We in the Stix household recently watched the classic John Wayne western, True Grit. In Wayne’s unsentimental yet raffishly charming portrayal, protagonist Marshal Reuben J. “Rooster” Cogburn is an occasional coward, occasional thief, occasional perjurer, maybe even an occasional murderer, and a full-time drunk. But Rooster Cogburn has grit.
Cogburn may be a fictional character, but he is a recognizable type to anyone familiar with American history, by which I do not mean the propaganda currently promoted in our schools and universities.
In this country, men with grit and greatness—most of whom were not cowards, thieves, perjurers or murderers, though quite a few were drunks—used to practically sprout out of the soil like corn. America’s first census, in 1790, showed a combined three million freemen and slaves, and yet there was probably more greatness then than there is now, with 100 times as many warm bodies.
Well, I’m not George Washington, and you’re not Thomas Jefferson; we can only try and be the best we can be. But we have to try!
Various powers aim to rob Americans of their patrimony. VDARE.com aims, as one of the leading forces in the patriotic immigration reform movement, to stop them. Will you join in helping us, with a tax-deductible donation?
History for Patriots—or Traitors?
My son recently turned nine. When he started school, in pre-K, I resolved not to fight with his teachers, until he was along a decent piece. No use confusing the child. And the public school he attends is one of the most patriotic in New York. Whereas school administrators on Manhattan’s Upper West Side would have kids sing the “Internationale” or kneel facing Mecca before they’d have them say the Pledge of Allegiance, every day at assembly at my boy’s school, they say the Pledge and sing Irving Berlin’s “God Bless America.”
But the books the children are given to read are often another story, entirely.
During the First Grade my son, then six, had a wonderful young teacher, just a couple of years out of teacher’s college. As I later told her, I was glad that she didn’t have any kids of her own yet (and, though I kept it to myself, glad that she wasn’t a party girl), because once she did, she wouldn’t be able to devote herself completely to her pupils. She smiled and nodded in agreement.
But some of the books my son was bringing home from school were abominations which had to be contradicted. One, that was assigned for class, claimed that (white) Americans, in their terrible wastefulness—in contrast to the Indians—had almost killed off the bald eagle. As if the Congresses that passed conservation laws were full of Indians! And what was the racial background of that great conservationist, Teddy Roosevelt? (I don’t know if my son’s teacher or the head of social studies assigned that book, and I’d just as soon not know.)
At about the same time, my son brought home an oversized, illustrated library book that portrayed the Indians as angels, and the white man as a cut-throat savage.
That did it. I ranted against that book to my son, and purchased the 1956 John Ford masterpiece, The Searchers, which we watched together. In that story, Indians massacre a settler family. They scalp the husband, rape and scalp the mother, murder their little daughter, and kidnap their beautiful, teenaged daughter, Debby (Natalie Wood). The husband’s brother, Ethan Edwards (John Wayne) and half-breed, adopted son, Martin Pawley (Jeffrey Hunter), set off to find Debby and bring her back. It takes years, but they rescue her.
The thing about The Searchers is that, unlike the supposedly non-fiction book my son had brought home, it was based on the true story of Cynthia Ann Parker. (Unfortunately, the Comanche had kidnapped Parker for so long—25 years—and married her off to a Comanche leader, so that when she was found, she no longer knew English, had two children, and did not want to return to her family. PC biographies now speak of her as having been “adopted” by the Comanche.)
In its Golden Age, Hollywood was never known as a reliable source of history, but those old pictures are today often more accurate than the “history” books that are foisted on our children.
I want my son to grow up loving and honoring his country, but first he’s got to have a country. If this nation’s policies—policies promoted, for different motives, by Right and Left elites alike—continue apace, not only will America soon be a nation unfit to be loved, but it won’t be a nation at all. Giving schoolchildren anti-American propaganda is meant to sap their wills, so that they won’t have the necessary desire to fight for their country that had my late Uncle Irwin Simpkins, later a mild-mannered, college librarian in civilian life, enlist in the Army for World War II, and re-up for the Korean War. (What about me, you ask? Four months after the last chopper took off from the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, I turned 17 and volunteered for the Regular Army. I may have set a record for the most possible ways a man can flunk an Army physical.)
VDARE.com does not promote itself as a history site, but its writers must often treat of historical issues, because so much of anti-American propaganda involves lying about the past, in order to conquer and enslave the American people now and in the future. And since the movement to destroy America has long employed the means of race war, it manufactures a steady stream of racist, anti-white propaganda.
Let’s return to True Grit for a moment. The area where it was shot, in Ouray County, Colorado, already had some period buildings, such as the Ouray County Courthouse, built in 1888, and the movie crew either constructed or converted some Western buildings in the style of the period, in the towns of Ouray and Ridgway. Ridgway preserved quite a few of them. In her short documentary, True Grit: Then and Now, “JeepsterGal” will show a building or a rock in a movie scene, and then show the same landmark now, in most cases looking exactly the same, 40 years later. And the countryside in the San Juan Mountains that dominate Ouray County (542 square miles, present population, 3,800), and where most of the outdoor scenes were shot, is as spectacular now as it was then.
But imagine what the area might look like in a generation, in an America with between 500 million and one billion people. Instead of being virtually unsettled, it could have hundreds of thousands of people living in semi-attached and attached homes and apartment buildings, with the only reminders of places like Owl Creek Pass and Deb’s Meadow the street signs, strip malls, and highways named after them.
You might think that environmental groups like the Sierra Club—which until 1996 pledged its support for population stabilization—would fight to protect America’s natural treasures, but as Brenda Walker’sVDARE exposés revealed, the Sierra Club was bought off for $100 million by hedge fund entrepreneur and Open Borders fanatic, David Gelbaum.
The fox is guarding the henhouse.
No Americans Welcome!
Someone might counter, “Well, at least we’ve still got our national parks!”
Not really. As Brenda Walker has also detailed in reports over the years, America’s most beautiful national parks have for over ten years increasingly been stolen and plundered by illegal Mexican immigrant drug gangs, the franchisees in El Norte of Mexico’s narcoterrorists, who have taken over large swathes of the parks for the cultivation of marijuana, and turned them into no-go zones for the Americans who pay for their upkeep, and who are their owners. But in addition to stealing our parks, the harm spreads to ten times the area actually cultivated:
These Mexican marijuana messes are an ecological disaster. They are not innocent little plots that leave a minimal footprint. They are industrial grow sites, toxic stews where the gangsters use dangerous and illegal chemical herbicides, pesticides and growth hormones that result in long-lasting environmental damage.
When Americans, the owners of those national parks, visit them, they increasingly take their lives in their hands. As Brenda just reported today, two campers in Santa Barbara’s Aliso Park area, west of New Cuyama, barely escaped an April 17 encounter with alleged narcoterrorists with their lives. (Aren’t we always hearing that drug offenders are non-violent?!) The campers stumbled onto a marijuana patch being tended by two “immigrants.” When the “immigrants,” who spoke only Spanish, gestured to the campers to wait for “Boss,” the campers fled in their vehicle. They barely escaped a chase by two men in a truck equipped with five high-powered rifles. Police went back to the crime scene, and arrested the men in the truck.
Local parks are also being stolen and destroyed. In 2007, VDARE’s Steve Sailer observed Los Angeles’ “public” Hansen Dam Park, which had been seized from the American taxpayers, and privatized by illegal aliens from Mexico, who made no tax contribution to its support, and who wrecked it. They buried the grass in garbage and excrement, set fires that caused massive damage, brought in horses that were illegal, unhealthy, and extremely dangerous, in an area jammed with families and many small children, for an illegal trade selling rides for kids.
Where were the police, you ask? In his pioneering, postmodern/New Age/PC management style mixing sanctuary policy and de-policing, LAPD Chief William Bratton had long ago ordered the police to surrender most public space to the criminal invaders. Bratton, a Boston-born and raised carpetbagger himself, had earlier announced that if any native Los Angelenos didn’t like illegal immigration, they should leave the state. And millions of native Californians, including VDARE’s own Joe Guzzardi, have called Bratton’s bluff!
Meanwhile, that man presently occupying the White House just announced that he will seek to pass an illegal immigrant amnesty in his first year in office, just as I predicted he would in February.
America is currently well on the way to the worst economic depression in her history, with 6.14 million jobless workers receiving unemployment benefits, millions more having exhausted their benefits (and no longer being counted by official unemployment figures), additional millions underemployed, and millions more soon to lose their jobs, at a current rate of over 600,000 per month. Not only would a chief executive seeking to bring about an economic recovery never dream of pushing for a mass amnesty, but he would be undertaking accelerated mass deportations, so as to rid America of the multibillion-dollar welfare, education, and criminal justice costs that illegals incur, and to put an end to their stealing of jobs from American citizens and legal immigrants alike. Instead, that man wants to amnesty over 22 million illegal aliens?! And just who will pay for these illegals? If he gets his way, you and I will. In perpetuity.
Of course, the amnestisiacs are lowballing the numbers, claiming that only 12 million illegals are in play. Only. They always lowball the numbers and the costs.
The real numbers are closer to 30 million illegals, because the over 22 million I cited above have several million illegal children who were born here, and whom a rogue federal judiciary has redefined from illegal immigrants (per the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment), to native-born American citizens.
But for the Usurper-in-Chief, an illegal alien amnesty is only the beginning.
In a 2007 interview, “Obama” told NPR’s Farai Chideya that as far as he is concerned, any immigrant who is a descendant of slaves or who came from anyplace in the world that had ever been under colonial rule has an eternal and unlimited claim against America (though not in exactly those words), which to him means white Americans.
“I mean, you know, black people didn't end up in the Caribbean by taking a yacht there. They came on slave ships. Back in Africa, my grandfather was a cook for the British army and suffered under the colonialism there.”
Never mind that colonial rule was often the only bright spot in such misbegotten nations’ history. Never mind that in Kenya, “Obama’s” paternal grandfather benefited tremendously from colonialism. “Obama” has instead fabricated a bizarro universe history, in which his grandfather “suffered” under colonialism.
Look for “Obama” to seek to airlift in millions of sub-Saharan African “refugees,” the lower their IQs—the average in black Africa is 67 or 70, depending on whose research you read—and the less suited for modern life, the better.
What is his goal? In his autobiography, Dreams from My Father, “Obama” says that his father’s dreams are his dreams. Fortunately for us, his father had clearly detailed his dreams in 1965, in an academic paper entitled, “Problems Facing Our Socialism.”
Barack Obama Sr. expressed his rage at seeing that virtually all private property in Kenya was owned by whites and Asians (Indians). His solution: Use the government to steal every last inch of it from them. The elder Obama also suggested possibly levying a tax rate of 100 percent—a rate of confiscation twice as bad as under American chattel slavery—as a realistic option.
Such a mad plan might make a sort of sense coming from a racist, petulant child lacking the slightest grasp of economics, but Obama Sr. had a master’s degree in economics from Harvard! (How did he ever manage that?)
Obama Sr. does at one point acknowledge that seizing the businesses of experienced, capable white and Asian businessmen, and turning them over to black men lacking both in business experience and aptitude might not be economically fruitful, but emphasizes that he doesn’t care. The elder Obama was motivated purely by the politics of hate, and that is the motive now in charge in the Oval Office.
VDARE.com was founded at Christmastime 1999, by that wandering Englishman, Peter Brimelow. Peter had seen socialism and mass immigration destroy his native land, and bilingualism and biculturalism slowly destroying Canada. Peter fell in love with America, became a naturalized citizen, and didn’t want to see her destroyed, too.
Peter may not be riding a horse with the reins in his teeth, guns ablaze, and he’s not a drunk. But he’s a real man, not a movie character.
Actually, if you’re old enough to recall a kinder, gentler time when academics were scholars, rather than self-styled community organizers, Peter gives the impression, in person, of an absent-minded professor. But impressions aside, I think he has grit. And there’s no man whom I would rather have my back in a barfight.
More to the point, unlike Rooster Cogburn, Peter can’t hold up a federal paymaster or a bank, whenever he needs a “road stake” for VDARE. He needs your help. Please give generously to VDARE.
I realize that times are hard. But they’re going to get harder. I’ve written at least 11 previous fundraising appeals for VDARE, without ever employing such dramatic language, but if we can’t fight off this next amnesty push… I’ll leave the future to your imagination.
Spoiler alert: The last four minutes of the 11:32 video that follows show the movie’s climactic gunfight and fadeout. If you’ve yet to see True Grit, you might want to pass on seeing those scenes just now.
But whether or not you watch the documentary, you should first mosey on down to VDARE.com’s donation page here, to make a tax-deductible donation to The VDARE Foundation, the 501(c)(3) non-profit that operates VDARE. Thank you for your generous support.
As I write this, the pre-game show is on for my beloved, underachieving, overpaid ($138 million) New York Mets, who in a moment will begin their home opener in an old-fashioned-looking, brand new, $800 million stadium, Citifield, in their newest quest to break their fans’ hearts.
Tom Seaver, the greatest Met of them all, will throw out the first ball. Seaver, aka “The Franchise,” aka “Tom Terrific,” should have spent his entire, 20-year career pitching for the Mets, but Mets management screwed up not once, but twice. Embroiled in a personal conflict with Seaver, General Manager M. Donald Grant shipped him to Cincinnati in 1977, in the trade known ever since among Mets fans and beat writers as “the Midnight Massacre.” In return, the Mets got some names that are today the answers to a trivia question. In Cincinnati, Seaver threw the no-hitter that had always eluded him in New York, while the Seaverless Mets returned to their old home in the second division.
In 1983, with GM Frank Cashen’s reacquisition of Seaver via a trade with the Reds, the team got a second chance. However, Cashen blew that one, too, leaving Seaver unprotected from the “free agent compensation pool” before the 1984 season. The White Sox scooped him up.
But time moves on, rosters turn over, and a baseball club can eventually retool and recover from any number of personnel blunders. And so, with a little luck, pluck, and “Billy Buck,” the Mets were able to win the 1986 World Series.
Being so much bigger, you’d think that a nation could more easily recover from a bout or two of bad government. Unfortunately, the reality is the opposite: Working in fast-forward, the corrupt elites of a nation with a welfare state can use mass immigration to destroy that nation within a mere generation.
In 1986, Congress passed, and President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), the first, “one-time” mass amnesty of illegal aliens. IRCA was an unmitigated disaster, rife with fraud, and rather than arresting the problem, “[A]mnesty boosted illegal immigration.”
Since then, in spite of, or more likely because of the federal government’s secret amnesties of an indeterminate number of illegals through at least six forms of stealth mini-amnesties, the number of illegals swelled to first 10 million, and then to over 22 million. Plus, several million children born here as illegals have been redefined by the blackrobed princes of darkness as American “citizens.” America’s criminal elites, who profit off of illegal immigration, have sought repeatedly to push through yet another mass, illegal alien amnesty.
In February, I predicted that the Usurper-in-Chief would attempt to quickly ram through just such an amnesty. Old immigration policy hands scoffed, insisting “Not until his second term.” But earlier this month, that man announced that he is going to try and enact an amnesty this year.
America is currently well on the way to the worst economic depression in her history, with 6.14 million jobless workers receiving unemployment benefits, millions more having exhausted their benefits, additional millions underemployed, and millions more soon to lose their jobs, at a current rate of over 600,000 per month. Not only would a chief executive seeking to bring about an economic recovery never dream of pushing for a mass amnesty, but he would be undertaking accelerated mass deportations, so as to rid America of the multibillion-dollar welfare, education, and criminal justice costs that illegals incur, and to put an end to their stealing of jobs from American citizens and legal immigrants alike.
VDARE.com, founded at Christmastime in 1999 by Peter Brimelow, has led multiple fights that succeeded in stopping a series of amnesty attempts by the Bush II Administration. VDARE is leading the fight against this newest attempt at nation-wrecking, as well. While pampered, well-paid, mainstream media propagandists produce puff stories designed to dupe the American people into supporting their own destruction, VDARE’s hardnosed writers produce top-flight exposés of the ongoing immigration disaster.
But Peter needs money, in order to pay them. (And I’m proud to be one of them.) Not $800 million, $138 million, or even $1 million, mind you. After over nine years of pulling off wonders, his team still plays like the underpaid, underrated, overachieving, 1969 “Miracle Mets.” VDARE does with mere thousands of dollars what establishment media publications wouldn’t dream possible with anything less than millions.
Please support VDARE with a tax-deductible donation to The VDARE Foundation, the 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that sponsors VDARE. I thank you, and one day your posterity will, too.
Imagine a typical day—I’m addressing patriots here. You get a few minutes, and start typing "V-D-..." on your computer screen, until your pc remembers the rest of the URL, and voila … nothing.
You want to get a quick roundup on stories about illegal immigration, immigrant mass murder syndrome, non-immigrant visa (e.g., H1-B) abuse, raceless criminals/raceless victims, SPLC hoaxes and scandals, Obamanomics, the minority mortgage meltdown (e.g., updates on the racial and ethnic breakdown of subprime mortgage foreclosures), human bidoversity, the Wars on Easter/Thanksgiving/Christmas, i.e., the War on America, the multicultural abuse of women, immigrant crime and media malpractice … but you can’t, because there is no more VDARE.com.
If you’re like most people, you don’t have time to scour the ends of the Web for those stories. That’s what VDARE is for.
Even if you’re a writer, like me, who punches out story after story on the National Question—i.e., will the United States of America, that light unto the nations, endure—you don’t have time to find the stories here and there. That would take all day, and then you’d have no time left for writing.
Let’s say you’re an immigration activist—oh, how I hate the word "activist," but there are people who are doing good things that it describes best, as opposed to those who are engineering race hoaxes and conspiring to extort money from whites—and you need the most up-to-date, vetted, reliable information and talking points to fight the newest amnesty outrage plot. You’re screwed.
VDARE is invaluable, because its top-flight contributors, including its own in-house fact-checker, James Fulford (neither the New York Times nor any other Webzine or blog that I am aware of has its own fact-checker), spend tens of thousands of man-hours annually researching and writing the work that it publishes. But those contributors have to be paid. And I’m proud to be one of them.
Is it possible to fight immigration anarchy without VDARE? Perhaps, but it would be much more difficult, and much less effective. Can the patriotic immigration reform movement successfully beat back “Obama’s” current plan for a massive amnesty of over 22 million illegal immigrants this year without VDARE? No.
VDARE founder Peter Brimelow has not posted any new articles for the past two days, and is in danger of having to shut down the Web site altogether, due to a lack of funds.
“Well, even if Peter does shut down the Web site, there’s still the archives.”
Wrong. The archives exist in cyberspace, only so long as the Web site is up and paid for. They take up bandwidth, just like the Webzine and the blog, and bandwidth is not free.
“Yeah, but Google caches are forever!”
Wrong again. The notion that Google caches last forever in cyberspace is an oft-repeated myth. Usually, when a Web site goes down, its cached pages remain accessible on Google for a few weeks and then, poof, gone forever! Sometimes, the cached pages disappear much quicker.
While you’re imagining life without VDARE, imagine a life in which Spanish has been elevated to the official language of the United States.
Mind you, I find Spanish, when spoken properly, a lovely language. But there are already 22 countries in which Spanish is the primary language; there’s no need for any more. (Puerto Rico is not a separate country!)
Imagine a country, in which whites and Asians must pay “reparations” in perpetuity to blacks and Hispanics; a country, in which people from “non-protected” groups with an IQ of 140 are lucky to get work digging ditches, while people from “protected” groups with IQs of 100 are made professors of engineering and physics; a country, in which in which Moslems have imposed Sharia law on the courts; and a country which is in a state of permanent racial, ethnic, and religious warfare, with the warring parties differing, depending on the region in question. (I mean, much worse warfare than presently exists in America!) Think of places like Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and India.
If you want to save America, you have to save VDARE.
Please give generously to the VDARE Foundation, the 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that operates VDARE.com. Your donations are tax-deductible.
Today, I thank you; one day your posterity will, too.
….The tragic explanation of Jiverly’s evil rampage, overwhelming in its empirical precedent, has been in plain view for decades. Third World immigrants come to America not for its Shakespeare’s tongue or WASP Constitution and founding ideas of freedom expressed in rights and linked responsibilities. They come for the fraudulent “American Dream,” a dream that both the Right and the Left have bleached of all its cultural and ethnic denotations or even connotations. It’s all about opening a Laundromat, mailing to the old country a photo next to a newly acquired Mercedes, sending the son to the old country to find a wife and increasingly, having the son fight or spy for the old country against the new one. Or it’s about cramming for years to get an advanced degree and get rich that way.
This is not immigration as it was 120 years ago, but colonization. And when the streets turn out not be paved in gold, and golden-haired maidens will not be pawed, the fraudulent Dream crashes. The toxic jive of petty capitalist exploiters, opium-sucking “progressives” and toothsome politicians claims its victims. And the victims claim their victims.
(Update: 3 p.m. I began writing the following response to a poster at Gates of Vienna who goes by the handle, “Thalassopolites,” at 1:50 p.m. By the time I was ready to post it (2:50 p.m.), I learned that Tak Seiyo had already addressed this individual, whom he identified as a troll following him from blog to blog. I have left my post unchanged.)
Well, Thalassopolites’ rhetorical razzle-dazzle was quite entertaining for a bit, but when he seeks to confuse and misdirect the reader, I must say, “Halt!”
Thalassopolites consistently uses the term “Asian Americans,” in speaking about people who are most certainly not Asian Americans. As far as I can see, every Asian killer Tak Seiyo cited was an immigrant, not an American, not even a naturalized one.
In his earlier remaining post, Thalassopolites argues against Zen Buddhism and for Western music. If anything, that would be a cultural argument against importing Asians. But in a later post, he attacks any argument against importing Asians.
Is Thalassopolites two different people, posting under the same name? Is he a one-man contradiction machine who seeks to hide his irrationality through rhetorical bombast? Rather, I believe that he simply despises Takuan Seiyo, and will engage in any sophistry necessary to take cheap shots against Tak, in order to score momentary debating points against him. Since Thalassopolites’ cheap shots have mutually incompatible consequences, he must carefully separate them.
Tak has previously reported that he practices Zen Buddhism. Thalassopolites sought to insult him (though not in the presumably more crass way of his first post, which was gone by the time I showed up), and so he puts down Zen. In Thalassopolites’ later post, he puts down Tak on purported criminological grounds.
Since Zen is a pillar of East Asian culture, the consequence of Thalassopolites’ hostility towards it would be hostility towards East Asian immigrants. But the consequence of Thalassopolites’ later (true) claim that “Asian Americans” are less crime-prone than American whites is to embrace more East Asian immigration.
Let me cut through Thalassopolites’ sophistry to get back to the argument that I believe Takuan Seiyo is trying to make, and which the former is for purely personal reasons seeking to hide.
1. The embrace of the insane ideology of multicultural diversity has caused America’s elites to jettison their sense of morality, and to instead embrace, or at least excuse evil. The proper moral response to monstrous behavior is to condemn it as such, pray for the victims and their survivors, and consider whether different practices might have prevented the monstrosity, not to nihilistically “celebrate diversity.”
2. No society that wishes to survive can uncritically admit immigrants. Period. When increasing numbers of immigrants engage in behavior toxic (behavior which includes everything from being a financial burden to engaging in treason) to that society, it must deport as many offenders or threats—including naturalized citizens—as its people deem necessary, and rethink its attitude about accepting immigration, not “celebrate” the uncritical admission of unassimilable immigrants.
3. Already in 1965, when the immigration madness began with the Immigration Act, America had more than enough domestic problems of its own, and had no need to import additional problems. Before America entered into its mad experiment with mass non-white immigration, it had a grand culture. The right to keep and bear arms, and the necessary, corresponding duty to engage in restraint, were pillars of that society. They still are. Importation of mass numbers of people—even if they should statistically be less crime-prone than the natives—who are culturally incompatible with that right and that duty, will inevitably exert pressure on the society to degrade the duty, and then gut the right.
Thalassopolites, you potentially have a great future ahead of you as a tenured professor. That was not a compliment.
In today’s America, a race hoax industry manned by black activists and their white benefactors in the media, politics, and academia produces one outrage after another, with the aim of denigrating white heroes, elevating often obscure blacks, making black racists rich and powerful, and waging race war.
So it is with the smear invented in 1802, and in recent years conscripted anew to sully the name of arguably the most brilliant of all of America's Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826). The Jefferson-Hemings Hoax claims, without any evidence, that the third president, renaissance man, and author of the Declaration of Independence fathered the children of slave Sally Hemings (1773-1835). Hoaxers seek to drag Jefferson through the mud, expropriate his legacy on behalf of Hemings' descendants, and supplant scholarship with Afrocentric propaganda. The perpetrators of the Jefferson-Hemings hoax seek, without firing a single shot, to rob the American people of their patrimony.
In July, the New York Times published articles by Jefferson descendant, Lucian Truscott IV, and Times staffers James Dao and Brent Staples, insisting that “most everyone knows” (Truscott) that Jefferson had fathered some or all of Hemings’ children. Dao alleged that “compelling” DNA evidence existed, while Staples spoke of a “new reality” that vindicated the claims made for generations by “the black oral tradition.”
Truscott, Dao, and Staples all left out of their tales, that there is no evidence that Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings ever were lovers, that based on genetic evidence, any one of at least 25 men on Jefferson’s side of the family may have fathered one or more of Hemings’ children (Jefferson family historian Herbert Barger argues persuasively that Jefferson’s brother, Randolph, was Hemings’ lover.), and that the Jefferson paternity story was born as the fabrication of a disappointed office seeker (James Thomson Callender) with a history of libeling the Founding Fathers. Truscott and Staples resorted instead to insinuating that only a racist would deny the story.
The same race-baiting strategy prevails in academia, where scholar David N. Mayer observes, “…among many proponents of the Jefferson paternity claim there has emerged a truly disturbing McCarthyist-like inquisition that has cast its pall over Jefferson scholarship today. Questioning the validity of the claim has been equated with the denigration of African Americans and the denial of their rightful place in American history.”
Here’s what is known: Thomas Jefferson owned a slave named Sally Hemings. Hemings bore at least six children, but otherwise, little is known about her. During Hemings’ childbearing years, not even within the Jefferson clan, was she known as Thomas Jefferson’s lover.
In 1798, scandal-mongering newspaper editor James T. Callender, was imprisoned by President John Adams, under the Sedition Act. When Jefferson was elected president, and Callender freed, Callender demanded the job of postmaster of Richmond, Va. The demand was also a veiled threat. Although Jefferson had been Callender’s benefactor, he refused to meet the latter’s demand. Callender responded, in 1802, by loosing his libel on the world, claiming that Jefferson had a slave “concubine” named “Sally,” with whom he had fathered a child named “Tom.” (There is no evidence Hemings then had a son named Tom; her son, Thomas Eston, was not born until 1808.) Callender sought unsuccessfully to destroy Jefferson politically. In 1805, Jefferson privately denied the claim, and the myth died off.
After Jefferson’s death, propagandists periodically dug up the Callender hoax.
In 1954, racist Ebony magazine editor, Lerone Bennett Jr. (who later, in Before the Mayflower: A History of Black America, would claim that African seafarers had reached America before Europeans did), revived the hoax in an Ebony story.
In the 1970s, the myth was recycled by white “psychohistorian” Fawn Brodie, who simply projected her whimsical speculations onto the historical record.
The modern turning point in the hoax came with black law professor Annette Gordon-Reed’s 1997 book, Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy. Gordon-Reed uncritically accepted certain black oral traditions, heaped abuse on leading Jefferson biographers, and misrepresented the contents of an 1858 letter by Jefferson’s granddaughter, Ellen Randolph Coolidge, to her husband, in which Coolidge had denied the possibility of a Jefferson-Hemings liaison.
Bryan Craig, research librarian at the Jefferson Library, at Monticello, Jefferson’s estate, faxed this reporter a photocopy of the original Coolidge letter.
The letter actually said, "His [Jefferson’s] apartments had no private entrance not perfectly accessible and visible to all the household. No female domestic ever entered his chambers except at hours when he was known not to be there and none could have entered without being exposed to the public gaze."
In Prof. Gordon-Reed’s hands, the second sentence changed, as if by magic, to "No female domestic ever entered his chambers except at hours when he was known not to be in the public gaze."
Gordon-Reed’s changes turned the letter’s meaning on its head, supporting claims that Jefferson could have had secret trysts with Hemings. Either Gordon-Reed committed one of the most dramatic copying errors in the annals of academia, or one of the most egregious acts of academic fraud of the past generation.
Ironically, it was Prof. Gordon-Reed, who politely, promptly, directed me to the Jefferson Library, where I obtained a copy of the original Coolidge letter. After I e-mailed her three times about the discrepancy, Prof. Gordon-Reed finally responded, “As to the discrepancy, there was an error in transcription in my book. It was corrected for future printings.”
In January, 2000, a panel of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (TJMF, since renamed the Thomas Jefferson Foundation), which owns Jefferson’s Monticello home, released its Monticello report claiming there was a “strong likelihood” that Jefferson had fathered ALL of Hemings’ children.
The “scholars” who prepared the tendentious, 2000 Monticello report, led by Prof. Gordon-Reed’s reported friends, Dianne Swann-Wright and Lucia Stanton, could not be bothered to study the original Coolidge letter, and instead cited the false version published in Gordon-Reed’s book. Likewise, in 2000, Boston PBS station, WGBH, presented a “documentary,” Jefferson’s Blood, which perpetuated the hoax. The Monticello Report still cites the altered Coolidge letter (on p. 6, under "Primary Sources", and the PBS/WGBH web site for Jefferson’s Bloodstill has the phony version posted, in its entirety, three years after it was proven to be false, a practice typical of the Jefferson-Hemings hoax industry as a whole.
While in her book, Prof. Gordon-Reed purports not to take a position on whether Jefferson and Hemings were lovers, she takes the lawyer’s tack of “Plan B” made famous by the TV show, The Practice. She attacks all of the most celebrated white biographers of Jefferson, such as Dumas Malone, while accepting at face value dubious black oral traditions. Thus does Prof. Gordon-Reed set up the reader to fall for the hoax, with the false Coolidge letter providing the knockout punch. Supportive reviewers insisted that Gordon-Reed had proved the “possibility” of such an affair, ignoring the fact that unlike fiction, history is about what DID transpire, not what COULD HAVE transpired.
The party of tenured academic hoaxers now insists that the burden of proof rests on those who deny the existence of a Jefferson-Hemings liaison, to prove a negative! And so does the politics of racism enjoy yet another triumph over the truth.
In November, 1998, Nature magazine published an article based on the research of a team of scientists led by Dr. Eugene Foster, with the dishonest title, “Jefferson Fathered Slave’s Last Child.”
Although Foster & Co. could not possibly have confirmed (as opposed to disconfirming) Jefferson’s paternity, they leaped over the evidence to Foster’s desired conclusion: “The simplest and most probable explanations for our molecular findings "are that Thomas Jefferson … was the father of Eston Hemings Jefferson [sic] …”
Foster & Co. studied DNA from male-line descendants of Thomas Jefferson’s paternal uncle, Field Jefferson (who would have the same male Y chromosome as Thomas Jefferson), and from male-line descendants of Hemings’ last son, Eston, determining that one Jefferson male was Eston’s father. But that left at least 25 Jefferson men as candidates!
(An accompanying article in Nature by liberal historians Joseph Ellis and Eric Lander, sought to exploit the hoax, to rescue the authors’ sexually compromised hero, Bill Clinton.)
Descendants of Sally Hemings' son, Madison, refused to permit Madison's son, William, to be exhumed. Such cooperation would have resulted either in Madison's being shown to be the offspring of some male-line Jefferson, or of his being genetically excluded from the Jefferson line.
But male-line descendants of slave Thomas Woodson, whose family oral tradition insists he was born to Jefferson and Hemings, were genetically excluded from the Jefferson line. (The Thomas C. Woodson Family Association has ignored the finding.) Woodson has been assumed by the hoaxers to be the slave whom James T. Callender claimed was Hemings' first child (“Tom”). Either Woodson was not Hemings' son, or Hemings was not monogamous. If the former case is true, James T. Callender was a complete and utter liar. If the latter case is true, black oral traditions and contemporary pseudo-scholarship that have claimed that Hemings carried on an almost 40-year, monogamous love affair with Thomas Jefferson are refuted, and Hemings was not involved with ANY Jefferson male in late 1780s Paris, the time and place the legend insists the affair began.
Unscrupulous journalists and professors immediately insisted that the Foster study had “proven” that Jefferson was the father of Hemings’ children. The spirit of James T. Callender was alive and well.
The other source of claims of Jefferson’s paternity is the “black oral tradition.” However, the hoaxers have ignored Hemings descendants’ mutually contradictory oral traditions, the DNA evidence, the fact that Eston Hemings never claimed to be Jefferson’s child, and scholars’ persuasive argument that the “black oral tradition” that insists on Jefferson’s paternity, is itself the bastard offspring of the Callender hoax.
Racist black professors and journalists, and their elite white allies, now insist that black oral history be given pride of place over documentary evidence. But oral history has always been the stuff of myth, and in the case of the black tradition, often racist myth. Relying on “oral history” would open the door to instant historical rewrites through contemporary black race hoaxes.
Scandalized by the TJMF’s conduct, a group of scholars formed a blue-ribbon Scholars Commission. Excepting one dissent, its members found no evidence to support the Hemings story. Dissenter Paul A. Rahe, determined that although it was for him somewhat likelier than not that Thomas Jefferson fathered Eston Hemings (1808-?), ultimately the case was inconclusive. The Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society was also formed, and in 2001 published the invaluable book, The Jefferson-Hemings Myth: An American Travesty, that is highly critical of the Foster and TJMF reports, and accompanying media and academic circus.
The Jefferson-Hemings story is a case study in the use of scholarly and journalistic fraud and racial intimidation by people for whom the written word functions solely as a weapon in a race war. The Jefferson-Hemings hoaxers seek to steal America’s history, and replace it with a counterfeit version, in order to oppress America’s white majority.
Originally published in the December, 2003, Middle American News.
"Invoking race should never happen again." So said Democratic New York Senator Charles "Chuck" Schumer, about the 2001 New York City Democratic mayoral primary. The odd thing is, Schumer's remark was directed not at candidate Fernando "Freddie" Ferrer, who had made a purely racial appeal for votes, but at his socialist opponent, Mark Green, who had not invoked race.
Ferrer, the Bronx borough president, and Green, the city's public advocate, led the pack in the Democratic Primary, held on September 25, after the original September 11 primary was canceled on account of war. Ferrer barely won that round, but since he failed to clear the 40 percent hurdle required to secure the Party's nomination, a runoff was held between the two on October 11. That day, Green made the mistake of his political life: He won.
Although Green and Ferrer are both white, Ferrer is Puerto Rican, and thus politically, a "person of color." Just as in race relations on the street, in the classroom, and on the job, in American politics today, "persons of color" may be as racist as they wanna be, and may make wild, baseless charges of racism against whites, but whites are not permitted to refute such charges, and are not permitted to aggressively compete against opponents enjoying such privileged status.
Green beat Ferrer in the October 11 runoff. But that couldn't be -- a white candidate MAY NOT beat a "minority" (or minority surrogate, as in the case of Al Gore last year) candidate; the only permissible explanation is that racist whites stole the election. In fact, police at a polling place did accidentally double-count votes they were tallying to bring to the counting central, and Green's victory, in the official count was eventually only by 19,000 votes, but no fair-minded person could doubt that Green had beaten Ferrer.
Unsurprisingly, many New York blacks, looking to reprise the 2000 Florida Disenfranchisement Hoax, insisted that "the white man" stole the primary. After the October 11 runoff, liberal Daily News columnist, Michael Kramer, quoted a Harlem man, Jimmy Brown, as saying, "'They stole it. Simple as that. Just like in Florida. They stole it."
"'Who stole what? I asked Jimmy Brown as he walked across 125th St. in Harlem yesterday.
"'The election,' Brown said. 'They stole it from Freddy.
"Who stole it? I asked again.
"'The white man. You see that Al and Charlie want Washington brought in," a reference to a call by the Rev. Al Sharpton and Rep. Charles Rangel for the Justice Department to investigate and monitor a recount. 'You don't ask for that unless they stole it because they don't want a minority being mayor.
After initially conceding, Ferrer did an Al Gore, and retracted his concession, grumbling that he had been cheated. Ferrer said that he would support the Democratic nominee, but that "We don't know who that nominee is." Ferrer and his supporters, most notably the Rev. Al Sharpton, then claimed Ferrer had been cheated by "racist" campaign tactics employed by Green.
It seems that in the days leading up to the runoff, Green supporters in Jewish neighborhoods made fliers with a photograph of Ferrer and Sharpton together, their hands raised, with the caption, "Do you want this man to be our next mayor?" They also distributed copies of political cartoons by the New York Post's take-no-prisoners caricaturist, Sean Delonas. One Delonas cartoon depicted an elephantine Sharpton marrying the slender Ferrer, with the latter in a wedding dress, and a Homer Simpson-like, white spectator in an "I LOVE NY" t-shirt yelling, "I object!" In another Delonas cartoon, Ferrer bent down to kiss Sharpton's humongous derriere.
The beauty part of the captioned photograph of Ferrer and Sharpton, was that it left to the reader's imagination, who "this man" was. Would Ferrer be mayor, or would Sharpton?
All this was "racist," according to the Ferrer forces, who added to their indictment the line in Green's ads that Ferrer's ideas for rebuilding New York were "borderline irresponsible." The black and Hispanic leaders denouncing that phrase knew fully well, that it was a quote from a New York Times house editorial criticizing Ferrer, but acted as if the evil Green had coined it -- and as if he had no right to criticize his opponent.
This, from people who all supported the 2000 Florida Disenfranchisement Hoax, and in many cases, (still) supported the Tawana Brawley Hoax, which Sharpton had helped perpetrate, in 1987.
Mark Green did not okay the use of the fliers in question (and what if he had?), nor did his campaign officials, but it seems that four of his deputies were at a meeting in which some of Green's supporters discussed the idea, as the Daily News reported on November 2. Wannabe Democratic kingmaker Al Sharpton pounced on this factoid, as an excuse to try and sink Green's candidacy, and hand City Hall over to "Republican" media magnate, Michael Bloomberg. Sharpton announced, "We're not talking about people targeting me, we're talking about targeted race baiting. [The tactics discussed in front of the Green aides] smack of the worst form of racial politics of our lifetime."
You read right: Al Sharpton was damning folks for "racial politics" and "race-baiting." Sharpton also insisted that anyone in the room during the meeting in question, was equally "guilty," though he never explained what crime had been committed.
In the Gospel According to Rev. Al, a witness to a crime is himself a criminal, and even witnesses to non-crimes are criminals -- if they are white. If Sharpton is serious about that standard, then he is a one-man crime wave, guilty of conspiracy and fraud in the Tawana Brawley Hoax, and seven counts of murder in the December 8, 1995, Harlem Massacre, which he helped incite. The media gave Sharpton a free pass, both regarding his own history of racial demagoguery, and the illogic of his charges.
What the media and Green himself have left untouched, is that the Ferrer campaign was built entirely on an explicitly racial call for blacks and Hispanics to vote for him, because he is one of them. Ferrer's TV ads spoke of "two cities" and "the other New York," and showed a youngish, middle-class, black couple responding with alarm to an oncoming police car's beacon.
After winning the primary, Green sought to make peace, meeting separately with Ferrer and Sharpton, and both did publicly agree to support him -- sort of. Ferrer met publicly with Green to announce his support of his previous opponent, but did so with a face and manner so glum, that they thoroughly undercut his words of support. At the same time, Ferrer's chief Hispanic supporter, Bronx Democratic Party Chief, Roberto "Bobby" Ramirez, attacked Green in the pages of the racist, black Amsterdam News weekly newspaper.
After agreeing to support Green, Sharpton stabbed him in the back on November 2, announcing that "We are not the bastard children of the Democratic Party!" Using the Daily News story that day on the anti-Ferrer poster campaign as a pretext, Sharpton withdrew his support for Green. But only a simpleton would take Sharpton's newest theatrics at face value. He was just making it clear to those black voters who might have been confused by his previous mixed signals, what he wanted them to do. Black voters responded by voting for Green over Bloomberg, 75-22 percent. That might sound like a good result for Green, but consider that in 1989 and 1993, 96 percent of black voters chose black socialist David Dinkins over Rudolph Giuliani.
Things went much worse for Green with Hispanic voters, who split 48-48 between Green and Bloomberg. This was nothing but racist revenge, pure and simple. Green had beaten their man, and so they were going to destroy him. Bloomberg even got away with disparaging bilingual education, a terrible program which nonetheless is popular with Hispanic leaders, without suffering any repercussions. Bloomberg picked up endorsements from the NYPD's Latino Society, and on election day, I heard a voice over on one Spanish-language radio station keep urging listeners to vote for Bloomberg.
The Spanish-language newspaper, Hoy (Today), quoted Hispanic voters saying nice things about Bloomberg. Elisa Mora said, "I'm a Democrat, but Bloomberg sounds like a good person who will help Hispanics." ("Soy democrata pero votare por Bloomberg porque es un persona muy correcta y que ayudara a los latinos.") Translation: "I'm a Democrat, but since the white guy beat my guy, I'll vote against the Party."
New York's racist black newspapers, the Amsterdam News and The Daily Challenge, both supported Bloomberg, while publishing reams of anti-Green invective, much of it by Ferrer supporters such as Bill Lynch (who was former Mayor David Dinkins' chief of staff) and Roberto "Bobby" Ramirez. Bloomberg got the support of racist black radio station WBLS, owned by lifelong Democrat, Percy Sutton, the former Manhattan borough president, who still supports racial hoaxer Tawana Brawley. The black supremacist, fraternal police organization, The Guardians, also backed Bloomberg. Again, none of this had anything to do with Bloomberg, and everything to do with Green.
(Even Mortimer Zuckerman's -- who also owns U.S. News and World Report and the Atlantic Monthly -- Daily News came out for Bloomberg. Playing a common, and perverse refrain in the Daily News, veteran political reporter Joel Siegel claimed that "Bronx Democratic boss Roberto Ramirez and the Rev. Al Sharpton sat on their hands in the past week," when in fact they were busy attacking Green both in front of cameras and in the black press.)
Finally, Mayor Giuliani and Ed Koch, New York's last three-term mayor (1978-89), came out for Bloomberg. Giuliani did so only days before the election, when it looked for the first time like Bloomberg had a real chance to win. The Democrat Koch did so out of a now tiresome personal treachery, which has seen him cozy up to his old nemesis, Al Sharpton (the two were photographed standing back-to-back, for a Village Voice cover shot two years ago).
The anti-Green campaign worked: Bloomberg beat Green by 41,941 votes, 50.4 to 47.4%, in the unofficial count, and Green, who was hoping for a Florida scenario, replete with challenges and recounts, conceded defeat.
There is one positive consequence to all this race-baiting: In a city with a 5-1 Democratic edge in registered voters, Al Sharpton has singlehandedly given a legitimacy to the local Republican Party that its own inept, local stewards could never earn for it.
That's another way of saying that Sharpton, the would-be kingmaker, has unmade the Democratic Party in New York. About ten years ago, some disgruntled, black Democrats formed a racist party, which they euphemistically called the "Working Families Party." That party exists in name, but wields no power. Instead, the Democratic Party has largely been remade in the same racist mold. Thus continues the development begun in the mid-1960s, whereby racist blacks, with the help of white elites, have chased whites out of one New York institution after another -- the schools, the civil service, neighborhoods.
However, this is New York we're talking about, a city that for the past eight years has been ruled by a man who supports abortion rights, gun control, and immigrants' and gay rights, yet whom the media and socialist political elites have always considered a "right-winger." Although Mike Bloomberg is the first Republican mayor to succeed a Republican since the 1898 joining of The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island to Manhattan, thus creating Greater New York, this is the same man who only weeks ago, much to the discomfort of Republican New York Gov. George Pataki, publicly described himself as a "liberal," a man who openly supports affirmative action. At this point, in New York City the Republican Party functions largely as a Democratic Party II, for candidates who, as Mike Bloomberg admitted about himself, cannot gain traction in the Democratic Party.
Somehow, I find myself feeling sorry for Mark Green, who in less than two weeks, went from leading Bloomberg in polls by as much as 15 points, to being defeated in his last chance in political life -- even if he doesn't deserve compassion. After all, this is a man who spent his political career supporting affirmative action and related apartheid schemes. As late as two days before the election, Green had black supremacist NYPD officer, Lt. Eric Adams, the founder of 100 Black Men in Law Enforcement Who Care, appear as his surrogate at a debate on WBLS.
Mark Green was like the man who, upon seeing a mugger rob his neighbor, turned away, hoping the robber would leave him alone, if he didn't say anything. He then graduated to speaking out for compassion for muggers as life's victims. Well, the muggers have now come for Green, too. To borrow from Malcolm X, the chickens are coming home to roost.
Streitz chronicles the case of the poor, white, 25-year-old barmaid who made the mistake of giving in to a Mexican bus boy’s request for a ride home. The bus boy, 26-year-old Jose Angel Moreno-Hernandez, whom police believe is an illegal human being, allegedly “attacked” (read: beat to a pulp and raped) her, carjacked her car, drove it to East Rock Park where he raped her again, sought to poke her eyes out with a stick, and tried at least three different ways to murder her (stomping on her chest, trying to snap her neck, and beating her with a tree branch). In a scenario reminiscent of the Wichita Massacre, the victim survived by playing dead, and then making her way to a nearby house.
After the man drove off in her car, the severely beaten woman made her way from the park, down a hill through grass and branches, to a house on Ridge Road, and frantically rang a doorbell.
A resident who had been sleeping on the couch on the first floor heard a commotion and opened the door to a horrifying sight.
“The girl’s eyes were completely closed and blood was all over her face. It was like something out of a horror movie,” he said. “She was saying ‘Help me, help me, please help me….’”
According to Capt. Ronald Smith, the woman was repeatedly beaten and raped by the co-worker, who was later found at a house in New Haven’s Newhallville section.
The suspect was booked on charges of criminal attempt to commit murder, first-degree sexual assault, kidnapping and strangulation and second-degree assault, and is being held in lieu of $1 million bail. Police are trying to determine the man’s citizenship status.
Police are not releasing the name of the victim or her assailant, “due to the continuing investigation,” Smith said….
The victim told officers that at about 1:30 a.m., her co-worker asked for a ride home, police said. Police do not know the reasons [NS: The reasons?! There were no reasons; there were motives, but the police do not want to know them] behind the incident, or whether they were acquaintances or friends.
As she drove, he punched her in the face, causing her to fall out of her car, Smith said. She tried to call police from her cell phone, but the man took it from her and broke it.
“She was then continuously beaten and sexually assaulted,” said Smith, who didn’t know the location of that assault.
The man then forced the woman back into her car, and drove her to the Hamden section of East Rock Park. They got out of the car, walked along a path and he sexually assaulted her again, Smith said. As she pleaded for her life, she was beaten again, he said.
The man then attempted to snap the woman’s neck and began stomping on her chest, Smith said. He continuously used a branch to hit her in the head and body.
Criminal mastermind Jose Angel Moreno-Hernandez, was easy to find, since he “allegedly” stole the victim’s car. Keep in mind, that Senor Moreno-Hernandez enjoys the presumption of innocence. Ha, ha, ha!
Based on the sadistic nature of the crimes committed, my hunch is that if the authorities properly check out this suspect’s background, they will find that he is a gangbanger with a history of violence.
As Streitz reports, in blatant violation of federal law, “which prohibits inducing an illegal alien to enter, reside, or work in the United States,” New Haven city leaders introduced a city ID card for obtaining local services, which was likely conjured up for the sole purpose of aiding, abetting, and encouraging illegal aliens “to enter, reside, or work in the United States.” Streitz is encouraging victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens in New Haven (dubbed “Illegal Haven” by some local patriots) to sue the city government, based on its illegal sanctuary policies.
Meanwhile, the local media have either ignored the story, or sought to bury the fact that the suspect is believed to be an illegal alien. So much for their concern for the rights of women. (They don’t even feign interest in the rights of Americans.)
At the New Haven Register’s readers’ board, the usual racist, knuckle-dragging Open Borders Lobbyists were there, employing their tried-and-failed tactics of race-baiting and lying, against anyone stating the obvious, which was the majority of posters. Take “Wooster Street Momma.” Please.
What this man's nationality is doesn't matter. The fact that he his human waste is what is important here. Check your family histories! If you aren't Native American you are an immigrant. In fact most of the people who are considered "illegals" have more of a right to this land than the people who populate it so check your history and raciscm at the door here. Being a woman who is deeply invlolved in the New Haven restaraunt scene I can speak honestly that all of the people whom I have met who are "illegal" tend to be nicer, more open minded and more willing to learn and understand what it is to be an American than most of the people who simply claim the right because they came out of a woman on American soil. Almost all of them are working there way to citizenship beacuse they love this country and their love of this country also comes from their love of our legal system. One such person even moved here to become a police officer so don't blame it on nationality, because statistically the "white man" is most likely to commit this kind of crime. My feelings go out to this poor girl. I can only imagine what she has gone through. Although it is a thoroughly heinous crime people need to realize that this man is just that. A man. His nationality isn't what man him like this. Sociopath is the same no matter where you where born. "
The “‘white man.’” So, not only is the nation awash in a scourge of rapes and attempted murders being committed by the white man, but he is only identified by scare quotes, suggesting the white man isn’t even white. So, who is really committing the crimes attributed to the “white man”? some of these lefties really need a class in remedial English; they are undermining their own racial slurs.
I don’t need to expose the lies of “Wooster Street Momma”; the other board commenters did a more than adequate job.
Poster “TAMUOne” added helpfully,
Charges should be brought up on the EMPLOYER who hired that rat b-----d illegal in the first place. If this Mexican hadn't been working at that place of business this dispicable crime never would have taken place.
As for the illegal...get a rope.
George W. Bush once said that he was interested in stopping terrorists, not bus boys, from crossing the border. As Linda Chavez wrote in the Open Borders Journal, shortly after 911,
The Bush administration has indicated it might support [a guest worker] program, but the current fear of foreign-born terrorists and a weak economy make it less likely that legislation could get through Congress any time soon. That's unfortunate, not least because a guest worker program that made it possible for Mexicans to come here legally to work in construction or in service jobs would mean fewer crossing the border illegally. If the Border Patrol could spend its time and resources hunting down Middle Eastern terrorists instead of Mexican bus boys, the country would be a safer place.
Well, Mr. Bush, Miss Chavez—and Mr. Obama, whatever your real name is—the categories are not mutually exclusive. Though they may not use bombs or hijack airliners, some Mexican bus boys are terrorists. But with that said, the law is the law, and it applies to illegal alien bus boys, regardless of whether they are potentially violent felons.
