation, so that I may feed the tuna monsters!

I thank you, and your posterity will, too!


Nicholas Stix

TCM is Showing Jose Ferrer in The Great Man Tonight at 8, Followed by Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis Sweet Smell of Success!



By David in TN
Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 11:15:00 P.M. EDT

Speaking of movies, on Sunday night at 8 p.m. ET, TCM is showing The Great Man (1956). It's about a 50's radio personality who dies suddenly and a PR flack played by Jose Ferrer is supposed to organize an on-air tribute.

Ferrer discovers the deceased, while beloved by the public, is despised by those who really knew him.

Have you ever seen it? It's a favorite of mine, don't think TCM has shown it before.

At 10 pm, TCM runs Sweet Smell of Success. It must be 50's New York City night.

N.S.: There was a brief rash of cynical, PR man pictures between 1954 and 1957: Bogey in The Barefoot Contessa (1954); his last, The Harder They Fall (1956); The Great Man (1956); and Sweet Smell of Success (1957).

I saw Contessa over 40 years ago, on CBS’ The Late Show, but if memory serves, the titular character has just died, and Bogey the PR man, tells about her legend. It was an amazing picture, because it starred Ava Garner, but wove its story out of the parallel legends of Rita Hayworth, dancing barefoot as little Margarita Cansino, and Garner herself, both of whom were still very much alive. And screenwriter-director Joseph Mankiewicz was the supreme storyteller of show people.

The Harder They Fall has Bogey as a PR man and sometime sportswriter who’s hired to turn a big nothing from South America into a heavyweight championship contender. A bunch of ham-and-eggers are paid off to take dives early, so the nothing can become a contender. It was inspired by the career of Argentinian Luis Firpo, “The Wild Bull of the Pampas.”
It sounds like The Great Man may have been inspired by an incident, in which a wildly popular children’s show host, “Uncle Bob,” was accidentally caught on a hot mic, saying how much he hated kids.

My mom vividly recounted this story to me when I was a wee lad. However, it apparently, is a very popular urban legend (with the bad guy “Uncle Don”). However, I am convinced that that urban legend inspired at lead one classic anti-anti-Communist movie, Elia Kazan’s A Face in the Crowd (1957), starring a brilliant, young, Andy Griffith. The same legend may also have inspired The Great Man.


Sweet Smell of Success was another anti-anti-Communist picture, by Alexander Mackendrick, with Burt Lancaster as a vicious, fascist gossip columnist. It was a hit job on anti-Communist gossip columnist Walter Winchell, with Tony Curtis as the columnist's young henchman.

In Success, Lancaster gave his “fascist” performance for the first time, which he would repeat in Run Silent, Run Deep (1958) and Seven Days in May (1964).

See What the Political Science Professor Who Invited Charles Murray to Speak at Middlebury College Had to Say About the Racist Rioters Who Shut Down Murray’s Talk, Wounded Female Professor Allison Stanger, and Terrorized Murray, Rocking His Car

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

I posted a three-word response: Shame on you. What are the odds of the thread Nazis posting it?

Note that this is a completely fake apology. He’s apologizing to the people he should be condemning, while ignoring the people to whom he should be apologizing: Allison Stanger, the professor the racist thugs wounded; Charles Murray; and all the people who wished to hear Murray speak.

Postscript, 4:27 a.m.: Murray should sue Middlebury, as should Stanger. Racist professors were the riot, and the assault on Stanger. They must be criminally prosecuted, and and they and Middlebury must be sued in civil court, for inciting the riot and the assaults on Allison Stanger and Charles Murray.

An Apology from PoliSci Chair to the Community
Bert Johnson
April 20, 2017
Filed under Opinions

Earlier this year I, as chair of the political science department, offered a symbolic departmental co-sponsorship to the Charles Murray event in the same way that I had done with other events in the past: on my own, without wider consultation. This was a mistake.

Last week, I apologized to my departmental colleagues for this closed decisionmaking process, and I apologize now to the broader Middlebury community. The short amount of time between when the event became public and when it occurred gave all of us scant opportunity to listen to and understand alternative points of view. Most importantly, and to my deep regret, it contributed to a feeling of voicelessness that many already experience on this campus, and it contributed to the very real pain that many people – particularly people of color – have felt as a result of this event.

As we debate what to do next, I look forward to hearing from the college-wide committee on invited speakers that is currently taking shape, as well as from my departmental colleagues and our department’s student advisory committee. I thank all of the members of the college community who have shared their views with me, with the department, and with the college administration over the past few months. I will continue to listen.

Bertram Johnson is an associate professor of political science and chair of the department.

Sines of the Tymes: What Wud We Do Without the Skools?




By Reader-Researcher A.L.

The “Random” Rape and Murder of Tiffany Thrasher that were Anything but


Victim Tiffany Thrasher

Rape-murder suspect Bulmaro Mejia-Maya lived in a neighboring building in the same housing complex, where he used to drink beer with his illegal buddies on a balcony where he had a view straight into Tiffany Thrasher’s apartment. The pretty, white, blonde. Random. Right. Do coppers realize how obvious it is that they're lying, when they call any diversity-on-white murder "random"? The word itself is a tell. It shouts out to the world, "This was a targeted, racially-motivated crime!" Just like when a cop announces, "The motive was not racial."

[Re: “Tiffany Thrasher, Yet Another Victim of Immigration: Law Enforcement Had to Hunt Down Her Neighbor, Illegal Alien Bulmaro Mejia-Maya in Florida, and Extradite Him to Illinois for Home Invasion, Rape, and Murder; Illinois Police Boss Tells Transparent Lie, Calling Murder ‘Random.’”]

By Anonymous
Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 2:13:00 A.M. EDT

I feel sick when they say he didn't know her, and that it was random. This is what happens when scum moves into your neighborhood. Be aware of who is living near you and then learn how to avoid and never engage with them, their friends, relatives and most important, their children or animals. Even engaging in small talk can spark serious problems later on. Best that you don't speak with them at all. Never. Don't be neighborly, don't blab your business, they will be laughing at you behind your back.

People like this are ignorant, uneducated, petty and can be extremely vengeful and vicious. They are capable of blowing up any small incident into a big deal as they lash out with their rage and hatred towards white Americans. I have had to learn how to do this, as I didn't know it when I moved into a lower-income neighborhood. In my case it was that initially they pretended to be decent neighbors, when the truth was that they were low-life, ghetto bottom feeders who would use their children to case out people's apartments and then set up break-ins to rob whatever wasn't nailed down.

[This is the sort of thing that gives the lie to “they’re just children.” Criminals raise criminals. If we listen to the “Dreamers” argument, then we can no longer prosecute juvenile delinquents for the crimes they commit.]

Unfortunately, these men live in feral groups and they perceived her as a target—that she was just another stupid, naive, gringa American living by herself with no large family or man for her protection. He was targeting a white woman who lived alone. He didn't go after a Spanish, South American, or black woman.

If he and his friends sat on a balcony looking into her apartment every day, that's stalking. That's a hate crime.

Last, get curtains and blinds, and use them. It is never safe to have anyone be able to see directly into your home.

Google “safety tips for women.” I am so terribly sorry for her family and friends. My condolences.

N.S.: Note that this is just the sort of atrocity that the John Doe calling himself “Barack Obama” sought to further, with his “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH) scheme.

Postscript, Sunday, April 23, 2017, 3:51 a.m.: CBS News Chicago’s headline was “Man Charged With Rape And Murder Of Tiffany Thrasher In Schaumburg.” As opposed to, “Woman.” The reporter’s first words were “A neighbor.”

The Riot that wasn’t: Auburn Police Force ANTIFA to Take Masks Off, and Thereby Prevent Riot on April 18 (Article, Video)




Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

Published on April 19, 2017.

Unfortunately, however, the Auburn Police let the thugs carry weapons—poles and garbage can covers—into the event.

The following article is o.k., except that the writer was negligent, in failing to cite the date of the incident, and engaged in moral equivalence between the Alt-Right and the violent communists who call themselves “ANTIFA.”

Antifa thugs unmasked in Alabama — by laws originally passed against the KKK
By Nate Madden | April 20, 2017
Conservative Review

In a standoff between white supremacists and communist thugs, there are no heroes — save local law enforcement. Occasionally, however, there’s some half-decent schadenfreude to be found.

In a twist of delicious irony, a law originally enacted to deal with the Ku Klux Klan led to the unmasking of several Antifa thugs on the streets of Auburn, Alabama, Tuesday.

According to a story at Twitchy, local police told people protesting a speech by Alt-Right leader Richard Spencer at Auburn University — which was court-ordered to host him — to take off their hallmark masks.
From video shot outside the venue, it appeared as though the police were enforcing the rules, which included a no-mask policy. That meant the members of the [A]ntifa, or anti-fascists, were made to uncover their faces as they marched past law enforcement toward the campus.

As the story notes, the responses to the unmasking on social media included tweets lauding the Auburn Police Department for enforcing the law while criticizing local cops in Berkeley, California, where lax law enforcement has been blamed for riots over the weekend. Spencer’s views are despicable, but the way a free society deals with bad ideas is to drown them out with better ones, not engage in domestic terrorism. Someone needs to pass that memo along.

As my colleague Chris Pandolfo pointed out in the wake of the past weekend’s riots in Berkeley, Antifa’s name, which is a truncation of “anti-fascism,” really ought not to be taken at face value.

“‘Antifa’ is made up of self-described anarchists — radical left-wing thugs who employ violence and intimidation to advance their beliefs,” he writes. “They’ve shown up previously at Berkeley to shut down a “free speech” event hosted by provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, leaving damaged property, fires, and assault victims in their wake.”

In short, Antifa has no problem shutting down political demonstrations with brute force and intimidation tactics for their socio-political ends [read: terrorism—N.M.], and they typically wear masks to do it.

Covering one’s face to commit acts of political violence is not limited to Antifa thugs. It’s also a favorite tactic of groups like ISIS and other Islamist terror cells, as well as another U.S.-based, Democrat-sympathetic domestic terrorist organization: The Ku Klux Klan.

What many may not know, however, is that the current law forcing the Antifa demonstrators to remove their facial coverings finds its roots in a decades-old provision originally passed to take on the robe-clad hate group.

Title 13 of the Alabama State Code prohibits masked people from congregating in public places without facing criminal charges. If you want to publicly gather in the Yellowhammer State, you can either take your mask off, move along, or leave in cuffs. This, along with a provision the court order was what was being enforced, a spokesman for the Auburn Police Department confirms via email.

While several states now have laws prohibiting the covering one’s face in public, these laws in the deep south herald back to mid-20th century efforts to keep white supremacists from going about incognito to terrorize and intimidating law-abiding citizens.

The history of Alabama’s anti-masking law go back to Governor Jim Folsom — a noted opponent of the KKK — who in 1949 signed a law making wearing a mask a misdemeanor, punishable, back then, by a $500 fine and a year in jail, according to Time Magazine archives. The law was the first of its kind passed in the Deep South since Reconstruction.

The current version of the law was passed in 1977.

Furthermore, in “Hooded Americanism: The History of the Ku Klux Klan”, historian David Mark Chalmers notes that Folsom also ordered the arrest of anyone who similarly covered their license plates, saying “mobs, hooded or unhooded, are not going to rule Alabama.” Nor would they at Auburn.

Georgia also has a similar statute, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1990, after it faced a legal challenge from the KKK on First Amendment grounds.
So there you have it: A law put in place to combat racist terrorists over five decades ago is now being used against communist terrorists trying to intimidate racists. Welcome to 2017, folks.

Nate Madden is a Staff Writer for Conservative Review, focusing on religious freedom, immigration, and the judiciary. Follow him @NateMaddenCR and on Facebook.

Saturday, April 22, 2017

Tiffany Thrasher, Yet Another Victim of Immigration: Law Enforcement Had to Hunt Down Her Neighbor, Illegal Alien Bulmaro Mejia-Maya in Florida, and Extradite Him to Illinois for Home Invasion, Rape, and Murder; Illinois Police Boss Tells Transparent Lie, Calling Murder “Random”


Victim Tiffany Thrasher

By “W”

At CBS Chicago.


Rape-murder suspect Bulmaro Mejia-Maya lived in a neighboring building in the same housing complex, where he used to drink beer with his illegal buddies on a balcony where he had a view straight into Tiffany Thrasher’s apartment. The pretty, white, blonde. Random. Right. Do coppers realize how obvious it is that they're lying, when they call any diversity-on-white murder "random"? The word itself is a tell. It shouts out to the world, "This was a targeted, racially-motivated crime!" Just like when a cop announces, "The motive was not racial."

As Part of His 2020 Prexy Run, Leftward, Ho! NY Gov. Andrew “the Don” Cuomo Tried to Get Parole for Mass-Murdering, Unrepentant Terrorist Cop-Killer, Judith Clark; Parole Board: Hell No, Guv!; New York Post Goes Soft and PC


Top, Nyack policemen Waverly “Chipper” Brown and Edward O’Grady; below, security guard Peter Paige. Judith Clark murdered all three men. None of these pictures was provided by the New York Post.


The New York Post showed photos of unrepentant, mass-murdering terrorist Judith Clark (and her benefactor, Gov. Andrew “the Don” Cuomo), but no mug shots or any photos of Clark’s many victims. Not only did those victims include Nyack Policemen Waverly “Chipper” Brown and Edward O’Grady, and security guard Peter Paige, all of whom she murdered; but Nyack Police Detective Arthur Keenan and Officer Brian Lennon, and Brink’s security guard Frances Joseph “Joe” Trombino, all of whom she wounded. (The amazing Joe Trombino, who had survived service in the Korean War, grievous wounds in the 1981 Brink’s terrorist attack, and the 1993 Moslem World Trade Center Attack, would die in the 9/11 Moslem attack on the WTC.)

I am now calling Gov. Andrew Cuomo “the Don,” because he has affected a phony Italian accent, like some sort of off-the-boat Mafioso. In reality, he and his siblings were all born here, as was his beautiful mother, Matilda, and his late father, the silver-tongued Gov. Mario Cuomo.


Above, Brink’s security guard Joe Trombino; below, Nyack Police Detective Arthur Keenan and Officer Brian Lennon



The Post did not so much as mention Det. Arthur Keenan, Officer Brian Lennon, or guard Joe Trombino.

The paper quoted Clark’s daughter, Harriet Clark, but failed to point out that the daughter lied, when she asserted that her mother hadn’t killed anyone. When I was a kid, every child learned that in a bank robbery in which the robbers kill someone, the getaway driver is every bit as guilty of murder as the triggermen.


Above and below, terrorist mass murderer Judith Clark


Law enforcement officers and family members hold an annual memorial service for Judith Clark’s victims.



Sergeant Edward J. O'Grady and Police Officer Waverly L. Brown
Nyack Police Department

Brinks Guard Peter Paige

OCTOBER 20, 1981

Updated Ma6, 2015
Look Back and Remember

On October 20, 1981 heavily armed terrorists staged a daylight assault on a Brinks armored car at the Nanuet Mall in Nanuet, New York. In the attack that followed, Brinks guard Peter Paige was killed and Joseph Trombino seriously wounded, nearly losing his arm to the gunman’s bullets. Another Brinks guard, James Kelly, suffered wounds and a concussion as the gunmen pumped automatic weapon fire into the armored vehicle.

After leaving the mall the gunmen fled east, ditching their getaway car and entering the rear of a waiting U-Haul truck being driven by co-conspirators. This was an attempt to escape detection, as the participants knew that the police would be on the lookout for the male blacks that robbed the armored car. The gunmen were to be driven to safety by white accomplices, thinking they would easily escape back to New York City in the confusion immediately following the robbery.

Unfortunately for them a high school student witnessed the switch from the original getaway car to the U-Haul. Looking out her bedroom window, she notified the local police and an alert was broadcast to officers on patrol.

Ten minutes later Nyack Police officers were conducting a roadblock at Exit 11 of the New York State Thruway. Spotting a U-Haul, they ordered it to the side of the road. The driver and passenger in the front of the U-Haul did not match the description of the gunmen at the mall. Further, police radio transmissions had broadcast reports of another U-Haul being spotted heading south into New Jersey on Rt. 304.

Kathy Boudin, an occupant of the U-Haul, complained to the police that their guns made her nervous. Apparently, thinking they had the wrong U-Haul, the police stowed their weapons and shotgun. At that moment the rear of the U-Haul flew open and half a dozen heavily armed killers jumped out, each with military-style fully automatic weapons. Police Officer Waverly Brown was hit immediately and died at the scene. Detective Arthur Keenan was struck before he was able to take cover and return fire. Sgt. Edward O’Grady was shot numerous times and died ninety minutes later at Nyack Hospital. Officer Brian Lennon exchanged shots but was seriously outnumbered and under heavy fire.

At the time, Nyack Police carried six shot standard issue revolvers that were no match for the firepower of the heavily armed terrorists. Tests later conducted by law enforcement found that the killer’s guns were capable of shooting over 100 bullets per minute. O’Grady and Brown were the first Rockland County police officers shot to death in modern times.

In the confusion afterwards the killers fled in all directions. The Nyack community was overcome with a feeling of grief as it prepared to bury two of its own. Many of the killers were caught that day, some in the days, weeks and months to follow. Kathy Boudin was captured by an off-duty New York City corrections officer, Mike Koch, who witnessed the shootout and her attempted escape as she had fled the scene running near the New York State Thruway.

South Nyack - Grand View Police Chief Alan Colsey caught three other accomplices after a harrowing chase. Colsey pursued two escaping vehicles operated by the terrorists along Christian Herald Road and Midland Avenue until one of the vehicles crashed into a brick wall at Sixth Ave. and Broadway. Reports indicate that the occupants attempted to fire their weapons at the Chief, but they could not locate their ammunition in the aftermath of the violent crash. The other vehicle, containing Marilyn Jean Buck, Mutulu Shakur and others, made good their escape that day, but the bulk of the stolen Brinks money was recovered in the vehicle at Sixth Avenue.

Most of the terrorists were sentenced to prison on a variety of state and federal charges, never to see the light of day again. Kathy Boudin however, entered into a plea agreement that guaranteed she would spend twenty years to life in prison before coming up for parole. Her parole hearing is scheduled for August 2001. She could be released by the fall.

Parole board rejects Cuomo’s request to release Brinks robbery driver
By Carl Campanile
April 21, 2017 | 6:04 p.m. | Updated
New York Post

Judith Clark is led by authorities in 1981.

In a startling rebuff, the New York State Parole Board denied the release of ex-Weather Underground radical Judith Clark from prison after Gov. Cuomo commuted her sentence.

Clark, 67 was convicted for her role as the get-a-way driver in the infamous 1981 Brinks robbery in which two Nyack police officers and a security guard were killed.

The three victims whose lives were snuffed out were Officers Edward O’Grady and Waverly Brown and security guard/driver Peter Paige.

Clark became eligible for parole after Cuomo, in an extraordinary decision, commuted her 75-year-to-life sentence last December — giving her the right to make her case to the Parole Board.

Without his intervention, she would not have been eligible for parole until 2056 and would likely have died behind bars.
But in a unanimous decision, the three-member parole board member concluded that the severity of Clark’s crime’s outweighed her good behavior and deeds in prison and calls for her release.

“We do find that your release at this time is incompatible with the welfare of society . . . .You are still a symbol of violent and terroristic rime,” parole board members Tina Stanford, Kevin Ludlow and Sally ThompsoIn its decision.

They also noted that Clark had a criminal record of aggravated battery, aiding escape, mob action and resisting arrest prior to her New York crimes. And she was unrepentant at her sentencing, referring to herself as “at war with America.”

The parole board members, part of an independent body, were appointed by three different governors.

Her next parole board date for potential release is in two years, April of 2019.

Harriet Clark, the daughter of the inmate, was crestfallen.

“I understand and agree that my mother’s punishment must honor the seriousness of her crime but I believe that 35 years in prison is a serious punishment,” Harriet Clark said.

[Her mother should have been executed years ago, but New York is a justice-free zone.]

“My mother did not kill anyone and it’s hard for me to understand who is served by making her die in prison, which is what decisions like this eventually amount to. The Parole Board sent a discouraging message today to people on the inside and their families on the outside so I want to send a different message and say how proud I am of the men and women I know inside who work so hard to transform their lives and who, like my mother, deserve to come home to their families.”


Clark’s lawyer, Steve Zeidman, said the decision “ignores” Clark’s “extraordinary record of achievement and transformation and instead elevates calls for interminable punishment.”

Allen Roskoff, a friend of Clark who headed the group “Candles for Clemency” and campaigned for her release, said, “ We’re heart broken. We’re devastated. The Parole Board is broken.”

[Roskoff is a racial socialist and militant homosexualist. In other words, an evilist. This was the most courageous action the New York State Parole Board had taken in years.]

But families of the victims were thrilled that Clark will remain behind bars.

“I want her to stay there for the rest of her life,” said Josephine Paige, the widow of Peter Paige.

“My husband is in the ground and she’s going to get out? She doesn’t deserve it.”

Cuomo, for his part, did not second-guess the Parole Board’.

“Judith Clark deserved the opportunity to make her case for parole based on her extensive prison programming, her perfect disciplinary record while incarcerated, and impressive self-development over the past 35 years. The commutation afforded her that opportunity and we respect the parole board’s decision.,” said Cuomo spokeswoman Dani Lever.

Parole board members grilled Clark during a hearing on April 6 at the Bedford Hills Correction facility, where she has been incarcerated following her Oct. 14, 1983 conviction for murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree.

As her Parole Board hearing approached, opponents dropped off petitions signed by 10,000 people — including many in law enforcement — saying Clark should be kept behind bars.

Meanwhile nine members of New York’s congressional delegation — Adriano Espaillat, Hakeem Jeffries, Carolyn Maloney, Greg Meeks, Grace Meng, Jerrold Nadler, Jose Serrano, Nydia Velazquez and Tom Suozzi co-signed a letter to the Parole Board urging her release.

James Foley (at Gannett)

Will Columbia University adjunct professor Kathy Boudin be there to see her handiwork ? I know her victims will not be there. Shameful that this woman is in a position of power and authority after killing those who were there to protect us. This woman deserves to work for a living, but considering her socialist , race war , murdering history, she should be ,at best , bussing tables.
Like · Reply · 8 · Oct 17, 2014 9:10 a.m.