Saturday, January 31, 2009

Remember Once and Again and thirtysomething?

By Nicholas Stix

Even if you don’t, get thee to my blog, The Critical Critic, for “‘When the Red, Red Robin Comes Bob, Bob, Bobbin’ Along,’ Once and Again, and thirtysomething.”

Once and Again and thirtysomething were two of TV’s greatest dramatic series. They were made by socialists, but at their best, transcended political correctness. While my essay is not very long, it is the most technically ambitious I’ve ever published, with three video boxes: Two from the respective shows, and one of Doris Day singing, “When the Red, Red Robin Comes Bob, Bob, Bobbin’ Along,” as a stunning photo spread of Day during her performing years and retirement fades in and out. (Day is now 86 years old, and still caring for animals in Carmel, California.)

I wish I could take credit for creating the boxes, but after nine years of writing for the Internet, I am just now getting the hang of embedding pictures and videos.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Letter to an American Patriot

By Nicholas Stix

On Monday, I received the following letter from a reader who had seen my Inauguration essay, “Should Obama be Sworn in… or Arrested?” at

I read and re-read the article, and am impressed with the amount of research it apparently took to extract all the facts presented. My question is not whether this man should be sworn in (he already was) or arrested (wishful thinking), but "How does an ordinary person like myself go about doing something to correct this dreadful miscarriage of justice? I've tried the Legislator and Senator route and get nothing in return. I've tried appealing to a newspaper, and got nothing in return. I talk with people who have more knowledge than me, more education than me, more enlightenment on the issues than me and who are as eager as me to do something. But we seem to all have hit brick walls. Where do we go? What do we do? Thanks.

I sent the response at the end of this column before learning that a company had published a “Little Red Book” of the Führer’s quotations. Granted, the Pocket Obama is blue, but that’s because in the run-up to the 2000 election, the socialist MSM came up with the idea of switching the traditional colors of politics, imposing their own traditional red on the GOP, which went along with the outrage, as it has gone along with most leftwing outrages in recent years, and adopting blue, a color traditionally associated with liberty, for their party.

The publisher of “Obama’s” Little Red Book, The History Company, says

His superb and captivating oratory style has earned comparisons to John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, and this historic collection presents words that catapulted his remarkable rise to the American Presidency. It is an unofficial requirement for every citizen to own, to read, and to carry this book at all times.

“An unofficial requirement.”

(“Catapulted his remarkable rise”? Doesn’t The History Company employ anyone fluent in English?)

Commenter mvfreeman at the Republican NewsBusters blog directs our attention to the entry for Mao Tse-Tung’s Little Red Book, at Wikipedia/The Pretend Encyclopedia:
Among the most widely printed books in history, Quotations had an estimated 5 to 6.5 billion copies printed during Mao's attempt to transform Chinese society. The book's phenomenal popularity may be due to the fact that it was essentially an unofficial requirement for every Chinese citizen to own, to read, and to carry it at all times during the later half of Mao's rule, especially during the Cultural Revolution.

“An unofficial requirement.”

(“Quotations had an estimated 5 to 6.5 billion copies printed”? “The later half”? It sounds like the same foreign speaker who works The History Company wrote the W/TPE entry for the Little Red Book.)

A tip ‘o the hat to VDARE’s Alan Wall.

* * *

Keep in mind that already before the election, the Führer had demanded that the Department of Justice stop TV ads by Republican critics from airing, and had surrogates threaten critics with prosecution, and began laying the groundwork for destroying conservative talk radio, through the reintroduction of the so-called Fairness Doctrine. He also called for a domestic national security apparatus, to be as well-funded as the Pentagon, and which, rather than fighting terror, would keep the entire American people under surveillance, waging war against any dissenters among the American people. A gauleiter on every block. And since his inauguration, singling out Rush Limbaugh, the Führer has demanded that Republican elected officials not listen to conservative critics, and told them that because he won the election, they may not in any way disagree with him. Some seasoned observers believe, I believe correctly, that the “riot veto” kept the Supreme Court from inquiring into whether “Obama” was legally eligible to run for president. (In 1990, David Dinkins, New York City’s first black mayor, was protected by the same riot veto from being arrested for tax fraud. Thanks to Dinkins’ moral precedent, we’ve since progressed to the point where a white tax fraud can sail through confirmation hearings to become the Secretary of the Treasury.)

With the foregoing in mind, here’s my response to my reader:

I'm as frustrated as you are, and write letters to my colleagues and editors just like the one you wrote me. Most of the time I then go back, as I tell my colleagues and editors I will, to writing stories about black-on-white atrocities and such, because it's what I know I am competent to do, even if it is much less than what needs to be done.

Prior to the election, my thinking was that a series of targeted lawsuits for violating employees' and students' civil liberties and civil rights against employers and educational institutions, and diversity trainers could weaken the diversity industry's pernicious influence. But the realization of what we are now up against makes that hope seem quaint and misplaced. We need to muster massive resistance, before it is too late. Lawsuits--and how I hate lawyers and lawyering, but that is all that some people understand--will still be necessary, but now they will have to be federal lawsuits intended to stop that man's destruction of America. Massive demonstrations will be necessary. Civil disobedience will be necessary. New media are necessary. And a new party is necessary.

Thanks for writing.

Nicholas Stix

I now realize that my letter still does not tell an ordinary person, as opposed to an activist, what he can do, but it will have to do for now.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Should Obama be Sworn in, or Arrested?

By Nicholas Stix

As I write this, the man presently calling himself “Barack Hussein Obama” has not even been sworn in as President, and yet his chosen administration is already the greatest collection of criminals since the last time Hillary Clinton sat alone in her East Wing office in January, 2001.

As I’ve previously noted, an unwritten law of politics says that you’re supposed to get sworn in, before committing high crimes and misdemeanors. It is a political commonplace for a president to have his inaugural and his cabinet’s swearing-in, after which all hell breaks loose. There is nothing at all commonplace about a president and his cronies, er, cabinet members, who are charged with all manner of crimes prior to Inauguration Day. Let us review the charges:

New Mexico Gov. and Commerce Secretary-designate Bill Richardson had to remove himself from the cabinet post he had not yet even assumed, due to his being under investigation for a possible kickback scheme (taking bribes in exchange for state contracts) in New Mexico.

Treasury Secretary-designate Timothy F. Geithner committed federal tax evasion to the tune of $43,000, defrauded his former employer, the International Monetary Fund, which had given him the $43,000 to pay the feds, and employed his immigrant housekeeper after her federal work authorization had run out.

Secretary of state-designate Hillary Clinton gave us Travelgate, Filegate, and conspired to obstruct justice after she had been notified that her old law partner, White House counsel Vince Foster, had committed suicide, by ordering her chief of staff, Maggie Williams, to illegally remove documents from Foster’s office.

Attorney General-designate Eric Holder previously served as Deputy Attorney General of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. The Civil Rights Division is an ongoing criminal conspiracy which exists to violate whites’ civil rights, and unconstitutionally provide blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, and certain other groups with political privileges. Never mind Holder’s role in the Marc Rich pardon, horrible though that was; previous service in the Civil Rights Division makes someone unfit to serve as the nation’s top legal officer.

Bribery and criminal conspiracy:

Beginning in 1995, Obama accepted tens of thousands of dollars in legal campaign donations from Chicago slumlord and fixer Antonin “Tony” Rezko, a Syrian immigrant who made millions, some legally and some illegally, off Chicago race politics, including through the Nation of Islam. (Rezko is not black.) In return for his campaign contributions, Rezko made millions off contracts that Obama directed his way. That’s not ethical, but short of an investigation, it may be legal.

But then Rezko and Obama crossed the line. As Charles R. Smith reported in September for Newsmax,

In 2005, when Rezko was under federal investigation for influence peddling, Obama and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a Chicago doctor.

The doctor sold one parcel to Obama for $1.65 million, $300,000 below the market price, while Rezko's wife paid full price, $625,000, for an adjacent vacant lot. Curiously, Mrs. Rezko made a $125,000 down payment and obtained a $500,000 mortgage when financial records shown at the Rezko trial noted that she had a salary of only $37,000 and assets of $35,000. The court records also show her husband had few assets at the time.

Obama claims that in buying his house in 2005, he also got a low mortgage rate from Northern Trust bank because another bank made a competitive bid for his loan. The only problem is the Obama campaign refuses to identify the other bank or show any proof of a competitive loan offer.

Six months later, Obama purchased a 10-foot wide strip of the Rezko property, paying Rezko's wife $104,500. According to Obama, the 10-foot strip was for a bigger yard. Still, the deal also rendered the Rezko parcel too small to build on, thereby increasing the value of Obama's property.

Thus did Rezko, through the doctor, give Obama a gift worth over $300,000. The legal term for a “gift” that is not a legal campaign contribution, and which is given by Businessman A to Politician B, the latter of whom has a history of directing millions of dollars in contracts to A, is “bribe,” and it is a felony, as is criminal conspiracy.

In 2005, when Rezko gave the “gift” to Obama, he was already under indictment for stealing over $6 million from the City of Chicago through a kickback scheme. Rezko has since been convicted for said scheme, and is currently in prison.

The leftwing mainstream media ignored the Rezko scandal, which was not relevant to their mission of getting Obama elected.

Election Fraud and Campaign Finance Crimes:

According to a bang-up series two weeks before the election by investigative reporter Ken Timmerman for Newsmax, supporters of Hillary Clinton had charged the Obama campaign with a conspiracy to engage in voter fraud and federal felonies against the campaign finance laws. This was the kind of exposé series that, had it been by a socialist/communist/whatever reporter attacking a GOP standard-bearer, would have received four-wall, 24-hour saturation coverage and a Pulitzer Prize, but since it was by a Republican and exposed the machinations of a “black” racial socialist, was ignored.

Timmerman reported on charges that the Obama campaign had illegally bused hundreds of Obama supporters into Iowa from out of state for the first caucus, in which Hillary Clinton was a prohibitive favorite. Clintons’ supporters charge, as well, that the Obama supporters stole the Clinton people’s “vote packets.”

A bit of explanation is in order. In a primary, every state resident who is an American citizen, and either a registered member of the state party in question, or in some states (e.g., New Hampshire) simply a registered voter in that state may vote. In a caucus, however, only a select number of state party activists may caucus (vote). In either case, it is a crime to bus in people from out of state to vote in a caucus or primary. Stealing the voting packets of legal caucusers is also a crime.

Psychologist and Clinton supporter, Lynette Long, maintained to Timmerman that the Obama campaign’s voter fraud extended to his other 12 caucus victories as well, which gave him a huge early lead, created the appearance of inevitability, and won him the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination.

Obama’s surprisingly strong win in Iowa, which defied all the polls, propelled his upstart candidacy to front-runner status. But Lynette Long, a Hillary supporter from Bethesda, Md., who has a long and respected academic career, believes Obama’s victory in Iowa and in 12 other caucus states was no miracle. “It was fraud,” she told Newsmax.

Long has spent several months studying the caucus and primary results.

“After studying the procedures and results from all 14 caucus states, interviewing dozens of witnesses, and reviewing hundreds of personal stories, my conclusion is that the Obama campaign willfully and intentionally defrauded the American public by systematically undermining the caucus process,” she said.

In Hawaii, for example, the caucus organizers ran out of ballots, so Obama operatives created more from Post-its and scraps of paper and dumped them into ice cream buckets. “The caucuses ended up with more ballots than participants, a sure sign of voter fraud,” Long said.

In Nevada, Obama supporters upturned a wheelchair-bound woman who wanted to caucus for Hillary, flushed Clinton ballots down the toilets, and told union members they could vote only if their names were on the list of Obama supporters.

In Texas, more than 2,000 Clinton and Edwards supporters filed complaints with the state Democratic Party because of the massive fraud. The party acknowledged that the Obama campaign’s actions “amount to criminal violations” and ordered them to be reported to state and federal law enforcement, but nothing happened.

In caucus after caucus, Obama bused in supporters from out of state, intimidated elderly voters and women, and stole election packets so Hillary supporters couldn’t vote. Thanks to these and other strong-arm tactics, Obama won victories in all but one of the caucuses, even in states such as Maine where Hillary had been leading by double digits in the polls.

Obama’s win in the caucuses, which were smaller events than the primaries and were run by the party, not the states, gave him the margin of victory he needed to win a razor-thin majority in the delegate count going into the Democratic National Convention.
Without these caucus wins, which Long and others claim were based on fraud, Clinton would be the Democrats’ nominee running against John McCain.

Long has published her findings at the Web site, Caucus Fraud, which is brimming over with her research data and conclusions, and links to work by others.

Note that the methods that Long and others have alleged were used by Obama have all the earmarks of the candidate’s old criminal, racial socialist comrades at ACORN.

According to Timmerman, Obama received millions of dollars in anonymous campaign donations, and as much as $63 million in foreign donations, both of which, if true, are federal felonies, as well as contributions that were over the legal limit of $4,600, which excess the Obama campaign did not refund. Timmerman reports that of the over 2.5 million Obama donors, the campaign has kept the names of over 2 million—over 80 percent—secret, in violation of campaign finance laws, and refused to respond to media inquiries, or to respond timely and thoroughly to FEC inquiries.

Note too that,

[The] campaign has never produced any accounting for proceeds from its online store, which virtually shut down several weeks ago after Newsmax and news organizations revealed that Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and other foreigners had made large purchases there.

One may not run for federal office using a fake identity. Note that I am not claiming that the candidate was born anywhere but in America. When the candidate was born in Honolulu, on August 4, 1961, his mother named him, “Barack Hussein Obama II” on his birth certificate. (Since his parents were not legally married, his surname should have been “Dunham,” rather than “Obama,” but it is not known whether the candidate’s mother knew at that point that her marriage was invalid, due to the father’s bigamy.)

And yet, according to a 1968 birth certificate from Indonesia (registration required), Obama’s stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, had adopted him, renamed him, “Barry Soetoro,” and gotten him Indonesian citizenship.

If I’m not mistaken, should “Obama” wish to be legally sworn in as President of these United States, he would have to prove that he had already legally changed his name to “Barack Hussein Obama,” and renounced citizenship to any foreign states, and hence allegiances to those countries, prior to having filed his papers to run for president.

We don’t know for a fact that the Obama campaign committed the crimes alleged. Perhaps, God Himself intervened to cause Obama to make a killing in the real estate market, and win a caucus in which his chances had been so weak. And what possible innocent explanation could there be for the anonymous and possibly foreign donations? Were they fabricated by the candidate’s opponents? And what about his identity?

Well, God hasn’t spoken to me, revealing His intervention.

What we do know is that Obama profited illegally on his real estate deal. And we know that Clinton’s supporters complained long and loud about crimes they allege were committed by Obama and his minions, and the RNC complained about campaign finance irregularities. And “Obama” has never shown that he legally changed his name back to “Barack Hussein Obama II,” or legally renounced his Indonesian citizenship. The MSM refused to report on, and the authorities refused to investigate any of the above charges. So, at the very least, the media and the Federal Elections Commission were both guilty of scandalous dereliction of duty. And without the aforementioned questions being resolved, the man presently calling himself “Barack Hussein Obama” may not legally be sworn in as President of the United States of America. Give him the presumption of innocence, but arrest him.

Of course, I know that that is not going to happen. “Obama” could slaughter his entire family, and be found by the Secret Service with the murder weapon in his blood-drenched hands, and still no one would stop “the first ‘black’ president” from usurping the office.

“Obama” has a great start at leading the most criminal administration in American history, and I believe the thought pleases this man, who wipes his feet on America’s laws. This man, who has no intention of ever voluntarily relinquishing power, and who would introduce America to the African-style, racial-socialist leadership of his father’s dream, intends to be America’s second President-for-life.

All hail ... Obama!

All hail … the Führer!

Monday, January 19, 2009

The Most Important Conference of the Year:

Preserving Western Civilization

In this age characterized by racial socialism, pseudo-intellectual anti-Semitism of the Left and the Right, and Jewish mediocrity, ever fewer people have both the intellectual capability and, even more important, the requisite moral courage to speak on the forces threatening to extinguish Western Civilization. From February 6-8, much of that remnant will convene the first Preserving Western Civilization conference. Baltimore’s Four Points Sheraton BWI Airport Hotel will showcase big brains, and even bigger hearts.

Speakers include:

Lawrence Auster is a conservative blogger and essayist. He is the author of The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism. He has also written articles for NewsMax, National Review, FrontPage Magazine, American Renaissance, WorldNetDaily and The Social Contract Press. His daily blog, View from the Right, includes trenchant commentary on current events, politics, society, and culture, and it was influential in defeating the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill in the Senate in 2007.

Peter Brimelow is a financial journalist and author. He has been an editor for many well-known publications, including National Review, The Financial Post, and Forbes. Outside financial circles, he is best-known for his writings on immigration policy and for hosting the website His books include Alien Nation: Common Sense about America’s Immigration Disaster, which deals with the problems caused by both illegal and legal immigrants.

Steven Farron received his Ph.D. from Columbia University in New York. For many years he was a professor of Classics at the University of Witwatersrand, in Johannesburg, where he specialized in the study of Greek and Latin epic poetry. Since 2000, though, he has devoted his time to studying affirmative action programs in various countries. He has published a few monographs on the topic, but is best known for his excellent book, The Affirmative Action Hoax: Diversity, the Importance of Character, and Other Lies, which is perhaps the leading study ever made on that topic.

Julia Gorin is among the most recognized names in conservative comedy and is the author of Clintonisms: The Amusing, Confusing, and Suspect Musings of Billary. She has appeared on various ABC, CBS, and NBC news programs as well as on Hannity and Colmes, Fuse TV, Politically Incorrect, and Fox & Friends. In addition, her widely published opinion articles get her invited onto many talk radio programs. She blogs at Political Mavens and at

Lino A. Graglia is the A. Dalton Cross Professor of Law at the University of Texas. He received his LL.B. from Columbia University Law School in 1954, where he was an editor of the law review. He was an attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice and practiced law in Washington, D.C. and New York City before joining the Texas law faculty in 1966. He has also taught at the Universities of Virginia, Utah, and Puget Sound. Professor Graglia teaches courses in constitutional law and antitrust. He is the author of Disaster by Decree: the Supreme Court Decisions of Race and the Schools (1976), a critical analysis of the school busing decisions. He has written widely in both scholarly and popular journals on current issues of constitutional law and the role of the Supreme Court in the American system of government, and is a frequent speaker at scholarly symposia and on radio and television.

Henry C. Harpending is an anthropologist and population geneticist at the University of Utah, where he is a Distinguished Professor. Dr. Harpending has broken new ground in anthropology and human biology interpreting genetic and morphometric variation within and between human populations with mathematically based models, examining hypotheses concerning population growth, divergence, and gene flow. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Roger D. McGrath has been a history professor at UCLA for many years, and was once selected as the “Outstanding Professor” there by the Panhellenic Council. He is the author of three books and over 100 articles, as well as contributing to the anthology “Immigration and the American Future.” He appears regularly on various documentary series for the History Channel.

Pat Richardson is a member of the British National Party. In 2004, running as a representative of that party, she was elected to the District Council for Epping Forest. (Her husband Tom was also elected to that council at the same time.) Since Pat was the first Jewish member of the BNP to be elected to public office, she has been much discussed in the British media. Mrs. Richardson was re-elected to her Council post in 2008.

John Philippe Rushton is a psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario, in Canada. He earned a D.Sc. in psychology from the University of London in 1992. Since then he has published six books and more than 200 articles. He is most widely known for his work on intelligence and racial differences, particularly for his book Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Professor Rushton is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and of the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations.

Srdja Trifković is the author of the best-seller, The Sword of the Prophet, which discusses the history of Islam and the threat that Islam poses to non-Islamic countries. He is also Director of the Center for International Affairs at The Rockford Institute and, since 1998, the foreign affairs editor for the paleoconservative magazine Chronicles. Trifković has a Ph.D. in history from the University of Southhampton, is an expert on Balkan politics, and was a consultant to President Vojislav Kostunica of Yugoslavia.

Brenda Walker is best known as a tireless anti-immigration activist in California. She has also spoken out on the menace that Muslim extremists pose our country. Brenda runs two websites: and, and has also written many articles for

Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day!

By Nicholas Stix

Today is the only day set aside for celebrating the life of an American! And not only an American, but a man greater than God Himself! Just ask any of his followers! (Why the exclamation points! Why, didn’t you know! On MLK Day, we are obliged to end every sentence with an exclamation point!)

I once idolized MLK! But then I made the mistake of studying his life! I then learned that with JFK and Wilt Chamberlain, he was one of America’s three greatest whoremongers! Martin, you sly dog!

I learned that he was either a communist, or used communists, to achieve his goals! You gotta do what you gotta do!

I learned that he was the father of America’s crime, welfare, and reparations revolutions!

I learned that he was a compulsive plagiarist!

But then tenured black man Michael Eric Dyson—that’s what he’s tenured in, black manness—taught me that Martin’s shortcomings merely make him more human! Thus, the most human men in the past 100 years were Stalin, Hitler, and Mao!

In what follows, I reprint one of my Martin essays!

* * *
MLK Day, 2005

January 17, 2005
Men's News Daily

It's back. The most important day of the year. More important than the deposed Washington's and Lincoln's birthdays, respectively. More important than Columbus Day. More important than Thanksgiving. More important than Christmas.

I know what you're saying. How can MLK Day be more important than Christmas? Easy. MLK was the most important person ever to live. Anywhere. Just ask his widow and children.

Let's look at the man's accomplishments. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was in competition with Jack Kennedy and Wilt Chamberlain for the title of world's greatest womanizer. His favorite male company consisted largely of communists. He began his last day on Earth by beating the hell out of his mistress of the moment. He was a compulsive plagiarist who not only got his doctorate through fraud, but stole other men's words, and then copyrighted and re-sold the purloined pearls. And as the pre-eminent leader of the civil rights movement, he supported racial quotas, reparations, and racist law. What's not to like?

(As Theodore Pappas showed, in Plagiarism and the Culture War: The Writings of Martin Luther King Jr. and Other Prominent Americans, one-third of King's Boston University doctoral dissertation consisted of copying directly without attribution from the dissertation of his classmate, Jack Stewart Boozer, in addition to thefts from famous theologians.

And even if King hadn't gotten his doctorate through massive plagiarism, I wouldn't call him "Dr." What is it about the same black folks who show contempt towards whites with legitimate titles, that has them obsessively refer to "Dr. King"? Max Weber (1864-1920) was one of the greatest social scientists of all time, and he had a real doctorate, but no one today refers to him as "Dr. Weber." Unless you're Austrian or something, it's not proper to refer to dead people as "Dr." Heck, while teaching college, I stopped referring to the living as "Dr." or "Professor," unless the person in question was my boss or a medical doctor. If you're my colleague, I'm not referring to you by any title, Pal. And nowadays, outside of the real sciences, most of the doctorates being issued aren't worth the paper they're written on.)

Lest I forget, one is nowadays compelled to note that King displayed great physical courage on behalf of his convictions. But having the courage of one's convictions is a dependent variable -- the independent variable is the righteousness of one's convictions. Over 100,000 men and women currently in uniform in Iraq also display great physical courage every day, and the vast majority of them seek to defend, not to destroy America. And yet, to my knowledge, none of them has had a national holy day enacted by Congress in his honor.

About 16 years ago, when I watched the PBS documentary series Eyes on the Prize for the first time, I loved the first half - the Martin years. But following King's assassination, the second half celebrated the Black Power movement as a seamless continuation of the civil rights movement whose dominant figure the martyred King was. "How dare you sully King's name!" I shouted at the TV screen, or words to that effect.

Eyes on the Prize celebrated black supremacists such as the "community control" activists (Rhody McCoy, Milton Galamison, the Rev. C. Herbert Oliver, et al.) who terrorized white teachers in the experimental, Ford Foundation-funded Brooklyn school district called "Ocean Hill-Brownsville." (Ocean Hill and Brownsville were and are two adjacent, poor, black-dominated parts of Brooklyn.)

For many years, I considered MLK one of America's greatest heroes. I once even published an encomium to him. Then I started to study the man. Big mistake.

For several years now, neoconservatives have presented King as a ... neoconservative, on race, at least. (And race is all they talk about, regarding King.) That means that he opposed affirmative action. They cite his "content of character" line:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today!"

That line is from King's most famous speech, "I Have a Dream," which he gave on August 28, 1963, at the Lincoln Memorial. That's the only time he used such language. (Variations on the phrase "I have a dream" were then common in the American vernacular. In the 1959 Jules Styne-Stephen Sondheim musical, Gypsy, for instance, Mama Rose sings, "I had a dream ...")

In the next passage, King uses a powerful image to promote integration.

"I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right down in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today!"

"I Have a Dream" is the speech whose high points ("Let freedom ring!") King stole from a speech the Rev. Archibald Carey gave, of all places, at the 1952 Republican National Convention. King then copyrighted the stolen words as his own. Since his assassination, his family has compounded the plagiarism by shaking down individuals (including scholars, which no one had ever done before) and organizations for millions of dollars for the privilege of quoting a mishmash of Archibald Carey's stolen words and King's own words. That the copyright is fraudulent is, thanks to my old editor Ted Pappas and a few other writers by now well-known, but no one has so far had the gumption to take on the sanctimonious, self-righteous bunco artists who comprise the King family.

MLK didn't believe in any hooey about "the content of one's character." He was a race man! And taking his fine talk about black and white children playing together and holding hands seriously, requires a belief in race mixing that he also did not have. As journalist George S. Schuyler (1895-1977) understood, integration means, above all, blacks and whites making babies together.

Meanwhile, on MLK Day every year, black leftists insist on King's radicalism. That's the man they want celebrated. And they are right. King was a radical. The neoconservatives notwithstandsing, King supported affirmative action and reparations, and he got both. When the programs of the War on Poverty were initiated, it was understood that they were racial reparations programs. Thirty-odd years and a few trillion dollars later, contemporary civil rights hustlers developed amnesia, and demanded new reparations to blacks, but this time to the tune of as much as $1 million per black (an additional app. $37 trillion).

The proper meaning of "civil rights" is the rights due to citizens. In changing "civil rights" from something due all Americans to something due to some, based on the color of their skin, and not others, King committed the most egregious act of linguistic legerdemain since FDR turned the term "liberal" upside down, from the belief that government should interfere as little as possible in a citizen's life, to the notion that the government may meddle in all of a citizen's formerly private affairs without limit.

Martin Luther King Jr. was the greatest orator I have ever heard. But that too is a cautionary tale: Beware of silver-tongued serpents.

The real meaning of MLK Day is "Black Day." It is a federal holy day celebrating blackness. But if we are going to eliminate all holy days celebrating white men and instead have a holiday celebrating a black, why not at least celebrate someone worthy? Pre-civil rights America had many black heroes worthy of celebration. Off the top of my head, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, and my choice, Booker T. Washington, come to mind. Even A. Philip Randolph, the founder of the first successful black labor union, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, would be preferable to King, in spite of Randolph's socialism. Those five were real giants, rather than the products of propaganda.

As always, when discussing King, I leave the last word to George S. Schuyler, who, had he had the tuition money, could have buried King's fraudulent Ph.D. dissertation in a pile of real dissertations.

In 1964, when King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Schuyler wrote "King: No Help to Peace":

"Neither directly nor indirectly has Dr. King made any contribution to world (or even domestic) peace. Methinks the Lenin Prize would have been more appropriate, since it is no mean feat for one so young to acquire 60 communist front citations.... Dr. King's principle contribution to world peace has been to roam the country like some sable Typhoid Mary, infecting the mentally disturbed with perversions of Christian doctrine, and grabbing fat lecture fees from the shallow-pated."

* * *
Other ways to celebrate the holiday!

The January issue of American Renaissance contains the article, “The Unknown Martin Luther King, Jr.,” by Benjamin J. Ryan, which AmRen editor-publisher, Jared Taylor, has graciously published at his Web site for non-subscribers!

Last night, VDARE published James Fulford’s ruminations, “When Records Are Sealed—A Meditation on Martin Luther King Day,” to which Fulford has appended a list of ten previous VDARE holiday celebrations!

Friday, January 16, 2009

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Is the San Francisco Chronicle Trying to Get White Ex-Cop and Family Killed?

By Nicholas Stix

Oscar Grant

In “SFGate Hits Bottom,” Latte Island tells of the Chronicle’s manipulation, through a combination of aggressive censorship and malign negligence, of its comments section on a story about the fatal shooting, on New Year’s of ex-con Oscar Grant, 22, by then-Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) policeman Johannes Mehserle, 27, who has since resigned and been arrested on suspicion of murder.

While I was reading the comments to the story about the arrest of the BART cop, I noted the good ones I planned to copy and post. When I went back to the beginning to start copying them, two were gone, replaced by "This comment violated SFGate's Terms and Conditions, and has been removed." They were both by the same commenter, SFBankrupt. His first comment pointed out that SFGate's photo of the late Mr. Grant was a nice one, and the descriptions of him never mentioned that he was a repeat felon and had done prison time. His second comment was in response to another commenter who had disagreed with him. That comment (from the person disagreeing with him) is still up; they only deleted SFBankrupt's criticism of SFGate for falsely portraying Grant as an innocent victim instead of the thug he was.

In addition, several commenters complained that SFGate had allowed many commenters to publish the address of the cop's family members and had failed to remove that information in a timely manner.

In other words, SFGate has been at the head of the lynch mob all along….

There’s much more over at LI.