Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Fundraising Campaign Proceeding Briskly
Thanks to those of you who have generously responded to my call to arms. I urge those of you who have yet to respond, to please give what you can.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Stix
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Nicholas Stix, Uncensored/The Wyatt Earp Journalism Bureau Needs Your Support
“If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”
Recently, I adopted “The Wyatt Earp school of journalism,” as a fancy moniker for what I’ve been doing for over 20 years.
An Earpist has “cop’s eyes,” but not those of today’s emasculated, politically correct, diversity-trained police persons, who lie at the drop of a pair of handcuffs, in denying the racist character of black-on-white atrocities and everyday outrages alike, and who abuse law-abiding whites and Asians.
An Earpist neither averts his gaze from the crimes being committed around him, nor does he lie about what he sees.
For but one example, an Earpist treats so-called educational institutions, be they Head Start pre-schools, K-12 schools, or universities, as crime scenes, where the taxpayers are daily defrauded, as the sites of violent crimes, and as places where people’s constitutional rights are daily violated.
Like all those claiming to be journalists, an Earpist routinely contends with the professional liars called variously “publicists,” “public information officers,” etc. By contrast, MSM “journalists” treat such conversations as opportunities to further deceive and defraud the taxpayer.
Again, by contrast, while claiming to be part of an enterprise characterized by “organized skepticism,” an MSM “reporter” is glad to serve as the mouthpiece of mouthpieces.
An Earpist follows the dictum of Arnold Dornfield of Chicago’s legendary City News Bureau, which long served as America’s greatest journalistic training ground: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” (As recounted by Dick Ciccone, in Mike Royko: A Life in Print.)
In short, in contrast to over 90 percent of the MSM, an Earpist is no more and no less than … a journalist.
When I initially published the preceding words last August, the esteemed blogger, Old Atlantic Lighthouse commented, “Journalism barely exists as a paid profession any more. I hope you can be the exception.”
Unfortunately, I am not the exception. While my stout-hearted editors, Peter Brimelow at VDARE, and Jared Taylor at American Renaissance, pay me for the articles I write for them, they cannot pay enough for me to do what I do. Researching and writing the articles and blog essays I produce require over 60 hours a week. And I must be bolder, and even more productive, producing at a greater rate (which requires a new pc), and pounding out books, as well as articles and blogs.
And that is why I am appealing to you, my readers, for your support. Please hit the gold PayPal “Donate” button at the top of this page, and give what you can. Anyone giving $100 or more will get an autographed copy of the book I am presently editing, collecting some of my best exposés, analyses, and commentaries, as soon as I publish it.
Thanks in advance for your kind support.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Stix
Bill Clinton: Is He an Attempted Rapist, in Addition to being a Compulsive Liar?
By Nicholas Stix
I’m sorry. I meant to write, “Is Al Gore an Attempted Rapist, in Addition to being a Compulsive Liar?” These horn-dog, lefty, white politician-criminals (if you’ll excuse the redundancy) all look alike to me!
I do recall now, however, that according to Anita Broaddrick, Bill Clinton was a successful rapist and, as I detailed in 2000, Al Gore was also an attempted election thief. If the Oregon masseuse’s tale is true, it would mean that Gore was no more successful at forcing himself on her than he was at raping the American people.
See the series, “Al Gore’s Greatest Hits”:
“Election Without End: In ‘Goreworld,’ Al Emerges Victorious”
“Gore to U.S.: Drop Dead”
“Election Blues”
A tip ‘o the hat to Larry Auster.
I’m sorry. I meant to write, “Is Al Gore an Attempted Rapist, in Addition to being a Compulsive Liar?” These horn-dog, lefty, white politician-criminals (if you’ll excuse the redundancy) all look alike to me!
I do recall now, however, that according to Anita Broaddrick, Bill Clinton was a successful rapist and, as I detailed in 2000, Al Gore was also an attempted election thief. If the Oregon masseuse’s tale is true, it would mean that Gore was no more successful at forcing himself on her than he was at raping the American people.
See the series, “Al Gore’s Greatest Hits”:
“Election Without End: In ‘Goreworld,’ Al Emerges Victorious”
“Gore to U.S.: Drop Dead”
“Election Blues”
A tip ‘o the hat to Larry Auster.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Election Blues
By Nicholas Stix
December 7, 2000
Toogood Reports
In recent days, black strangers have approached me, in subways and supermarkets, in Brooklyn and Queens, as a “Republican.”
One thirtyish fellow started up a conversation with a chuckle, as we exited the subway in the heart of largely West Indian Flatbush, Brooklyn. I don’t know where he was from, but either he was born abroad or his folks were. Another, silently scowling black man listened to us. He appeared to be an American black—judging by his features AND his silent scowl.
The last time I met an American black man who could tolerate a white man contradicting him, it was New Year’s Eve four years ago, in an Irish saloon off Times Square, and he still made a point of suggesting I was a racist.
While discussing the election in a Queens supermarket with a middle-aged, black Caribbean security guard I’m friendly with, another, younger, Caribbean-born black man who was waiting for his wife by the checkout counters asked me, as a “Republican,” “Why do you say they’re stealing the election?” He then suggested, diplomatically, “We shouldn’t even be talking about politics, anyway,” as opposed to more important matters.
Before stating my case, I noted to the man that I am a registered Democrat. While the guard and I spoke, he noted bemusedly, that a young black cashier a few feet away was trying to eavesdrop on our conversation. I then noticed another employee, a young gay Puerto Rican guy, who was standing by me, studiously looking away, obviously doing the same thing.
The young girl, who couldn’t be more than 20, had just made a point of lecturing me on my violation of morality, for putting 17 items on her “15 items or less” check-out, even though no one was behind me.
The gay guy has seen me for years, and is so nasty that the last time, he refused to take the money from my hand. He made me lay it down.
Why not go to another supermarket? This is New York.
There is no other supermarket in the neighborhood. The others, farther away, all close earlier, are no friendlier, and are all closer to, or already in, one of the most violent, racist areas in America, Far Rockaway. I lived in “Far Rock” for three years, before “escaping” to this area.
This is as good as it gets.
Why mention these people in a column on the election? Because during the fifteen years I’ve lived in New York City, people like them—black Americans, and to a lesser (but rapidly increasing) degree, Hispanics—have increasingly felt that based on who they are, and based on who I am, that they can openly disrespect me. They seem to think it’s their country, and I’m just visiting.
From 1980-85, while living in then-West Germany, I frequently thought to myself, When I get home, I won’t stand for this second-class status.
Social work supervisors, college department heads, prosecutors and police officers told me differently. When I complained about the racism, they called ME a “racist.” I call the system they have imposed, “Jim Snow,” a mirror image of the Jim Crow system of the Old South.
A Puerto Rican acquaintance suggested I leave the country, because, as my wife has argued, I would get a much better job teaching high school, and more respect from my students, were we to relocate to Trinidad.
Meanwhile, my best friend has already had to leave the country, seeking work. A convicted white male and suspected heterosexual, he spent most of his adult life in college and graduate school. Having just finished his doctorate at a state university, and in spite of a packet of sterling teaching evaluations after years of college teaching as an “adjunct” (a “part-timer,” no matter how many classes one teaches), he was never going to get an offer of a full-time professorship at any American campus.
And so, I beat the drum for him to accept a job offer in a country where, as a Jew, I am forbidden by law to visit him.
And now, they’re telling me—they being the racist “persons of color,” and their white allies—that even my vote doesn’t count.
And it really doesn’t. Despite all the talk about how important the franchise was in a close election, Al and HILLARY! romped in New York. And though George W. Bush won the election, the idea that he will do anything about anti-white racism is less realistic than a belief in Santa Claus.
In 1993, when Rudy Giuliani was finally elected New York City mayor, in spite of the DDD voting bloc—Dead Democrats for Dinkins—New York blacks began a disinformation campaign before Giuliani had even been inaugurated mayor. According to this campaign, which has never let up, Giuliani is the white man’s mayor, and has led a war against minority males, in the form of “racial profiling,” and an otherwise racist City Hall.
The reality was that Rudy accelerated affirmative action in the NYPD, accelerated affirmative action in the treatment of black criminals, and rather than cutting the welfare rolls, switched welfare recipients to much better-paying, federal supplemental security income (“disability”). Anti-white racism got uglier and more open throughout the Giuliani mayoralty, with nary a peep from “Hizzoner.”
I expect nothing different from President Bush.
On Election Day One, I joked to my wife, “I’m going to vote for Buchanan, and send your ass back where you came from!”
Buchanan, who commanded, “Lock and load!” and who spoke of “peasants and pitchforks,” was by far the most entertaining candidate of the ‘96 campaign. As I told my largely immigrant students, “Know thy enemy.”
(The oddest thing about the Buchanan candidacy, was that it vindicated the image the mainstream media had been painting for years, of xenophobic, “angry white males,” when American blacks comprise the most consistently xenophobic group I have ever encountered.)
But Buchanan was more than just entertaining. He wrote his own ad copy, and his own speeches. He had no planning group of Avenue K spinmeisters. He had little money, preferring as he said, to “live off the land,” relying on fanatically dedicated supporters.
Buchanan was everything so many socialists had been calling for, for so many years: He connected directly with the people; he wasn’t the puppet of Big Money and special interests.
And yet, the socialists hated Buchanan, and came up with tortured arguments about how Buchanan wasn’t “really” a populist.
Pat’s problem, rather, was that he wasn’t a socialist. Not that I ever seriously considered voting for him. Instead, I held my nose and voted for “the Senator from Archer Daniels Midland,” Bob “What’ll We Do Without Affirmative Action” Dole.
Truth be told, no one had “a Chinaman’s chance” of unseating Bill Clinton in ‘96.
This time around, things looked better. The most attractive candidate was Ralph Nader.
I had always thought of Nader as a gawky, geeky kind of guy. But when a Latin immigrant public school teacher from Minnesota—who proudly identified her school, and proceeded to act like a politburo official—tried to intimidate him, with talk of “back-alley abortions,” if Bush won, based on the defections of Gore voters to Nader, he showed some moxie:
“Don’t try that. You’re not going to have any more conservative Court under George Bush than under his father. There are three reasons for that: 1. he’s not too bright; 2. he’s lazy; and 3. he hates partisan battles.”
And so, his environmentalism and his socialism aside, Nader was my guy.
(Just imagine a defender of the Second Amendment identifying himself as a public school teacher, including his school’s name!)
Pat Buchanan was around again.
What a sorry sight. The high point of his campaign, was when he hired goons to keep his Reform Party opponents out of the Party’s San Diego convention.
In the early ‘90s, I had given Buchanan a pass—with reservations—when he was accused of anti-Semitism, based on his criticism of “Israel’s ‘amen corner’” in Congress.
My rationale was, Hey, I’m a big supporter of that ‘amen corner,’ shouting along back home. I can’t condemn the man, simply for speaking the truth, can I?
This time around, though, the truth was much uglier. An independent scholar named Jamie McCarthy dug up a column from 1990, in which Buchanan had echoed Holocaust-denier claims, insisting that half of all Holocaust survivors’ stories were false, and that a particular, early form of execution, through diesel truck exhaust, couldn’t kill anyone. I’d once been sucker-punched by an old Nazi in West Germany in 1982; I wasn’t letting another Nazi sucker-punch me. As if to dispel any lingering doubts, Buchanan sought after Arab support, and his “Buchanan Brigade” members did pretty good imitations of ventriloquist’s dummies—and the ventriloquist was Yasser Arafat.
We heard continually from these people that the Israelis had poisoned the Arabs’ water, murdered Arab women and children, etc., etc. Well, hey, Arabs and Nazis go way back.
Then there was the number-two man (i.e., third-in-command) of the most criminal administration in history.
It’s really important, I find, to state the obvious. So let’s roll out the credentials of Al “No- Controlling-Legal-Authority” Gore: He was the loyal supporter of President William Jefferson Clinton throughout Travelgate, Filegate, Monicagate, and the impeachment. He collected illegal campaign donations from Buddhist monks, a felony. He made illegal campaign solicitation calls from the White House, another felony. He changed his persona more often than I change my shorts. And to think, I voted for this guy in a New York State presidential primary once (1988, I think it was).
There was, however, one very good reason for voting for Gore in 2000: A Gore victory would likely have been the only way to prevent a HILLARY candidacy in 2004, were she to win against Rick Lazio. And as we know, she beat poor Lazio. When I think of HILLARY, I never compare her to politicians. In terms of the American scene, she rises above such comparisons. I think rather of the likes of John Gotti, Al Capone, Lucky Luciano, the Honorable Elijah Muhammad. Since November 7, Al Gore has taught me to hold him in contempt; I fear HILLARY. Heck, her own husband is afraid of her, and that’s good enough for me.
That left “W”: a younger, more attractive Bob Dole. This time, I didn’t need to hold my nose; I’d gotten used to the stench.
* * *
When I was twelve years old, I played poker with the Katz brothers, Harry and Gene, at their house. I kept beating them, and they kept playing “double-or-nothing” with imaginary money. Eventually, they won, took my week’s worth of very real newspaper money, and sent me on my way. I haven’t gambled for money since.
What Al Gore is trying to do is no more justifiable than what the Katz brothers pulled, way back when.
As a kid, I idolized Richard Nixon. Nixon was tough. He didn’t suck up to commies, or anyone else. He knew that you negotiated from a position of strength, or not at all. In the 1972 election, Democratic Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota, said he would get down on his hands and knees, if necessary, and beg Hanoi to return U.S. POWs.
So much for George McGovern. The day Nixon resigned, in August 1974, I was in black Jamaica, Queens, a token white in a federally-financed, black supremacist program. When the news came over the bus radio that night, a black kid tried to celebrate. I yelled, “Shut the f--k up!” And he did.
Two years later, when I left home for college, my mother gave me the book, All the President’s Men, by Washington Post reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward.
The book was a compilation of the reporting that had taken down, for the first and only time, an American President.
In reading All the President’s Men, I realized that Nixon had indeed been wrong. In covering up the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate Hotel, he had committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
That the Watergate Committee and investigation was partisan was beside the point. That the public had not yet been told the truth behind the icon of “Saint Jack” Kennedy might have been pertinent, had we known.
The Republican Party got blown out in the 1976 elections; Nixon’s vice-president and successor, Gerald R. Ford, lost a squeaker to Jimmy Carter.
Come to think of it, Carter’s victory may have been illegal.
You see, my vote—my first ever—was illegally cast.
Local election law in my college town required 90 days to establish residency. I had just moved in around September 1. That left me about four weeks short, and I admitted it, but the nice lady from the Fire Department’s Ladies Auxiliary let me vote anyway.
I voted for Jimmy Carter, the Democratic former governor of Georgia. (Maybe Carter really lost to Ford. Maybe we need to review all of the 1976 election’s ballots!) Voting Democrat was what my family did. We knew the Democrats were good people, and the Republicans were bad people.
FDR was a Democrat. JFK was a Democrat. Nixon was a Republican. Case closed. (I was the only member of the family who liked Nixon.)
I kept on voting for the “good people” through the 1992 election. That meant Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis (in 1980, my application for an absentee ballot from my university campus was rejected), and even the one-man crime wave. Now, I understand that you don’t vote for “good” vs. “bad” people; you vote for politicians. That means choosing bad over worse.
Already by December, 1992, I was asking myself, publicly, how I could have voted for that sleazy draft dodger.
For over thirty years, Democrats and their various racial socialist operatives and allies—call them “civil rights activists,” “progressives,” “black power advocates,” “Afrocentrists,” “feminists,” “multiculturalists,” “progressives,” or just “liberals,” have taken over the courts, the mainstream media, the schools, the universities, the federal bureaucracies, and even Big Business.
These operatives have effected a “Gleichschaltung,” a consolidation of power, such that it was supposed to become psychologically impossible to think in a manner that could tolerate the freedoms of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers. And if someone managed to continue believing in the ideals of the Founding Fathers, he would be fired, censored, silenced.
Such people were tarred and feathered as thought criminals, “racists,” “sexists,” “homophobes.” At the same time, those same forces have taught us that crimes that are committed by members of certain “oppressed” groups really aren’t crimes at all.
During the present campaign (on July 28th), NBC’s Tom Brokaw called for federal censorship of the Internet, under the guise of combatting neo-Nazi “hate groups.” [Web of Hate.]
Why does this Jew suspect that most, if not all places publishing his work would qualify as “hate groups,” in Tom Brokaw’s view? As if cable weren’t bad enough, the Internet has cut deeply into Brokaw’s audience, not to mention his credibility.
And yet, somehow enough of the American people managed to think otherwise, and elect George W. Bush. And so, at the end of the spiral of crime, violation of unprotected groups’ civil rights, and endemic abuse of power, can we be surprised that Vice-President Al Gore has sought to steal an election? Of course, we can.
What to do?
What people are already doing: Demonstrating, calling their congressman, e-mailing Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris with congratulations, and President-elect Bush with advice to stay the course.
Some observers, among them the estimable Peggy Noonan, have called for new laws. Frankly, I don’t see the point. There was nothing wrong with the Florida election laws. The wrong was in Democratic election supervisors refusing to follow the law, and the seven judges of the Democrat-dominated Florida Supreme Court aiding and abetting the Democrats.
What would a new law say, “Follow existing state Election Law; see above”?
New laws are worthless, if officials—including judges—are themselves lawless. They also confuse matters even more.
So, now we have a spectacle in which the President-elect and the usurper’s (I’m sure they’ve forged enough votes by now) lawyers will argue before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, rebut each other on Thursday, and the Court will decide the election—in December.
Whatever the Court decides—to reject the voodoo vote counts, accept them, or refuse to intervene—the lesson, in my eyes will remain the same.
Millions of people have seen the destruction of this Republic since the 1960s, and done nothing. Said nothing. Oh, in private they’ll say, with smug self-satisfaction, “It’s a waste of time arguing with these morons.”
And then, when someone had the cojones to argue with the morons, the self-satisfied “Republican” watched in silence, as the dissenter got done in. Or maybe the Republican helped.
These people know who they are.
Those of us still fighting the good fight, must not quit. We must especially reach out to young people, who have not yet grown cynical, or learned their elders’ rationalizations.
And we must never forget, as we make our own “march through the institutions,” that elections are important, but the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, saw them as secondary in importance, to the institutions of family, church, property. For without strong fundamental institutions, elections are meaningless.
Good luck to you all. Good luck to us.
December 7, 2000
Toogood Reports
In recent days, black strangers have approached me, in subways and supermarkets, in Brooklyn and Queens, as a “Republican.”
One thirtyish fellow started up a conversation with a chuckle, as we exited the subway in the heart of largely West Indian Flatbush, Brooklyn. I don’t know where he was from, but either he was born abroad or his folks were. Another, silently scowling black man listened to us. He appeared to be an American black—judging by his features AND his silent scowl.
The last time I met an American black man who could tolerate a white man contradicting him, it was New Year’s Eve four years ago, in an Irish saloon off Times Square, and he still made a point of suggesting I was a racist.
While discussing the election in a Queens supermarket with a middle-aged, black Caribbean security guard I’m friendly with, another, younger, Caribbean-born black man who was waiting for his wife by the checkout counters asked me, as a “Republican,” “Why do you say they’re stealing the election?” He then suggested, diplomatically, “We shouldn’t even be talking about politics, anyway,” as opposed to more important matters.
Before stating my case, I noted to the man that I am a registered Democrat. While the guard and I spoke, he noted bemusedly, that a young black cashier a few feet away was trying to eavesdrop on our conversation. I then noticed another employee, a young gay Puerto Rican guy, who was standing by me, studiously looking away, obviously doing the same thing.
The young girl, who couldn’t be more than 20, had just made a point of lecturing me on my violation of morality, for putting 17 items on her “15 items or less” check-out, even though no one was behind me.
The gay guy has seen me for years, and is so nasty that the last time, he refused to take the money from my hand. He made me lay it down.
Why not go to another supermarket? This is New York.
There is no other supermarket in the neighborhood. The others, farther away, all close earlier, are no friendlier, and are all closer to, or already in, one of the most violent, racist areas in America, Far Rockaway. I lived in “Far Rock” for three years, before “escaping” to this area.
This is as good as it gets.
Why mention these people in a column on the election? Because during the fifteen years I’ve lived in New York City, people like them—black Americans, and to a lesser (but rapidly increasing) degree, Hispanics—have increasingly felt that based on who they are, and based on who I am, that they can openly disrespect me. They seem to think it’s their country, and I’m just visiting.
From 1980-85, while living in then-West Germany, I frequently thought to myself, When I get home, I won’t stand for this second-class status.
Social work supervisors, college department heads, prosecutors and police officers told me differently. When I complained about the racism, they called ME a “racist.” I call the system they have imposed, “Jim Snow,” a mirror image of the Jim Crow system of the Old South.
A Puerto Rican acquaintance suggested I leave the country, because, as my wife has argued, I would get a much better job teaching high school, and more respect from my students, were we to relocate to Trinidad.
Meanwhile, my best friend has already had to leave the country, seeking work. A convicted white male and suspected heterosexual, he spent most of his adult life in college and graduate school. Having just finished his doctorate at a state university, and in spite of a packet of sterling teaching evaluations after years of college teaching as an “adjunct” (a “part-timer,” no matter how many classes one teaches), he was never going to get an offer of a full-time professorship at any American campus.
And so, I beat the drum for him to accept a job offer in a country where, as a Jew, I am forbidden by law to visit him.
And now, they’re telling me—they being the racist “persons of color,” and their white allies—that even my vote doesn’t count.
And it really doesn’t. Despite all the talk about how important the franchise was in a close election, Al and HILLARY! romped in New York. And though George W. Bush won the election, the idea that he will do anything about anti-white racism is less realistic than a belief in Santa Claus.
In 1993, when Rudy Giuliani was finally elected New York City mayor, in spite of the DDD voting bloc—Dead Democrats for Dinkins—New York blacks began a disinformation campaign before Giuliani had even been inaugurated mayor. According to this campaign, which has never let up, Giuliani is the white man’s mayor, and has led a war against minority males, in the form of “racial profiling,” and an otherwise racist City Hall.
The reality was that Rudy accelerated affirmative action in the NYPD, accelerated affirmative action in the treatment of black criminals, and rather than cutting the welfare rolls, switched welfare recipients to much better-paying, federal supplemental security income (“disability”). Anti-white racism got uglier and more open throughout the Giuliani mayoralty, with nary a peep from “Hizzoner.”
I expect nothing different from President Bush.
On Election Day One, I joked to my wife, “I’m going to vote for Buchanan, and send your ass back where you came from!”
Buchanan, who commanded, “Lock and load!” and who spoke of “peasants and pitchforks,” was by far the most entertaining candidate of the ‘96 campaign. As I told my largely immigrant students, “Know thy enemy.”
(The oddest thing about the Buchanan candidacy, was that it vindicated the image the mainstream media had been painting for years, of xenophobic, “angry white males,” when American blacks comprise the most consistently xenophobic group I have ever encountered.)
But Buchanan was more than just entertaining. He wrote his own ad copy, and his own speeches. He had no planning group of Avenue K spinmeisters. He had little money, preferring as he said, to “live off the land,” relying on fanatically dedicated supporters.
Buchanan was everything so many socialists had been calling for, for so many years: He connected directly with the people; he wasn’t the puppet of Big Money and special interests.
And yet, the socialists hated Buchanan, and came up with tortured arguments about how Buchanan wasn’t “really” a populist.
Pat’s problem, rather, was that he wasn’t a socialist. Not that I ever seriously considered voting for him. Instead, I held my nose and voted for “the Senator from Archer Daniels Midland,” Bob “What’ll We Do Without Affirmative Action” Dole.
Truth be told, no one had “a Chinaman’s chance” of unseating Bill Clinton in ‘96.
This time around, things looked better. The most attractive candidate was Ralph Nader.
I had always thought of Nader as a gawky, geeky kind of guy. But when a Latin immigrant public school teacher from Minnesota—who proudly identified her school, and proceeded to act like a politburo official—tried to intimidate him, with talk of “back-alley abortions,” if Bush won, based on the defections of Gore voters to Nader, he showed some moxie:
“Don’t try that. You’re not going to have any more conservative Court under George Bush than under his father. There are three reasons for that: 1. he’s not too bright; 2. he’s lazy; and 3. he hates partisan battles.”
And so, his environmentalism and his socialism aside, Nader was my guy.
(Just imagine a defender of the Second Amendment identifying himself as a public school teacher, including his school’s name!)
Pat Buchanan was around again.
What a sorry sight. The high point of his campaign, was when he hired goons to keep his Reform Party opponents out of the Party’s San Diego convention.
In the early ‘90s, I had given Buchanan a pass—with reservations—when he was accused of anti-Semitism, based on his criticism of “Israel’s ‘amen corner’” in Congress.
My rationale was, Hey, I’m a big supporter of that ‘amen corner,’ shouting along back home. I can’t condemn the man, simply for speaking the truth, can I?
This time around, though, the truth was much uglier. An independent scholar named Jamie McCarthy dug up a column from 1990, in which Buchanan had echoed Holocaust-denier claims, insisting that half of all Holocaust survivors’ stories were false, and that a particular, early form of execution, through diesel truck exhaust, couldn’t kill anyone. I’d once been sucker-punched by an old Nazi in West Germany in 1982; I wasn’t letting another Nazi sucker-punch me. As if to dispel any lingering doubts, Buchanan sought after Arab support, and his “Buchanan Brigade” members did pretty good imitations of ventriloquist’s dummies—and the ventriloquist was Yasser Arafat.
We heard continually from these people that the Israelis had poisoned the Arabs’ water, murdered Arab women and children, etc., etc. Well, hey, Arabs and Nazis go way back.
Then there was the number-two man (i.e., third-in-command) of the most criminal administration in history.
It’s really important, I find, to state the obvious. So let’s roll out the credentials of Al “No- Controlling-Legal-Authority” Gore: He was the loyal supporter of President William Jefferson Clinton throughout Travelgate, Filegate, Monicagate, and the impeachment. He collected illegal campaign donations from Buddhist monks, a felony. He made illegal campaign solicitation calls from the White House, another felony. He changed his persona more often than I change my shorts. And to think, I voted for this guy in a New York State presidential primary once (1988, I think it was).
There was, however, one very good reason for voting for Gore in 2000: A Gore victory would likely have been the only way to prevent a HILLARY candidacy in 2004, were she to win against Rick Lazio. And as we know, she beat poor Lazio. When I think of HILLARY, I never compare her to politicians. In terms of the American scene, she rises above such comparisons. I think rather of the likes of John Gotti, Al Capone, Lucky Luciano, the Honorable Elijah Muhammad. Since November 7, Al Gore has taught me to hold him in contempt; I fear HILLARY. Heck, her own husband is afraid of her, and that’s good enough for me.
That left “W”: a younger, more attractive Bob Dole. This time, I didn’t need to hold my nose; I’d gotten used to the stench.
When I was twelve years old, I played poker with the Katz brothers, Harry and Gene, at their house. I kept beating them, and they kept playing “double-or-nothing” with imaginary money. Eventually, they won, took my week’s worth of very real newspaper money, and sent me on my way. I haven’t gambled for money since.
What Al Gore is trying to do is no more justifiable than what the Katz brothers pulled, way back when.
As a kid, I idolized Richard Nixon. Nixon was tough. He didn’t suck up to commies, or anyone else. He knew that you negotiated from a position of strength, or not at all. In the 1972 election, Democratic Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota, said he would get down on his hands and knees, if necessary, and beg Hanoi to return U.S. POWs.
So much for George McGovern. The day Nixon resigned, in August 1974, I was in black Jamaica, Queens, a token white in a federally-financed, black supremacist program. When the news came over the bus radio that night, a black kid tried to celebrate. I yelled, “Shut the f--k up!” And he did.
Two years later, when I left home for college, my mother gave me the book, All the President’s Men, by Washington Post reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward.
The book was a compilation of the reporting that had taken down, for the first and only time, an American President.
In reading All the President’s Men, I realized that Nixon had indeed been wrong. In covering up the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate Hotel, he had committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
That the Watergate Committee and investigation was partisan was beside the point. That the public had not yet been told the truth behind the icon of “Saint Jack” Kennedy might have been pertinent, had we known.
The Republican Party got blown out in the 1976 elections; Nixon’s vice-president and successor, Gerald R. Ford, lost a squeaker to Jimmy Carter.
Come to think of it, Carter’s victory may have been illegal.
You see, my vote—my first ever—was illegally cast.
Local election law in my college town required 90 days to establish residency. I had just moved in around September 1. That left me about four weeks short, and I admitted it, but the nice lady from the Fire Department’s Ladies Auxiliary let me vote anyway.
I voted for Jimmy Carter, the Democratic former governor of Georgia. (Maybe Carter really lost to Ford. Maybe we need to review all of the 1976 election’s ballots!) Voting Democrat was what my family did. We knew the Democrats were good people, and the Republicans were bad people.
FDR was a Democrat. JFK was a Democrat. Nixon was a Republican. Case closed. (I was the only member of the family who liked Nixon.)
I kept on voting for the “good people” through the 1992 election. That meant Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis (in 1980, my application for an absentee ballot from my university campus was rejected), and even the one-man crime wave. Now, I understand that you don’t vote for “good” vs. “bad” people; you vote for politicians. That means choosing bad over worse.
Already by December, 1992, I was asking myself, publicly, how I could have voted for that sleazy draft dodger.
For over thirty years, Democrats and their various racial socialist operatives and allies—call them “civil rights activists,” “progressives,” “black power advocates,” “Afrocentrists,” “feminists,” “multiculturalists,” “progressives,” or just “liberals,” have taken over the courts, the mainstream media, the schools, the universities, the federal bureaucracies, and even Big Business.
These operatives have effected a “Gleichschaltung,” a consolidation of power, such that it was supposed to become psychologically impossible to think in a manner that could tolerate the freedoms of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers. And if someone managed to continue believing in the ideals of the Founding Fathers, he would be fired, censored, silenced.
Such people were tarred and feathered as thought criminals, “racists,” “sexists,” “homophobes.” At the same time, those same forces have taught us that crimes that are committed by members of certain “oppressed” groups really aren’t crimes at all.
During the present campaign (on July 28th), NBC’s Tom Brokaw called for federal censorship of the Internet, under the guise of combatting neo-Nazi “hate groups.” [Web of Hate.]
Why does this Jew suspect that most, if not all places publishing his work would qualify as “hate groups,” in Tom Brokaw’s view? As if cable weren’t bad enough, the Internet has cut deeply into Brokaw’s audience, not to mention his credibility.
And yet, somehow enough of the American people managed to think otherwise, and elect George W. Bush. And so, at the end of the spiral of crime, violation of unprotected groups’ civil rights, and endemic abuse of power, can we be surprised that Vice-President Al Gore has sought to steal an election? Of course, we can.
What to do?
What people are already doing: Demonstrating, calling their congressman, e-mailing Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris with congratulations, and President-elect Bush with advice to stay the course.
Some observers, among them the estimable Peggy Noonan, have called for new laws. Frankly, I don’t see the point. There was nothing wrong with the Florida election laws. The wrong was in Democratic election supervisors refusing to follow the law, and the seven judges of the Democrat-dominated Florida Supreme Court aiding and abetting the Democrats.
What would a new law say, “Follow existing state Election Law; see above”?
New laws are worthless, if officials—including judges—are themselves lawless. They also confuse matters even more.
So, now we have a spectacle in which the President-elect and the usurper’s (I’m sure they’ve forged enough votes by now) lawyers will argue before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, rebut each other on Thursday, and the Court will decide the election—in December.
Whatever the Court decides—to reject the voodoo vote counts, accept them, or refuse to intervene—the lesson, in my eyes will remain the same.
Millions of people have seen the destruction of this Republic since the 1960s, and done nothing. Said nothing. Oh, in private they’ll say, with smug self-satisfaction, “It’s a waste of time arguing with these morons.”
And then, when someone had the cojones to argue with the morons, the self-satisfied “Republican” watched in silence, as the dissenter got done in. Or maybe the Republican helped.
These people know who they are.
Those of us still fighting the good fight, must not quit. We must especially reach out to young people, who have not yet grown cynical, or learned their elders’ rationalizations.
And we must never forget, as we make our own “march through the institutions,” that elections are important, but the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, saw them as secondary in importance, to the institutions of family, church, property. For without strong fundamental institutions, elections are meaningless.
Good luck to you all. Good luck to us.
AZ Gov. Jan Brewer to “Barack Obama”: “Do Your Job! Secure Our Borders. Arizona and the Nation are Waiting.”
Gov. Brewer has founded an organization, Secure the Border.
A tip ‘o the hat to my VDARE colleague, James Fulford: “Gov. Jan Brewer on the Arizona Front Line.”
Digg This
The Rape Tree: Paul Streitz Sends a Photograph
Last updated at 12:31 a.m., on Sunday, June 27, 2010.
In response to “The Rape Tree,” Paul Streitz writes,
“Here is a photo.
“I picked this up when I was a Minuteman on the AZ border in 2005.”
Thanks, Paul!
P.S. Paul just followed up with, “This was given to me by a nurse that was there on guard. I cannot guarantee what it is, but I don't think she would be lying about it.”
Gore to U.S.: Drop Dead
by Nicholas Stix
Al Gore's Greatest Hits
December 1, 2000
Toogood Reports
On the morning of November 8—now known as Election Day 2, Vice-President Al Gore conceded the presidential election to Gov. George W. Bush. And then he called back Gov. Bush, and un-conceded. Gore has been unconceding ever since.
Al Gore keeps on saying he’ll concede once the votes are counted showing George Bush the winner, yet each time the Governor is declared the winner, the Vice President merely refuses to concede all over again.
Gore is beginning to resemble the mad knight in the movie, Monty Python and the Holy Grail. In each of four rounds of dueling, his opponent lops off one of the mad knight’s limbs, but the now armless and legless warrior demands yet another go at it, even calling his opponent a “coward,” as the latter leaves his screaming torso in the forest.
On November 18th (Election Day 12), when Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris sought to certify the original Florida election results, Gore again refused to concede. Gore enjoyed the complicity of an outlaw Florida Supreme Court (FSC), which nullified Florida election law, in the form of the deadline for the certification of election results.
Then, when Democratic operatives in Florida were unable to fabricate votes fast enough for the new deadline imposed by the FSC, they “requested” that Secretary Harris extend the deadline once more. Again, she declined, which was her prerogative under the law.
And so, while adhering to an illegal deadline that had been forced upon her, and including illegal votes that had been added via fraud since the original machine-counting election night, and one legal, machine-recount following Election Day, Secretary Harris certified George W. Bush the winner of the Florida presidential election, and thus president-elect of these United States, on Sunday, November 26th (Election Day 20).
This time, the margin of error was only 537 votes, but it might as well have been 53,700. Vice President Gore had his running mate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, give a non-concession speech on national television:
The next evening (November 27, aka Election Day 21), on prime-time TV—just before Monday Night Football—against a backdrop of twelve American flags, Gore read another non-concession speech:
In listening to the Vice President and his supporters, I’m reminded of Mary McCarthy’s immortal line to Stalinist playwright and “memoirist” Lillian Hellman, about thirty years ago on The Dick Cavett Show:
On Wednesday, November 29th, Vice-President Gore gave multiple “exclusive” interviews on broadcast and cable TV networks. In one “exclusive” interview that day with CNN’s John King, Gore pretty much recited his standard script:
How about by starting with Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
By the time of the CNN interview, Gore had already threatened the Florida legislature, which was planning on meeting the following week to name a slate of electors.
* * *
Vice-President Gore’s strategy has been to continually repeat a handful of lies, the biggest of which is that “thousands of votes” have not been counted. These votes do not exist. All of the votes that were cast in election booths on Election Day were counted by machine, re-counted by machine, and in many cases, manually recounted. That makes as many as three countings, i.e., three Bush victories. That’s not including an undetermined number of absentee votes the Gore people had thrown out, often for contradictory reasons. At this writing, the Gore camp is trying to get additional thousands of absentee ballots from heavily Republican precincts thrown out.
When he speaks of “thousands of uncounted votes,” the Vice-President is usually talking about 10,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County. Mr. Gore insists that such “undervotes” would net him hundreds of additional votes over the “undervotes” that would presumably accrue to his opponent.
How does he know this? Gore speaks always as if he KNEW how many votes were waiting for him.
In fact, none of those 10,000 “undervotes” would accrue to Gore, because there ARE NO “undervotes.”
The ballots in question are from people who voted in other races on Election Day, but who chose NOT to vote for president. Their proportion of the vote in Miami-Dade County, 1.6 percent, was actually LOWER than that of half of Florida’s other 66 counties. The rates of presidential non-votes in the entire states of Idaho and Wyoming (5 and 3.6 percent), were 212 and 125 percent higher, respectively, and in the populous state of Illinois, the rate of “undervoting” was 144 percent higher than in Florida. Yet, we do not hear of thousands of votes “not being counted” in those states. The phrase “undervotes” is cut from the same racial-socialist cloth that, lacking any evidence, calls poor black and Hispanic neighborhoods “underserved,” as a euphemism for “victimized by racial discrimination,” despite a lack of evidence of discrimination.
The Vice President is concerned with divining the “intent” of these “undervoters.”
In a democratic election, you don’t “divine” a voter’s “intent.” Either the voter’s decision is transparent, or you disqualify the vote. If you are going to give some people the power of “interpreting” the voter’s or the people’s will, then you have effectively canceled the election.
A nation that would permit the divining of dimples might have some meaningless ritual that it calls an “election,” just as the Soviet Union and its satellites used to, but it will be a mockery of a democratic election.
Another way to make a mockery of a democratic election, is to petition a judge, as Al Gore has petitioned Florida circuit court Judge N. Sanders Sauls, to simply overturn the election, and declare Gore the winner, and thus the president-elect, by fiat.
The Illinois Supreme Court justices, in the 1990 case of Pullen v. Mulligan which lead Gore attorney David Boies lied about to the Florida Supreme Court, spoke of “reasonable certainty,” and did not even address “dimpled” or “pregnant,” as opposed to “hanging” (“partially punctured”) chads. That is because neither of the litigants, themselves candidates in an electoral race initially declared a tie, had the gall to try and sell a judge on counting as votes chads which had not at all been perforated.
But that was in the pre-Clinton era. We’ve come a long way, baby!
* * *
Meanwhile, we don’t hear anymore about the thousands of military absentee ballots that five Democratic lawyers had thrown out. Sensing a public relations nightmare, Democratic Party officials all changed their tune, calling for the counting of the military votes, but I am not aware that all of those ballots were, indeed, counted.
In a rarely-reported story, Democratic lawyers also got many local absentee ballots in heavily Republican areas thrown out. One Republican voter found out too late, that a Democratic operative had insisted that the signature on his ballot did not match the one on his application, and had thrown out the ballot, even though the same man had signed both documents.
As a result of such chicanery, and the conjuring of over 1,200 “divined” ballots since Election Day for Al Gore, I am convinced that George Bush’s true margin of victory should be 2,000-5,000 votes.
* * *
Some members of the media have soured on Gore. In New York on November 29, an NBC News reporter spoke of Gore’s “spin,” with which he must persuade people that he has won the election.
And yet, the racial-socialist mainstream media is still churning out pro-Gore propaganda—essentially regurgitating his standard non-concession speech—by hack journalists, and op-eds and letters from tenured, racial-socialist professors from all over the country.
A fairly typical journalistic hack piece, “Right-Wingers Praise Antics of Bush Thugs,” by unofficial Gore spokesman Joe Conason, appeared in the New York Observer, on November 29, aka Election Day 23.
Seven honorable judges? Recall, that these are the six Democratic Party hacks and one “independent” who violated Florida election law, in striking down the statutory certification deadline of November 18, which they illegally extended to November 26th.
As for the Texas law, it was already on the books BEFORE the election, and applies to only five percent of the state’s districts. However, the Texas law is utterly irrelevant to Florida, which has no such law.
Conason’s twisted logic is like that of Gore lawyer David Boies, who, because Democratic election supervisors in Florida’s Broward County committed the outrage of counting as votes ballots with “dimples,” “marks,” or “indentations,” demanded that all other counties imitate Broward.
As for the “violent assault on the Miami-Dade County officials,” no matter how many times those officials—all of whom are Democrats—led by election canvassing board chairman David Leahy, deny that any such assault took place, Conason & Co. keep on repeating the lie.
* * *
In a similar vein, the November 29 San Diego Union-Tribune ran an op-ed, “10 Reasons Bush Should Concede,” by Steven Semararo and Teresa Gillis. Semeraro is an assistant professor of law, and Gillis is a former professor of law, from San Diego’s Thomas Jefferson School of Law.
The first thing that springs to the eye is that these two legal eagles promised ten reasons, but provided only nine.
Numbers ten and one are two ways of saying the same thing. These guys sound like Democrat manual vote-counters! [Postscript, June 26, 2010: Numbers five and three are also two ways of saying the same thing; thus, Semararo and Gillis provided only eight separate reasons.]
If the authors read the U.S. Constitution, they’d know that the popular vote is irrelevant to the issue of determining an election. If they read Florida law, they’d know that delegate splitting is illegal. And even if it were legal, again, what reason would Bush have to hand over his victory to the man he beat? If we’re going to contemplate such nonsense, why not suggest that Al Gore split electors that he won in close races in Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico and elsewhere with George Bush?
Since no proof was provided that the voting machines (as opposed to voters) were malfunctioning, the law’s hand-count provision is also irrelevant.
As for the Florida Supreme Court’s opinions on accuracy, the less said, the better.
Semeraro and Gillis mention “the 10,000 uncounted votes in Miami-Dade counties” [sic] in reasons seven and six, but as I explained, no such batch of uncounted votes exists in Miami-Dade. The only batch of uncounted votes that may still exist would be suspected Republican absentee ballots.
And then we have the fuzzy math of “statistical models” and likely Gore voters, which is a dodge, whereby Semeraro and Gillis try to feign real knowledge, where they have none.
Gore’s offer of a statewide recount came after the deadline for formally making such requests, and the request was the prerogative of the loser, not the winner. Besides, why would someone certified to have won a race voluntarily backtrack from his own victory?
Semeraro and Gillis did come up with one major problem for Bush—the Seminole County ballot applications (not the ballots themselves—they got that wrong, too).
A Seminole County election official reportedly helped Republican absentee voters, by filling in missing information on their ballot applications, but not Democrat absentee voters. Seminole County is the one thing that could potentially cost George Bush the presidency, if things drag out long enough for it to come up in a court of law.
And yet, George W. Bush could also launch investigations into charges of illegal alien voting, and the documented case of a Democratic Party activist bribing homeless people with cigarettes to get them to vote in Milwaukee, and God knows where else.
In Florida, Haitian voters have charged that Creole-speaking Democrats inside polling places told them to vote for Gore, and stuffed pieces of paper with instructions for voting the straight Democratic line in their hands, all of which, if true, were cases of criminal behavior.
And since the election, a stack of affidavits by manual recount observers have attested to floors littered with chads, a chad taped back onto a Bush vote, and Bush votes placed in “Gore” piles. Examining a “vote” for Gore, Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Democrat, saw nothing. No dimple. Kerrey had to leave, to avoid a moral dilemma.
* * *
Al Gore does not intend to concede the Presidency. Ever.
Some people have speculated that the Vice-President is mentally ill. So what else is new?
For the past eight years, we have been ruled by two sociopaths, one elected, and one that came as part of a “two-for-one, blue-plate special.” And the originally unelected ruler has since gained election to national office.
Vice-President Gore’s refusal to concede the election appears to me to be a case of his imitating the sort of lawless behavior he has witnessed on a regular basis (and occasionally perpetrated) for the past eight years, as a member of the most criminal administration in our nation’s history. And he saw that the more crimes Bill Clinton was discovered to have committed, the higher Clinton’s popularity rose. And if Gore loses now, it’s all over.
After holding an election hostage for almost one month, there’s no “graceful” way for Al Gore to concede. And in 2004, HILLARY! plans on sweeping him out of her way. She may already have the sort of “persuasive” material on Al that Gore’s operatives—led by Bob Beckel—have been collecting on Republican electors to “help” them change their minds.
An anonymous Internet poster at the Free Republic message board imagined Al Gore suddenly knocking President Bush out of the way at the latter’s inauguration, and putting his own hand on The Bible.
That’s not as far-fetched as it sounds.
It’s starting to look as though Mr. Gore may have to be detained during the Inauguration, whether by federal marshals, or by men in white coats wielding a butterfly net. Otherwise, he just might not be able to contain himself.
Al Gore's Greatest Hits
December 1, 2000
Toogood Reports
On the morning of November 8—now known as Election Day 2, Vice-President Al Gore conceded the presidential election to Gov. George W. Bush. And then he called back Gov. Bush, and un-conceded. Gore has been unconceding ever since.
Al Gore keeps on saying he’ll concede once the votes are counted showing George Bush the winner, yet each time the Governor is declared the winner, the Vice President merely refuses to concede all over again.
Gore is beginning to resemble the mad knight in the movie, Monty Python and the Holy Grail. In each of four rounds of dueling, his opponent lops off one of the mad knight’s limbs, but the now armless and legless warrior demands yet another go at it, even calling his opponent a “coward,” as the latter leaves his screaming torso in the forest.
On November 18th (Election Day 12), when Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris sought to certify the original Florida election results, Gore again refused to concede. Gore enjoyed the complicity of an outlaw Florida Supreme Court (FSC), which nullified Florida election law, in the form of the deadline for the certification of election results.
Then, when Democratic operatives in Florida were unable to fabricate votes fast enough for the new deadline imposed by the FSC, they “requested” that Secretary Harris extend the deadline once more. Again, she declined, which was her prerogative under the law.
And so, while adhering to an illegal deadline that had been forced upon her, and including illegal votes that had been added via fraud since the original machine-counting election night, and one legal, machine-recount following Election Day, Secretary Harris certified George W. Bush the winner of the Florida presidential election, and thus president-elect of these United States, on Sunday, November 26th (Election Day 20).
This time, the margin of error was only 537 votes, but it might as well have been 53,700. Vice President Gore had his running mate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, give a non-concession speech on national television:
From the beginning of this extraordinary period of time, Vice President Gore and I have asked only that the votes that were cast on Election Day be counted. This evening, the secretary of state of Florida has decided to certify what by any reasonable standard is an incomplete and inaccurate count of the votes cast in the State of Florida....
What is at issue here is nothing less than every American’s simple, sacred right to vote. How can we teach our children that every vote counts if we are not willing to make a good faith effort to count every vote?
The next evening (November 27, aka Election Day 21), on prime-time TV—just before Monday Night Football—against a backdrop of twelve American flags, Gore read another non-concession speech:
If the people do not in the end choose me, so be it. The outcome will have been fair, and the people will have spoken. If they choose me, so be it. I would then commit and do commit to bringing this country together. But, whatever the outcome, let the people have their say, and let us listen.
A vote is not just a piece of paper. A vote is a human voice, a statement of human principle, and we must not let those voices be silenced—not for today, not for tomorrow, not for as long as this nation’s laws and democratic institutions let us stand and fight to let those voices count....
Ignoring votes means ignoring democracy itself. If we ignore the votes of thousands in Florida in this election, how can you or any American have confidence that your vote will not be ignored in a future election? That is all we have asked since Election Day, a complete count of all the votes cast in Florida—not recount after recount, as some have charged, but a single full and accurate count. We haven’t had that yet....
This is America. When votes are cast, we count them. We don’t arbitrarily set them aside because it’s too difficult to count them.
In listening to the Vice President and his supporters, I’m reminded of Mary McCarthy’s immortal line to Stalinist playwright and “memoirist” Lillian Hellman, about thirty years ago on The Dick Cavett Show:
Every word you say is a lie, including “and” and “the.”
On Wednesday, November 29th, Vice-President Gore gave multiple “exclusive” interviews on broadcast and cable TV networks. In one “exclusive” interview that day with CNN’s John King, Gore pretty much recited his standard script:
You know, the only way to avoid having a cloud over the next president is to count all the votes.... But a higher obligation still, is the obligation I have to the Constitution and to the country to insist that the election have integrity.
How about by starting with Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
By the time of the CNN interview, Gore had already threatened the Florida legislature, which was planning on meeting the following week to name a slate of electors.
Vice-President Gore’s strategy has been to continually repeat a handful of lies, the biggest of which is that “thousands of votes” have not been counted. These votes do not exist. All of the votes that were cast in election booths on Election Day were counted by machine, re-counted by machine, and in many cases, manually recounted. That makes as many as three countings, i.e., three Bush victories. That’s not including an undetermined number of absentee votes the Gore people had thrown out, often for contradictory reasons. At this writing, the Gore camp is trying to get additional thousands of absentee ballots from heavily Republican precincts thrown out.
When he speaks of “thousands of uncounted votes,” the Vice-President is usually talking about 10,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County. Mr. Gore insists that such “undervotes” would net him hundreds of additional votes over the “undervotes” that would presumably accrue to his opponent.
How does he know this? Gore speaks always as if he KNEW how many votes were waiting for him.
In fact, none of those 10,000 “undervotes” would accrue to Gore, because there ARE NO “undervotes.”
The ballots in question are from people who voted in other races on Election Day, but who chose NOT to vote for president. Their proportion of the vote in Miami-Dade County, 1.6 percent, was actually LOWER than that of half of Florida’s other 66 counties. The rates of presidential non-votes in the entire states of Idaho and Wyoming (5 and 3.6 percent), were 212 and 125 percent higher, respectively, and in the populous state of Illinois, the rate of “undervoting” was 144 percent higher than in Florida. Yet, we do not hear of thousands of votes “not being counted” in those states. The phrase “undervotes” is cut from the same racial-socialist cloth that, lacking any evidence, calls poor black and Hispanic neighborhoods “underserved,” as a euphemism for “victimized by racial discrimination,” despite a lack of evidence of discrimination.
The Vice President is concerned with divining the “intent” of these “undervoters.”
In a democratic election, you don’t “divine” a voter’s “intent.” Either the voter’s decision is transparent, or you disqualify the vote. If you are going to give some people the power of “interpreting” the voter’s or the people’s will, then you have effectively canceled the election.
A nation that would permit the divining of dimples might have some meaningless ritual that it calls an “election,” just as the Soviet Union and its satellites used to, but it will be a mockery of a democratic election.
Another way to make a mockery of a democratic election, is to petition a judge, as Al Gore has petitioned Florida circuit court Judge N. Sanders Sauls, to simply overturn the election, and declare Gore the winner, and thus the president-elect, by fiat.
The Illinois Supreme Court justices, in the 1990 case of Pullen v. Mulligan which lead Gore attorney David Boies lied about to the Florida Supreme Court, spoke of “reasonable certainty,” and did not even address “dimpled” or “pregnant,” as opposed to “hanging” (“partially punctured”) chads. That is because neither of the litigants, themselves candidates in an electoral race initially declared a tie, had the gall to try and sell a judge on counting as votes chads which had not at all been perforated.
But that was in the pre-Clinton era. We’ve come a long way, baby!
Meanwhile, we don’t hear anymore about the thousands of military absentee ballots that five Democratic lawyers had thrown out. Sensing a public relations nightmare, Democratic Party officials all changed their tune, calling for the counting of the military votes, but I am not aware that all of those ballots were, indeed, counted.
In a rarely-reported story, Democratic lawyers also got many local absentee ballots in heavily Republican areas thrown out. One Republican voter found out too late, that a Democratic operative had insisted that the signature on his ballot did not match the one on his application, and had thrown out the ballot, even though the same man had signed both documents.
As a result of such chicanery, and the conjuring of over 1,200 “divined” ballots since Election Day for Al Gore, I am convinced that George Bush’s true margin of victory should be 2,000-5,000 votes.
Some members of the media have soured on Gore. In New York on November 29, an NBC News reporter spoke of Gore’s “spin,” with which he must persuade people that he has won the election.
And yet, the racial-socialist mainstream media is still churning out pro-Gore propaganda—essentially regurgitating his standard non-concession speech—by hack journalists, and op-eds and letters from tenured, racial-socialist professors from all over the country.
A fairly typical journalistic hack piece, “Right-Wingers Praise Antics of Bush Thugs,” by unofficial Gore spokesman Joe Conason, appeared in the New York Observer, on November 29, aka Election Day 23.
Rather than accept the decision of that state’s highest legal authority to reconcile contradictory statutes in favor of ensuring that every ballot counts, the Bush campaign disparaged the integrity of the seven honorable judges, encouraged obstruction of their orders, and even organized a brief but violent assault on the Miami-Dade County officials who were attempting to comply with the court’s decision.... Meanwhile, Mr. Bush has yet to explain why he signed an election law in Texas that provides for manual re-counting of punch-card ballots, dimpled and otherwise — and why he thinks that law should be observed in his home state but flouted in his brother’s state.
Seven honorable judges? Recall, that these are the six Democratic Party hacks and one “independent” who violated Florida election law, in striking down the statutory certification deadline of November 18, which they illegally extended to November 26th.
As for the Texas law, it was already on the books BEFORE the election, and applies to only five percent of the state’s districts. However, the Texas law is utterly irrelevant to Florida, which has no such law.
Conason’s twisted logic is like that of Gore lawyer David Boies, who, because Democratic election supervisors in Florida’s Broward County committed the outrage of counting as votes ballots with “dimples,” “marks,” or “indentations,” demanded that all other counties imitate Broward.
As for the “violent assault on the Miami-Dade County officials,” no matter how many times those officials—all of whom are Democrats—led by election canvassing board chairman David Leahy, deny that any such assault took place, Conason & Co. keep on repeating the lie.
In a similar vein, the November 29 San Diego Union-Tribune ran an op-ed, “10 Reasons Bush Should Concede,” by Steven Semararo and Teresa Gillis. Semeraro is an assistant professor of law, and Gillis is a former professor of law, from San Diego’s Thomas Jefferson School of Law.
• 10. “Gore received over 300,000 more votes than Bush nationwide”;
• 9. Since “Putting Florida aside, Gore has significantly more electoral votes than Bush (267 to 246), and in Florida, the men “are essentially tied,” Florida’s electoral votes should be split, giving Gore a 279 to 259 margin;
• 8. Rather than having changed the rules after the election, the Florida Supreme Court “simply cited a statute that unequivocally requires handcounts when errors in a machine count might affect the result”;
• 7. The Florida Supreme Court “has held that hand counts are more accurate than machines”;
• 6. Dimpled chads are by law admissible in Texas, determining voter intent is a straightforward process, and between Palm Beach and “the 10,000 uncounted votes in Miami-Dade counties” [sic], Gore would win by more than 1,000 votes”;
• 5. Based on statistical models, about 2,000 out of Pat Buchanan’s 3,000 Palm Beach County votes were “intended for Gore”;
• 4. In Seminole County, 4,000-odd Republican absentee ballots were rejected, and then reinstated after “Republican operatives” filled in missing information on them;
• 3. Most of the 19,000 “double-punched Gore-Buchanan ballots in Palm Beach County were likely votes for Gore;”
• 2. Since Bush refused Gore’s generous offer to hand recount the entire state, Bush and the Republicans must know that they lost the state;
• 1. “Two words — popular vote.”
The first thing that springs to the eye is that these two legal eagles promised ten reasons, but provided only nine.
Numbers ten and one are two ways of saying the same thing. These guys sound like Democrat manual vote-counters! [Postscript, June 26, 2010: Numbers five and three are also two ways of saying the same thing; thus, Semararo and Gillis provided only eight separate reasons.]
If the authors read the U.S. Constitution, they’d know that the popular vote is irrelevant to the issue of determining an election. If they read Florida law, they’d know that delegate splitting is illegal. And even if it were legal, again, what reason would Bush have to hand over his victory to the man he beat? If we’re going to contemplate such nonsense, why not suggest that Al Gore split electors that he won in close races in Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico and elsewhere with George Bush?
Since no proof was provided that the voting machines (as opposed to voters) were malfunctioning, the law’s hand-count provision is also irrelevant.
As for the Florida Supreme Court’s opinions on accuracy, the less said, the better.
Semeraro and Gillis mention “the 10,000 uncounted votes in Miami-Dade counties” [sic] in reasons seven and six, but as I explained, no such batch of uncounted votes exists in Miami-Dade. The only batch of uncounted votes that may still exist would be suspected Republican absentee ballots.
And then we have the fuzzy math of “statistical models” and likely Gore voters, which is a dodge, whereby Semeraro and Gillis try to feign real knowledge, where they have none.
Gore’s offer of a statewide recount came after the deadline for formally making such requests, and the request was the prerogative of the loser, not the winner. Besides, why would someone certified to have won a race voluntarily backtrack from his own victory?
Semeraro and Gillis did come up with one major problem for Bush—the Seminole County ballot applications (not the ballots themselves—they got that wrong, too).
A Seminole County election official reportedly helped Republican absentee voters, by filling in missing information on their ballot applications, but not Democrat absentee voters. Seminole County is the one thing that could potentially cost George Bush the presidency, if things drag out long enough for it to come up in a court of law.
And yet, George W. Bush could also launch investigations into charges of illegal alien voting, and the documented case of a Democratic Party activist bribing homeless people with cigarettes to get them to vote in Milwaukee, and God knows where else.
In Florida, Haitian voters have charged that Creole-speaking Democrats inside polling places told them to vote for Gore, and stuffed pieces of paper with instructions for voting the straight Democratic line in their hands, all of which, if true, were cases of criminal behavior.
And since the election, a stack of affidavits by manual recount observers have attested to floors littered with chads, a chad taped back onto a Bush vote, and Bush votes placed in “Gore” piles. Examining a “vote” for Gore, Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Democrat, saw nothing. No dimple. Kerrey had to leave, to avoid a moral dilemma.
Al Gore does not intend to concede the Presidency. Ever.
Some people have speculated that the Vice-President is mentally ill. So what else is new?
For the past eight years, we have been ruled by two sociopaths, one elected, and one that came as part of a “two-for-one, blue-plate special.” And the originally unelected ruler has since gained election to national office.
Vice-President Gore’s refusal to concede the election appears to me to be a case of his imitating the sort of lawless behavior he has witnessed on a regular basis (and occasionally perpetrated) for the past eight years, as a member of the most criminal administration in our nation’s history. And he saw that the more crimes Bill Clinton was discovered to have committed, the higher Clinton’s popularity rose. And if Gore loses now, it’s all over.
After holding an election hostage for almost one month, there’s no “graceful” way for Al Gore to concede. And in 2004, HILLARY! plans on sweeping him out of her way. She may already have the sort of “persuasive” material on Al that Gore’s operatives—led by Bob Beckel—have been collecting on Republican electors to “help” them change their minds.
An anonymous Internet poster at the Free Republic message board imagined Al Gore suddenly knocking President Bush out of the way at the latter’s inauguration, and putting his own hand on The Bible.
That’s not as far-fetched as it sounds.
It’s starting to look as though Mr. Gore may have to be detained during the Inauguration, whether by federal marshals, or by men in white coats wielding a butterfly net. Otherwise, he just might not be able to contain himself.
Al Gore's Greatest Hits
Election Without End: In “Goreworld,” Al Emerges Victorious
By Nicholas Stix
November 29, 2000
Toogood Reports
On Thanksgiving Day, I gave thanks for being blessed with my beautiful wife, and our son, whom the stork had brought nine months earlier.
Thanksgiving brought a call from my ailing Mom, who couldn’t leave the house. Naturally, we argued about The Election That Wouldn’t Die.
Mom, whom I recently accused of being a communist, argued that it was a matter of “justice,” that Al Gore must win. Is our family name “Stix” or “Jackson”?
Of course, in our family, Mom’s a moderate. My sister, a lawyer, is a hardcore Clintonista; Mom’s older sister, Aunt Ruth, a retired public school teacher, is an unrepentant Stalinist. Far from being chastened by the reports of Soviet gulags and mass murder, Aunt Ruth and our late Uncle Frank pointed out that that’s what it takes to protect the Revolution.
A couple of days later, I read Peggy Noonan’s Wall Street Journal op-ed on the stealing of the election to Mom over the telephone. My mother responded to the charges Noonan catalogued, “I don’t believe it!”
I noted that the most controversial charges against Democratic Florida election officials—chadbanging, etc.—were supported by eyewitness affidavits, and the other, less controversial charges (e.g., cheating the military out of their votes) were not even being disputed. I emphasized, as well, that the Gore team never challenged any absentee ballots from Israel, and that military votes had not been challenged in the past.
I mentioned the mathematicians who had calculated the chances at something like 500 million-to-one, that Al Gore would get so many “new” votes through hand recounting. There are millions of families like mine—in Goreworld.
On Election Day 20, aka Sunday, November 26th, Judge Charles Burton, the chairman of the Palm Beach County election canvassing board, asked Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris for yet another extension to continue hand-counting ballots, beyond the illegal one of 5 p.m., November 26th, already granted him by the Florida Supreme Court on November 21, in violation of Secretary Harris’ legal authority.
Judge Burton wanted his people to be able to commit undemocratic acts with ballots until 9 a.m. the following morning.
But if Secretary Harris’ “discretion” to refuse to extend the state deadline had already been nullified, why would she still have the discretion to extend the deadline? But of course—discretion obtains only “to help the Good Guys.”
That’s the way things work—in Goreworld.
So that we’re clear: The Democrats are “the Good Guys.” Their opponents—not all of whom are Republicans—are “the Bad Guys.” Got it?
Judge Burton’s request for a second extension was another way of saying, ‘My people have not been able to fabricate votes quickly enough.’
According to a November 26th CNN report, Florida Sen. Bob Graham also threw his dimple on the ballot pile: “Graham said extending the deadline for Palm Beach County ‘would have been an act that would have bled off some of the poison that has affected this process.’” Says the rattlesnake.
The line, “would have bled off some of the poison,” reminds me of the joke about the kid who, after murdering his parents, tells the judge, “As a poor orphan, I throw myself upon the mercy of the court.”
Apparently Judge Roberts and Sen. Graham—joined by Florida Sen.-elect Bill Nelson—thought that the judicial rape Secretary Harris suffered at the hands of the Florida Supreme Court would suffice to put her in her place, and that thus chastened, she would let them have their way with her. And if the FSC hadn’t completed the job, the media gang bang would have. The latter group included a Washington Post writer, Robin Givhan, who as much as said, ‘She deserved it,’ based on Secretary Harris’ choice of make-up.
They were wrong.
Bloodied but unbowed, Secretary Harris just said, “No.”
And later that same day, she said, “Yes.”
“Yes,” as in, “I hereby declare Gov. George W. Bush the winner of Florida’s 25 electoral votes for the president of the United States.”
Katherine Harris, American hero; Katherine Harris, Bad Guy.
Back in Goreworld, the “Sore Loserman” team, and its supporters, remain defiant. Sen. Joseph Lieberman announced,
Amen, brother!
And the next day, and the day after that, Al Gore reiterated to the American people his refusal to concede the election. We can expect more of the same today. And tomorrow. There’s something gripping about watching two men go down in flames. There’s a certain logic to Al Gore and Joe Lieberman’s refusal to concede. Because if these men are ruled the losers, they are finished in American public life. And I’m not talking, The Rosie O’Donnell Show. (If I should be proved wrong, so much the worse for American public life!)
Someday, Tipper will no doubt break in every nurse she employs to care for her husband with, “And remember, you must always address him as ‘Mr. President.’”
Oh sure, Lieberman covered his kishkas, by simultaneously running for vice-president and senator, and won the latter election in a walk, but he’s finished, too. Hence, Gore and Lieberman have nothing to lose, by fighting on.
They are not alone in their fight.
Bill Clinton has refused to permit the Bush transition team to use office space in the White House, there are Gore lawsuits pending, and Democrats have in recent days grown increasingly loyal towards a man whom they supposedly dislike and distrust.
Just the day before Secretary Harris certified Pres. Bush’s victory, Democrats “manually recounted” quotes from the Miami-Dade election supervisor, David Leahy, in which they claimed to see “dimples.”
Leahy, like the other members of the canvassing board—none of whom complained of intimidation—a Democrat, had made a statement recognizing and respecting Republican voters’ protests when, in violation of Florida election law, the Miami-Dade recounting was moved from a public room with witnesses from the Republican Party and the general public, to a private one with neither.
In “recounting” David Leahy’s statement in support of the protesters, Democrats turned it into a condemnation of Republicans’ alleged use of “intimidation,” “rioters,” and “mob violence” to stop the recounting, which was in fact halted, when it became clear that the new deadline could not be met.
One of New York’s many socialist congressmen, Jerrold Nadler, called the peaceful Republican demonstrators “rioters.” According to the November 26th Los Angeles Times, Nadler charged that the Miami-Dade canvassing board “succumbed to the mob violence and intimidation.”
“Rioters”? “Mob violence”? These are odd locutions for a man who sees in murderous black, Hispanic or Arab rioters, only “demonstrators.”
According to the L.A. Times’ Mike Clary, Leahy reported seeing “‘a noisy, peaceful protest. These were individuals who were downstairs as observers, and they were unhappy with the board’s decision [to move],’ Leahy said. ‘To me, that was understandable, and the news media had the same concern. They protested as well. No matter—a group of Democratic congressmen, including Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings, the only federal judge ever to be impeached and removed from office for corruption, called for a Department of Justice investigation, and Miami Rep. Carrie Meek “called for Leahy’s resignation.”
One of the marks of the contemporary scoundrel, is the call for a Justice Department investigation.
The L.A. Times’ Mike Clary is careful to speak of “the disturbance,” the same word used by the mainstream media to describe the bloody, 1992 Los Angeles race riots.
In New York, echoing Rep. Jerrold Nadler & Co. in its November 27th lead editorial, the Democratic-centrist Daily News threw all good sense to the wind:
What “overt violence”? What “uncounted ballots”? All of Miami-Dade’s ballots were counted at least twice.
And note the sleight of hand, in turning Secretary Harris’ refusal to extend the certification deadline a second time into a refusal to “grant the time allotted by the state’s top court to finish their hand count.”
If the above sentence were true, we would expect to have already heard from the Florida Supreme Court, and about now, Florida lawmen would be coming to arrest Katharine Harris.
And at the New York Times, Maureen Dowd refers to the man who LOST Florida as the “President-elect.”
Meanwhile, Al Gore’s lawyer, David Boies, is suing Miami-Dade, Nassau, and Palm Beach counties.
Boies is suing Miami-Dade and Nassau counties to force election officials to complete manual recounts. Based on the impossibility of meeting the hand-count deadline, those counties’ election officials had reverted to the original, machine vote counts.
Boies is suing Palm Beach County, in order to force its election officials to use the same voodoo voting principle of “one dimple, one vote” embraced by Goreworld’s Broward County, where Gore supporters were able to counterfeit over 300 new “Gore votes.”
Sorry—I owe an apology to legitimate counterfeiters everywhere.
Broward County officials had decreed that if a voter had applied the slightest pressure on or in the vicinity of the chad by the name of a presidential candidate (read: Gore), despite having clearly punctured a chad in every other race, the “dimpled chad” counts as a Gore vote.
Conversely, Palm Beach County officials only counted dimpled or “pregnant” chads as votes if the ballot was that of a clearly promiscuous voter whose stylus had left dimples in other races, as well.
Some of the Vice-President’s critics have complained repeatedly of Democrats’ “ends justify the means” mentality.
If nothing else, the crisis permits me to clear up this bit of confusion. I believe it is the German philosopher, University of Munich Prof. Robert Spaemann, who has argued, contrary to the adage, that the ends most certainly DO justify the means—for if they don’t, what does?
Not that Spaemann is a relativist or nihilist; far from it. A follower of the mediaeval Christian philosopher, St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Spaemann would require that one’s ends be just.
Vice-President Al Gore’s end is to become President, election or no. Thus far, he has used “appropriate” means towards that end.
The Democrats’ end is to install a one-party dictatorship. Thus far, they have used “appropriate” means towards that end.
Pres.-elect George Bush’s lawyers had sought and received a writ of “certiorari” from the U.S. Supreme Court. That means that the Court agreed to fast-track the Governor’s petition for appeal, to argue that Florida election law, and voters’ right to equal protection under the law, under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, were both violated.
Yesterday, the parties submitted legal briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court; tomorrow, they will submit rebuttals; and on Friday, December 1st—aka Election Day 25—the U.S. Supreme Court will sit to hear arguments as to whether—or how—it should choose our new President.
If Secretary Harris’ certification of the Florida vote is permitted to stand, Pres. Bush’s U.S. Supreme Court case will be rendered moot.
One of Vice-President Gore’s helpers, Stanford Law Prof. Pam Karlan, has argued that once the state has decided, the federal bench has nothing to say: “Once a state court rules on election matters, that’s it.”
The journalist who quoted Prof. Karlan in the November 25th Daily News, William Sherman, neglected to mention that until now, Pam Karlan had dedicated her career, as a “voting rights” specialist and former NAACP counsel, to the federal overturning of state election laws.
But Pam Karlan’s means and ends are in perfect harmony. In working towards the end of installing a racial-socialist dictatorship, it is perfectly acceptable to hold states’ rights in contempt, and then, without a word of explanation, suddenly become a virulent states’ rightist. Whatever’s expedient. Or as they say in Goreworld, “just.”
By Nicholas Stix
November 29, 2000
Toogood Reports
On Thanksgiving Day, I gave thanks for being blessed with my beautiful wife, and our son, whom the stork had brought nine months earlier.
Thanksgiving brought a call from my ailing Mom, who couldn’t leave the house. Naturally, we argued about The Election That Wouldn’t Die.
Mom, whom I recently accused of being a communist, argued that it was a matter of “justice,” that Al Gore must win. Is our family name “Stix” or “Jackson”?
Of course, in our family, Mom’s a moderate. My sister, a lawyer, is a hardcore Clintonista; Mom’s older sister, Aunt Ruth, a retired public school teacher, is an unrepentant Stalinist. Far from being chastened by the reports of Soviet gulags and mass murder, Aunt Ruth and our late Uncle Frank pointed out that that’s what it takes to protect the Revolution.
A couple of days later, I read Peggy Noonan’s Wall Street Journal op-ed on the stealing of the election to Mom over the telephone. My mother responded to the charges Noonan catalogued, “I don’t believe it!”
I noted that the most controversial charges against Democratic Florida election officials—chadbanging, etc.—were supported by eyewitness affidavits, and the other, less controversial charges (e.g., cheating the military out of their votes) were not even being disputed. I emphasized, as well, that the Gore team never challenged any absentee ballots from Israel, and that military votes had not been challenged in the past.
I mentioned the mathematicians who had calculated the chances at something like 500 million-to-one, that Al Gore would get so many “new” votes through hand recounting. There are millions of families like mine—in Goreworld.
On Election Day 20, aka Sunday, November 26th, Judge Charles Burton, the chairman of the Palm Beach County election canvassing board, asked Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris for yet another extension to continue hand-counting ballots, beyond the illegal one of 5 p.m., November 26th, already granted him by the Florida Supreme Court on November 21, in violation of Secretary Harris’ legal authority.
Judge Burton wanted his people to be able to commit undemocratic acts with ballots until 9 a.m. the following morning.
But if Secretary Harris’ “discretion” to refuse to extend the state deadline had already been nullified, why would she still have the discretion to extend the deadline? But of course—discretion obtains only “to help the Good Guys.”
That’s the way things work—in Goreworld.
So that we’re clear: The Democrats are “the Good Guys.” Their opponents—not all of whom are Republicans—are “the Bad Guys.” Got it?
Judge Burton’s request for a second extension was another way of saying, ‘My people have not been able to fabricate votes quickly enough.’
According to a November 26th CNN report, Florida Sen. Bob Graham also threw his dimple on the ballot pile: “Graham said extending the deadline for Palm Beach County ‘would have been an act that would have bled off some of the poison that has affected this process.’” Says the rattlesnake.
The line, “would have bled off some of the poison,” reminds me of the joke about the kid who, after murdering his parents, tells the judge, “As a poor orphan, I throw myself upon the mercy of the court.”
Apparently Judge Roberts and Sen. Graham—joined by Florida Sen.-elect Bill Nelson—thought that the judicial rape Secretary Harris suffered at the hands of the Florida Supreme Court would suffice to put her in her place, and that thus chastened, she would let them have their way with her. And if the FSC hadn’t completed the job, the media gang bang would have. The latter group included a Washington Post writer, Robin Givhan, who as much as said, ‘She deserved it,’ based on Secretary Harris’ choice of make-up.
They were wrong.
Bloodied but unbowed, Secretary Harris just said, “No.”
And later that same day, she said, “Yes.”
“Yes,” as in, “I hereby declare Gov. George W. Bush the winner of Florida’s 25 electoral votes for the president of the United States.”
Katherine Harris, American hero; Katherine Harris, Bad Guy.
Back in Goreworld, the “Sore Loserman” team, and its supporters, remain defiant. Sen. Joseph Lieberman announced,
This evening, the secretary of state of Florida has decided to certify what by any reasonable standard is an incomplete and inaccurate count of the votes cast in Florida.... What is at issue here is nothing less than every American’s simple, sacred right to vote. How can we teach our children that every vote counts, if we are not willing to make a good faith effort to count every vote?
Amen, brother!
And the next day, and the day after that, Al Gore reiterated to the American people his refusal to concede the election. We can expect more of the same today. And tomorrow. There’s something gripping about watching two men go down in flames. There’s a certain logic to Al Gore and Joe Lieberman’s refusal to concede. Because if these men are ruled the losers, they are finished in American public life. And I’m not talking, The Rosie O’Donnell Show. (If I should be proved wrong, so much the worse for American public life!)
Someday, Tipper will no doubt break in every nurse she employs to care for her husband with, “And remember, you must always address him as ‘Mr. President.’”
Oh sure, Lieberman covered his kishkas, by simultaneously running for vice-president and senator, and won the latter election in a walk, but he’s finished, too. Hence, Gore and Lieberman have nothing to lose, by fighting on.
They are not alone in their fight.
Bill Clinton has refused to permit the Bush transition team to use office space in the White House, there are Gore lawsuits pending, and Democrats have in recent days grown increasingly loyal towards a man whom they supposedly dislike and distrust.
Just the day before Secretary Harris certified Pres. Bush’s victory, Democrats “manually recounted” quotes from the Miami-Dade election supervisor, David Leahy, in which they claimed to see “dimples.”
Leahy, like the other members of the canvassing board—none of whom complained of intimidation—a Democrat, had made a statement recognizing and respecting Republican voters’ protests when, in violation of Florida election law, the Miami-Dade recounting was moved from a public room with witnesses from the Republican Party and the general public, to a private one with neither.
In “recounting” David Leahy’s statement in support of the protesters, Democrats turned it into a condemnation of Republicans’ alleged use of “intimidation,” “rioters,” and “mob violence” to stop the recounting, which was in fact halted, when it became clear that the new deadline could not be met.
One of New York’s many socialist congressmen, Jerrold Nadler, called the peaceful Republican demonstrators “rioters.” According to the November 26th Los Angeles Times, Nadler charged that the Miami-Dade canvassing board “succumbed to the mob violence and intimidation.”
“Rioters”? “Mob violence”? These are odd locutions for a man who sees in murderous black, Hispanic or Arab rioters, only “demonstrators.”
According to the L.A. Times’ Mike Clary, Leahy reported seeing “‘a noisy, peaceful protest. These were individuals who were downstairs as observers, and they were unhappy with the board’s decision [to move],’ Leahy said. ‘To me, that was understandable, and the news media had the same concern. They protested as well. No matter—a group of Democratic congressmen, including Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings, the only federal judge ever to be impeached and removed from office for corruption, called for a Department of Justice investigation, and Miami Rep. Carrie Meek “called for Leahy’s resignation.”
One of the marks of the contemporary scoundrel, is the call for a Justice Department investigation.
The L.A. Times’ Mike Clary is careful to speak of “the disturbance,” the same word used by the mainstream media to describe the bloody, 1992 Los Angeles race riots.
In New York, echoing Rep. Jerrold Nadler & Co. in its November 27th lead editorial, the Democratic-centrist Daily News threw all good sense to the wind:
The rights of the citizens who voted for him [Gore] have been trampled. If Harris’ certification is allowed to stand, mob intimidation and ballot chicanery will have put the stamp of larceny on the outcome. That must be redressed.
What happened in Miami-Dade County was an outrage against the democratic process. The county canvassing board first started a legal hand count, but then stopped when confronted by GOP thugs, leaving 10,000 ballots uncounted. This overt violence cannot be compared with the lawful actions of Democratic protesters, whose actions did not interfere with any official proceedings. Similarly, in Florida’s GOP-dominated Nassau County, officials threw out the legal, official recount and certified old numbers that favored Bush. And in Palm Beach County, officials were not granted the time allotted by the state’s top court to finish their hand count. Instead, they submitted a partial count, which Harris discarded.
What “overt violence”? What “uncounted ballots”? All of Miami-Dade’s ballots were counted at least twice.
And note the sleight of hand, in turning Secretary Harris’ refusal to extend the certification deadline a second time into a refusal to “grant the time allotted by the state’s top court to finish their hand count.”
If the above sentence were true, we would expect to have already heard from the Florida Supreme Court, and about now, Florida lawmen would be coming to arrest Katharine Harris.
And at the New York Times, Maureen Dowd refers to the man who LOST Florida as the “President-elect.”
Meanwhile, Al Gore’s lawyer, David Boies, is suing Miami-Dade, Nassau, and Palm Beach counties.
Boies is suing Miami-Dade and Nassau counties to force election officials to complete manual recounts. Based on the impossibility of meeting the hand-count deadline, those counties’ election officials had reverted to the original, machine vote counts.
Boies is suing Palm Beach County, in order to force its election officials to use the same voodoo voting principle of “one dimple, one vote” embraced by Goreworld’s Broward County, where Gore supporters were able to counterfeit over 300 new “Gore votes.”
Sorry—I owe an apology to legitimate counterfeiters everywhere.
Broward County officials had decreed that if a voter had applied the slightest pressure on or in the vicinity of the chad by the name of a presidential candidate (read: Gore), despite having clearly punctured a chad in every other race, the “dimpled chad” counts as a Gore vote.
Conversely, Palm Beach County officials only counted dimpled or “pregnant” chads as votes if the ballot was that of a clearly promiscuous voter whose stylus had left dimples in other races, as well.
Some of the Vice-President’s critics have complained repeatedly of Democrats’ “ends justify the means” mentality.
If nothing else, the crisis permits me to clear up this bit of confusion. I believe it is the German philosopher, University of Munich Prof. Robert Spaemann, who has argued, contrary to the adage, that the ends most certainly DO justify the means—for if they don’t, what does?
Not that Spaemann is a relativist or nihilist; far from it. A follower of the mediaeval Christian philosopher, St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Spaemann would require that one’s ends be just.
Vice-President Al Gore’s end is to become President, election or no. Thus far, he has used “appropriate” means towards that end.
The Democrats’ end is to install a one-party dictatorship. Thus far, they have used “appropriate” means towards that end.
Pres.-elect George Bush’s lawyers had sought and received a writ of “certiorari” from the U.S. Supreme Court. That means that the Court agreed to fast-track the Governor’s petition for appeal, to argue that Florida election law, and voters’ right to equal protection under the law, under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, were both violated.
Yesterday, the parties submitted legal briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court; tomorrow, they will submit rebuttals; and on Friday, December 1st—aka Election Day 25—the U.S. Supreme Court will sit to hear arguments as to whether—or how—it should choose our new President.
If Secretary Harris’ certification of the Florida vote is permitted to stand, Pres. Bush’s U.S. Supreme Court case will be rendered moot.
One of Vice-President Gore’s helpers, Stanford Law Prof. Pam Karlan, has argued that once the state has decided, the federal bench has nothing to say: “Once a state court rules on election matters, that’s it.”
The journalist who quoted Prof. Karlan in the November 25th Daily News, William Sherman, neglected to mention that until now, Pam Karlan had dedicated her career, as a “voting rights” specialist and former NAACP counsel, to the federal overturning of state election laws.
But Pam Karlan’s means and ends are in perfect harmony. In working towards the end of installing a racial-socialist dictatorship, it is perfectly acceptable to hold states’ rights in contempt, and then, without a word of explanation, suddenly become a virulent states’ rightist. Whatever’s expedient. Or as they say in Goreworld, “just.”
Thursday, June 24, 2010
The Rape Tree
By Nicholas Stix
When a “coyote” illegally takes a Mexican woman or girl across the border into America, he doesn’t just take every cent she has; more often than not, he takes her virtue, as well. The majority of Mexican females invading the U.S., including children as young as seven, are raped along the way, both on Mexican and American soil. Gang-raped. The Mexican rapists proudly proclaim their crimes by tossing their victim’s undergarments on the branches of the nearest tree. The rape tree.
Hal Netkin, a veteran activist for patriotic immigration reform who runs the Web site, L.A. Watchdog, sent my way an introduction to the above five-minute documentary, The Price of Admission, by Truth on the Border, which he has posted at his site.
From The Price of Admission:
Hal Netkin anticipates and responds to what the Open Borders Lobby would say, were the MSM to end their silence about the rape trees:
Rather than stopping the invasion, an amnesty of the approximately 30 million illegal aliens currently at large in our country, such as “Obama” has sought to ram through, by hook (also here) or by crook, since before invading the Oval Office, would draw tens of millions more, in a jailbreak-style run on the border. You know, like when a quarterback seems to be getting rushed by all 11 opposing players, the coaches, water boys, and all their relatives? Well, in place of that terrified, scrambling quarterback, imagine our handcuffed, outmanned, outgunned Border Patrol, and you’ll get the picture. And yet, what is a nightmare image to patriotic Americans would be a dream come true to the John Doe calling himself “Barack Obama.”
“I thought the wailings we heard at night were the coyotes barking at the moon. I didn’t know until later that these sounds were the cries of women being raped in the Mexican desert, some less than a hundred yards away from the border.
“There was absolutely nothing anyone could do about it,” said Mr. Donnelly, grimacing as he turned away to hide his emotions. “It’s something you never forget.”
Tim Donnelly, of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, to the Washington Times, November 21, 2005.
When a “coyote” illegally takes a Mexican woman or girl across the border into America, he doesn’t just take every cent she has; more often than not, he takes her virtue, as well. The majority of Mexican females invading the U.S., including children as young as seven, are raped along the way, both on Mexican and American soil. Gang-raped. The Mexican rapists proudly proclaim their crimes by tossing their victim’s undergarments on the branches of the nearest tree. The rape tree.
Hal Netkin, a veteran activist for patriotic immigration reform who runs the Web site, L.A. Watchdog, sent my way an introduction to the above five-minute documentary, The Price of Admission, by Truth on the Border, which he has posted at his site.
From The Price of Admission:
Many human smugglers consider rape a part of “the price of admission” for women and young girls illegally entering the U.S.
Victims are taken to an isolated area and raped.
The garments represent “trophies of conquest.”
It is not uncommon to find dozens of sets of undergarments around a rape tree.
Hal Netkin anticipates and responds to what the Open Borders Lobby would say, were the MSM to end their silence about the rape trees:
You will hear advocates for illegal aliens claim that if we had “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” that the problem of rape wouldn’t occur because “everyone” would immigrate legally thus avoiding the need for human smugglers. To anyone who believes this, I want to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
My wife who is a Mexican immigrant and a naturalized U.S. citizen, petitioned for three of her siblings in Mexico so that they could immigrate legally. Guess what, even though they could have immigrated legally, they decided to come illegally anyway. Why? Because as all Mexicans know, if you can get passed the border, you can enjoy all the benefits that legal immigrants enjoy -- BUT SOONER! -- get here, and it is virtually “legal to be illegal.”
Rather than stopping the invasion, an amnesty of the approximately 30 million illegal aliens currently at large in our country, such as “Obama” has sought to ram through, by hook (also here) or by crook, since before invading the Oval Office, would draw tens of millions more, in a jailbreak-style run on the border. You know, like when a quarterback seems to be getting rushed by all 11 opposing players, the coaches, water boys, and all their relatives? Well, in place of that terrified, scrambling quarterback, imagine our handcuffed, outmanned, outgunned Border Patrol, and you’ll get the picture. And yet, what is a nightmare image to patriotic Americans would be a dream come true to the John Doe calling himself “Barack Obama.”
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Giving Thanks
I want to take this moment to thank those readers who have generously supported me in the recent weeks. To join them, please hit the gold "donate" tab near the top of the page. Thanks in advance, to those who do.
Nicholas Stix
Leaving Arizona: Invader Felon Manuela Quintana, Who Has Defrauded the American Taxpayer Out of Millions of Dollars (in Spanish): “A Criminal is
Someone Who Kills; I Just Want to Work”
By Nicholas Stix
As for the claim by CBS News criminal rights advocate Kelly Cobiella on behalf of the Quintanas, “Their 10 children were born here, and are U.S. citizens,” as commenter curatrix2008 argues,
Cobiella interviews the Quintanas’ landlord, Kyle Kester, and says “he’s lost seven tenants in the last week.”
Says Kester, “This is hurting not just illegals. I was born and raised in the United States, and it’s hurting me now.”
Kester has been profiting for years by harboring criminals, making him a criminal, as well, yet he expects our sympathy?
This video was posted at Youtube by CivilizedJerk, whose accompanying commentary follows below.
I had difficulty in figuring out the name of CBS criminal rights advocate Kelly Cobiella, who sounds like an American, yet who pronounces her name, as if she were in a non-English-speaking country, with the two ells sounded out Spanish-style, like ys. Apparently, she’s Hispanic. What a surprise: A Hispanic reporter who is loyal to foreign invader criminals, and the enemy of law-abiding, American citizens.
CBS News criminal rights advocate Kelly Cobiella
A tip ‘o the hat to my VDARE colleague, Brenda Walker, whose take on the SB 1070 sob story phenomenon, and on some AP boilerplate about other sets of criminal invaders leaving Arizona can be read here.
By Nicholas Stix
As for the claim by CBS News criminal rights advocate Kelly Cobiella on behalf of the Quintanas, “Their 10 children were born here, and are U.S. citizens,” as commenter curatrix2008 argues,
Her 10 children got citizenship as a result of their parents crime. It's fraud. Those citizenships need to be revoked.
.
We don't let bankrobbers pass the benefits that come from their crimes on to their children to keep. We should not the children of these criminals benefit from their parents crime, either.
Cobiella interviews the Quintanas’ landlord, Kyle Kester, and says “he’s lost seven tenants in the last week.”
Says Kester, “This is hurting not just illegals. I was born and raised in the United States, and it’s hurting me now.”
Kester has been profiting for years by harboring criminals, making him a criminal, as well, yet he expects our sympathy?
This video was posted at Youtube by CivilizedJerk, whose accompanying commentary follows below.
CivilizedJerk — June 21, 2010 — This CBS news story is a totally biased one-sided news report produced to pull on your heart strings without leveling with the viewer about the negative effects of the subjects actions.
Manuela Quintana and he husband are both unemployed.
Don't have babies you can't afford to raise on your own. You are just irresponsible if you do otherwise. It's downright criminal if you have 10.
It costs approx. $10,000/year to educate a child K-12. That's $130,000 per child. In the end her ten kids will cost the American tax payer $1,690,000.
We have no idea how much public assistance she and her unemployed husband are getting for their US citizen born children. As an example, In California the maximum CalWORKs grant for a family of three is $661 per month. The maximum amount of food stamp assistance that a family of three can get is $526 a month. Now with ten children, what would the amount be?
Food stamps? Free lunch programs? Healthcare?
She has been in the US for 15 years and hasn't learned English? She must be too busy birthing babies and raising a small army to deal with such "trivial" stuff.
She is an illegal alien living openly in the USA so openly she can go on national television, profess her illegal immigration status and have no fear of being deported.
She and her family are moving to Colorado. Now they will be picking up the tab for her irresponsible behavior.
I'll give her credit. She knows who to work the system to the max.
Call me heartless, I just don't care. Our "compassion" is drowning us.
All we get from CBS are sob stories and crying children.
What's wrong with this picture? How bout some balance CBS?
Tags:
Manuela Quintana illegal immigration Arizona 1070 alien immigrants leaving cbs news Colorado moving
I had difficulty in figuring out the name of CBS criminal rights advocate Kelly Cobiella, who sounds like an American, yet who pronounces her name, as if she were in a non-English-speaking country, with the two ells sounded out Spanish-style, like ys. Apparently, she’s Hispanic. What a surprise: A Hispanic reporter who is loyal to foreign invader criminals, and the enemy of law-abiding, American citizens.
A tip ‘o the hat to my VDARE colleague, Brenda Walker, whose take on the SB 1070 sob story phenomenon, and on some AP boilerplate about other sets of criminal invaders leaving Arizona can be read here.
Monday, June 21, 2010
2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa: Hitler Learns That FIFA Refuses to Ban the Vuvuzela (Hilarious Video)
(Watch It, Before It Gets Banned!)
Thanks to Ken McHardie (aka the51Project), who added the parodical dialogue.
Hit this link to complain to FIFA about this idiotic noise instrument.
A tip ‘o the hat to Larry Auster.
Solving Philly Crime with an Eraser: The “Good Irishman” and the Race Man
By Nicholas Stix
May 12, 2002
Toogood Reports/A Different Drummer
Part II of a Two-Part Series
Part I: “The Philadelphia Story: When the Cops are Crooks”
Disarmed, frightened urban voters demand that violent malefactors be brought to heel. And yet, while urban crime is the monopoly of blacks and Hispanics, racist black and Hispanic “civilians” have joined with the mainstream media, to make cracking down on hardcore criminals political suicide for police brass. This impossible situation dictates that calls for crackdowns on violent crime be massaged with fraudulent crime statistics.
In my previous column, I talked about the Philadelphia Police Department’s penchant for hiring undesirables, based on the color of their skin, who as police officers commit crimes. The PPD’s other pressing problem is its whimsical approach to crime reporting. The Department has been repeatedly caught publishing fraudulent crime statistics, in order to fabricate the perception that crime is under control. Felonies are routinely downgraded to misdemeanors, non-crimes, or simply “disappeared.”
Much of Philadelphia’s crime-fighting success occurred on the watch of Dublin-born Commissioner John F. Timoney, formerly of the NYPD, who ran the PPD from March, 1998 through the end of last year. As a glowing 2000 biography by the American Immigration Law Foundation reported, “[Timoney] is widely credited, both within the Department and more widely, as having been one of the principal architects of the NYPD’s success in reducing crime in New York.”
Conversely, Debbie Goldberg reported in a December 1, 1998, Washington Post article that the crime-fighting method favored by the PPD was fraudulent crime statistic reporting. “‘It’s been an accepted practice over a long period of time,’ said a 25-year Philadelphia police veteran who spoke on condition of anonymity.
“‘There’s pressure to keep crime statistics down, and captains are held responsible for what goes on in their districts.’
“A typical example is a stolen license plate - a crime that should be reported to the FBI - logged as missing property because, he said, ‘it could have fallen off the car.’ Or when someone stabbed by a family member or friend does not prosecute, the crime may be downgraded from aggravated assault to a hospital case, which also is excluded from federal crime statistics, he said.”
In a U.S. News & World Report story from April 24, 2000, Frank McCoy reported that, “facing political heat to cut crime in the city, investigators in the Philadelphia Police Department’s sex-crime unit sat on [thousands of] reports of rapes and other sexual assaults. “The way we solved crime,” says Capt. Rich Costello, president of the local chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police, “was with an eraser.”
However, Frank McCoy’s story had a happy ending — then-Commissioner John Timoney got women’s groups involved in the “reform” of the sex crimes unit. In 2000, a limited investigation by the FBI and the city controller estimated that in 1998, the PPD had “failed to report between 13,000 and 37,000 major crimes.” FBI investigators randomly selected 1,000 police records, and investigators from the Controller’s Office interviewed 300 complainants, asking what them what their complaint had been, and comparing it to the report made by the officer in question. Police reports of “lost/stolen property,” a non-crime, for instance, turned out to frequently be cover stories for breaking-and-entering and grand larceny, which are felonies.
But the PPD’s home-grown specialty, unique to my knowledge among urban police departments, was the “unfounding” of sexual attacks. As a 2000 Philadelphia Inquirer report, “The Rape Squad Files” noted, from 1997-1999, of 300,000 sex crime reports, “The reports include several thousand incidents that were deemed ‘investigation of persons’ or ‘investigation, protection, medical examination’ — two non-crime codes often applied to allegations of sexual assault.”
Even some rapes carried out by the Rittenhouse Square serial rapist were “disappeared” in this way. Among other purposes, the PPD’s fudging of the rape rate helped make its rape arrest rates look much better than they really were.
When Philadelphia Inquirer reporters Mark Fazlollah and Craig R. McCoy wrote, on September 14, 2000, about the Controller’s Office/FBI investigation, Commissioner Timoney chided the report, claiming that it had used police reports based on a methodology that he had replaced since taking over the PPD in March, 1998. The reporters pointed out, however, that the majority of the cases in question were from the period AFTER Commissioner Timoney had supposedly “reformed” crime reporting procedures. The following year, with nothing having changed, a new Philadelphia Inquirer report observed that, “Among police, the practice is called ‘going down with crime.’“
John Timoney’s claim that the fraudulent crime statistics were the result of reporting methods he had since reformed, is the law enforcement equivalent of corporate executives fudging their profit margins by misrepresenting profits and losses, and when caught, claiming that bookkeeping anomalies are the result of obsolete “accounting practices” or a “one-time charge” against profits.
* * * In Jim Sleeper’s powerful 1990 work assailing black racism, The Closest of Strangers: Liberalism and the Politics of Race in New York, Sleeper argued that an enlightened politics requires cooperation across racial lines. Sleeper’s error was in identifying racial cooperation with the politics of racial comity he favored.
In fact, ever since the 1920s’ “Harlem Renaissance,” some (and today, a great many) whites have reached across racial lines, to cooperate with blacks in the service of black supremacism. John Timoney, for one, was as expert at massaging black egos, as he was at charming the media.
Timoney came to America at the age of 13, joined the NYPD in 1969, and stayed there for almost 30 years, rising to the rank of first deputy commissioner, the second in command to Commissioner William Bratton (1994-1996). Bratton, a Boston Irishman, was also adept at massaging the egos of racist black leaders, particularly leaders of the Nation of Islam, and to a lesser degree, at impressing newspaper editors.
Like Bratton, Timoney was a “good Irishman,” the antidote to both the “evil Irishman,” the racist, mad-dog lawman who targets black males, and to the “heartless bureaucrat,” a la Howard Safir, whom then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani chose over Timoney in 1996, to replace the departing William Bratton. An incensed Timoney denounced Safir as “a lightweight,” and promptly put in his retirement papers.
(Actually, Safir was a hard-nosed lawman who as a DEA agent had been in fire fights, shot men dead, and seen partners shot dead. But the modest Safir didn’t like to talk about his experiences. And instead of courting the media, he immediately offended them, by illegally banning top crime reporter Lenny Levitt of Newsday from his press conferences, and then suffering the humiliation of having to readmit Levitt. And while every New York City police commissioner serves at the pleasure of the mayor, politically sophisticated commissioners and would-be commissioners (i.e., Bratton and Timoney) today cultivate the illusion of independence that the media crave and demand.)
That the “good Irishman,” the “evil Irishman,” and the “heartless bureaucrat,” live only in the fantasies of racist black leaders, and socialist reporters and editors, takes nothing away from the fantasies’ political influence.
Timoney could tell stories, strike a conciliatory pose, and mock Safir and Giuliani alike, all of which endeared him to the reporters and editors who controlled his public image, and to the black (and to a lesser degree, feminist) leaders whose egos he had to constantly stroke. He won over new Mayor John Street so thoroughly, that Street, who is black, parted with tradition, in not naming his own police commissioner, and retained the white Timoney, even though the previous two commissioners had been black. And Timoney, who bragged that every crisis was a challenge, managed to turn journalists reporting on the department’s travails into cheerleaders.
Early in Timoney’s tenure (December 28, 1998), a Christian Science Monitor story by Andrea Fine, on Philly’s history of fraudulent crime statistics, became a valentine to Timoney’s reform efforts: “Policing the Record Books: Philadelphia Takes Lead in Cleaning Up Crime Statistics.”
Sixteen months later, national reporters still had not woken up and smelled the blarney. In an April 24, 2000 article, U.S. News’ Frank McCoy fell hook, line, and sinker for Timoney’s story that he was getting feminist groups to help him clean up the sex crime statistics: “Listening to the Victims: In Philadelphia, Women Help Solve Sex Crimes.”
Popular assumptions notwithstanding, reporters are, unfortunately, human, all-too-human. They say nice things about people they like, and badmouth those they dislike.
John Timoney’s “crime-fighting” method was the same one his immediate predecessors, Willie L. Williams (1988-1992) and Richard Neal (1992-1998) had used, and that he had learned under NYPD commissioners Ray Kelly (who served under socialist mayor, David N. Dinkins, and who is now, in his second tour of duty, “Republican” Mike Bloomberg’s commissioner) and William Bratton, and which Howard Safir continued unchanged, after Bratton and Timoney’s departure — the “revolution” of systemic, fraudulent, crime-reporting.
Timoney’s one “innovation” in Philadelphia was his immediate introduction of the “Compstat” (computer statistics) model that Bratton and his crime guru, the late detective Jack Maple, had introduced in New York. In theory, Compstat tracks concentrations of crime by neighborhood, day, and time of day, so that manpower may properly be re-allocated to where it is most needed. As the PPD web site explains, “The essence of the COMPSTAT process can be summarized briefly as follows: Collect, analyze and map crime data and other essential police performance measures on a regular basis and hold police managers accountable for their performance as measured by these data.” The web site breaks “The Philosophy of COMPSTAT” down into the essentials of “Accurate and Timely Intelligence,” “Effective Tactics,” “Rapid Deployment of Personnel and Resources” and “Relentless Follow-up and Assessment.”
It all sounds great, however, like all computer systems, Compstat is a “GIGO” — “garbage in, garbage out” — proposition, only as good as the inputted data. And Compstat is inseparable from a management culture which requires that commanders show constant, dramatic decreases in crime, or be publicly humiliated at regularly-held Compstat meetings, and see their careers stall.
Since policing is at present thoroughly politicized, Compstat has become, in practice, just another empty PR scheme, no better than the “community policing” model favored by socialists.
* * * When John Timoney finally decided to get out of the PPD, it wasn’t because of any scandal arising from fraudulent crime reporting, but rather a flukey throwback to Philly’s bad old days under thuggish police chief (1967-71) and mayor (1972-1980), Frank Rizzo, who once infamously remarked, “The streets are safe in Philadelphia, it’s only the people who make them unsafe.”
Last July 12, an ultraviolent, career felon named Thomas Jones, 30, went on a 24-hour crime spree, in which he allegedly stole three purses, committed a carjacking, and stole a police cruiser. When Jones was finally arrested, after police violated department regulations by firing over 40 shots at him in a residential neighborhood during the daytime, a small mob of predominantly black cops beat and kicked him on live TV.
Note that neighborhood people interviewed after the beating were supportive of Jones, and contemptuous of the cops.
Following the Jones incident, which received national attention, Mayor John Street affirmed his support for Timoney, and the Philadelphia Daily News satirized the closeness between the two men, by superimposing their faces over those of Jackie Gleason and Art Carney, under the front page headline, “The Honeymooners.” Even the local NAACP chief, while looking to get rich representing Jones in the obligatory, frivolous civil suit, spoke supportively of Timoney. But at a press conference, Street curtly cut Timoney off, and while Timoney joked to reporters that he might get fired tomorrow, he was apparently only half-kidding, and started shifting about to get out, while the getting was good.
Late last year, Timoney resigned to become CEO, in January, of Bo Dietl & Associates, the investigative and security company founded by the flamboyant, ex-NYPD detective.
So far, there has been no sign that Sylvester M. Johnson, the 36-year veteran first deputy commissioner appointed last month as Timoney’s successor, plans on changing a thing.
On April 13, at an NAACP training convention in Philadelphia, Mayor John Street shouted, “The brothers and sisters are running the city. Oh, yes. The brothers and sisters are running this city. Running it! Don’t let nobody fool you, we are in charge of the City of Brotherly Love . . .”
Oh, yes, Mayor Street. Nobody is being fooled.
May 12, 2002
Toogood Reports/A Different Drummer
Part II of a Two-Part Series
Part I: “The Philadelphia Story: When the Cops are Crooks”
Disarmed, frightened urban voters demand that violent malefactors be brought to heel. And yet, while urban crime is the monopoly of blacks and Hispanics, racist black and Hispanic “civilians” have joined with the mainstream media, to make cracking down on hardcore criminals political suicide for police brass. This impossible situation dictates that calls for crackdowns on violent crime be massaged with fraudulent crime statistics.
In my previous column, I talked about the Philadelphia Police Department’s penchant for hiring undesirables, based on the color of their skin, who as police officers commit crimes. The PPD’s other pressing problem is its whimsical approach to crime reporting. The Department has been repeatedly caught publishing fraudulent crime statistics, in order to fabricate the perception that crime is under control. Felonies are routinely downgraded to misdemeanors, non-crimes, or simply “disappeared.”
Much of Philadelphia’s crime-fighting success occurred on the watch of Dublin-born Commissioner John F. Timoney, formerly of the NYPD, who ran the PPD from March, 1998 through the end of last year. As a glowing 2000 biography by the American Immigration Law Foundation reported, “[Timoney] is widely credited, both within the Department and more widely, as having been one of the principal architects of the NYPD’s success in reducing crime in New York.”
Conversely, Debbie Goldberg reported in a December 1, 1998, Washington Post article that the crime-fighting method favored by the PPD was fraudulent crime statistic reporting. “‘It’s been an accepted practice over a long period of time,’ said a 25-year Philadelphia police veteran who spoke on condition of anonymity.
“‘There’s pressure to keep crime statistics down, and captains are held responsible for what goes on in their districts.’
“A typical example is a stolen license plate - a crime that should be reported to the FBI - logged as missing property because, he said, ‘it could have fallen off the car.’ Or when someone stabbed by a family member or friend does not prosecute, the crime may be downgraded from aggravated assault to a hospital case, which also is excluded from federal crime statistics, he said.”
In a U.S. News & World Report story from April 24, 2000, Frank McCoy reported that, “facing political heat to cut crime in the city, investigators in the Philadelphia Police Department’s sex-crime unit sat on [thousands of] reports of rapes and other sexual assaults. “The way we solved crime,” says Capt. Rich Costello, president of the local chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police, “was with an eraser.”
However, Frank McCoy’s story had a happy ending — then-Commissioner John Timoney got women’s groups involved in the “reform” of the sex crimes unit. In 2000, a limited investigation by the FBI and the city controller estimated that in 1998, the PPD had “failed to report between 13,000 and 37,000 major crimes.” FBI investigators randomly selected 1,000 police records, and investigators from the Controller’s Office interviewed 300 complainants, asking what them what their complaint had been, and comparing it to the report made by the officer in question. Police reports of “lost/stolen property,” a non-crime, for instance, turned out to frequently be cover stories for breaking-and-entering and grand larceny, which are felonies.
But the PPD’s home-grown specialty, unique to my knowledge among urban police departments, was the “unfounding” of sexual attacks. As a 2000 Philadelphia Inquirer report, “The Rape Squad Files” noted, from 1997-1999, of 300,000 sex crime reports, “The reports include several thousand incidents that were deemed ‘investigation of persons’ or ‘investigation, protection, medical examination’ — two non-crime codes often applied to allegations of sexual assault.”
Even some rapes carried out by the Rittenhouse Square serial rapist were “disappeared” in this way. Among other purposes, the PPD’s fudging of the rape rate helped make its rape arrest rates look much better than they really were.
When Philadelphia Inquirer reporters Mark Fazlollah and Craig R. McCoy wrote, on September 14, 2000, about the Controller’s Office/FBI investigation, Commissioner Timoney chided the report, claiming that it had used police reports based on a methodology that he had replaced since taking over the PPD in March, 1998. The reporters pointed out, however, that the majority of the cases in question were from the period AFTER Commissioner Timoney had supposedly “reformed” crime reporting procedures. The following year, with nothing having changed, a new Philadelphia Inquirer report observed that, “Among police, the practice is called ‘going down with crime.’“
John Timoney’s claim that the fraudulent crime statistics were the result of reporting methods he had since reformed, is the law enforcement equivalent of corporate executives fudging their profit margins by misrepresenting profits and losses, and when caught, claiming that bookkeeping anomalies are the result of obsolete “accounting practices” or a “one-time charge” against profits.
In fact, ever since the 1920s’ “Harlem Renaissance,” some (and today, a great many) whites have reached across racial lines, to cooperate with blacks in the service of black supremacism. John Timoney, for one, was as expert at massaging black egos, as he was at charming the media.
Timoney came to America at the age of 13, joined the NYPD in 1969, and stayed there for almost 30 years, rising to the rank of first deputy commissioner, the second in command to Commissioner William Bratton (1994-1996). Bratton, a Boston Irishman, was also adept at massaging the egos of racist black leaders, particularly leaders of the Nation of Islam, and to a lesser degree, at impressing newspaper editors.
Like Bratton, Timoney was a “good Irishman,” the antidote to both the “evil Irishman,” the racist, mad-dog lawman who targets black males, and to the “heartless bureaucrat,” a la Howard Safir, whom then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani chose over Timoney in 1996, to replace the departing William Bratton. An incensed Timoney denounced Safir as “a lightweight,” and promptly put in his retirement papers.
(Actually, Safir was a hard-nosed lawman who as a DEA agent had been in fire fights, shot men dead, and seen partners shot dead. But the modest Safir didn’t like to talk about his experiences. And instead of courting the media, he immediately offended them, by illegally banning top crime reporter Lenny Levitt of Newsday from his press conferences, and then suffering the humiliation of having to readmit Levitt. And while every New York City police commissioner serves at the pleasure of the mayor, politically sophisticated commissioners and would-be commissioners (i.e., Bratton and Timoney) today cultivate the illusion of independence that the media crave and demand.)
That the “good Irishman,” the “evil Irishman,” and the “heartless bureaucrat,” live only in the fantasies of racist black leaders, and socialist reporters and editors, takes nothing away from the fantasies’ political influence.
Timoney could tell stories, strike a conciliatory pose, and mock Safir and Giuliani alike, all of which endeared him to the reporters and editors who controlled his public image, and to the black (and to a lesser degree, feminist) leaders whose egos he had to constantly stroke. He won over new Mayor John Street so thoroughly, that Street, who is black, parted with tradition, in not naming his own police commissioner, and retained the white Timoney, even though the previous two commissioners had been black. And Timoney, who bragged that every crisis was a challenge, managed to turn journalists reporting on the department’s travails into cheerleaders.
Early in Timoney’s tenure (December 28, 1998), a Christian Science Monitor story by Andrea Fine, on Philly’s history of fraudulent crime statistics, became a valentine to Timoney’s reform efforts: “Policing the Record Books: Philadelphia Takes Lead in Cleaning Up Crime Statistics.”
Sixteen months later, national reporters still had not woken up and smelled the blarney. In an April 24, 2000 article, U.S. News’ Frank McCoy fell hook, line, and sinker for Timoney’s story that he was getting feminist groups to help him clean up the sex crime statistics: “Listening to the Victims: In Philadelphia, Women Help Solve Sex Crimes.”
Popular assumptions notwithstanding, reporters are, unfortunately, human, all-too-human. They say nice things about people they like, and badmouth those they dislike.
John Timoney’s “crime-fighting” method was the same one his immediate predecessors, Willie L. Williams (1988-1992) and Richard Neal (1992-1998) had used, and that he had learned under NYPD commissioners Ray Kelly (who served under socialist mayor, David N. Dinkins, and who is now, in his second tour of duty, “Republican” Mike Bloomberg’s commissioner) and William Bratton, and which Howard Safir continued unchanged, after Bratton and Timoney’s departure — the “revolution” of systemic, fraudulent, crime-reporting.
Timoney’s one “innovation” in Philadelphia was his immediate introduction of the “Compstat” (computer statistics) model that Bratton and his crime guru, the late detective Jack Maple, had introduced in New York. In theory, Compstat tracks concentrations of crime by neighborhood, day, and time of day, so that manpower may properly be re-allocated to where it is most needed. As the PPD web site explains, “The essence of the COMPSTAT process can be summarized briefly as follows: Collect, analyze and map crime data and other essential police performance measures on a regular basis and hold police managers accountable for their performance as measured by these data.” The web site breaks “The Philosophy of COMPSTAT” down into the essentials of “Accurate and Timely Intelligence,” “Effective Tactics,” “Rapid Deployment of Personnel and Resources” and “Relentless Follow-up and Assessment.”
It all sounds great, however, like all computer systems, Compstat is a “GIGO” — “garbage in, garbage out” — proposition, only as good as the inputted data. And Compstat is inseparable from a management culture which requires that commanders show constant, dramatic decreases in crime, or be publicly humiliated at regularly-held Compstat meetings, and see their careers stall.
Since policing is at present thoroughly politicized, Compstat has become, in practice, just another empty PR scheme, no better than the “community policing” model favored by socialists.
Last July 12, an ultraviolent, career felon named Thomas Jones, 30, went on a 24-hour crime spree, in which he allegedly stole three purses, committed a carjacking, and stole a police cruiser. When Jones was finally arrested, after police violated department regulations by firing over 40 shots at him in a residential neighborhood during the daytime, a small mob of predominantly black cops beat and kicked him on live TV.
Note that neighborhood people interviewed after the beating were supportive of Jones, and contemptuous of the cops.
Following the Jones incident, which received national attention, Mayor John Street affirmed his support for Timoney, and the Philadelphia Daily News satirized the closeness between the two men, by superimposing their faces over those of Jackie Gleason and Art Carney, under the front page headline, “The Honeymooners.” Even the local NAACP chief, while looking to get rich representing Jones in the obligatory, frivolous civil suit, spoke supportively of Timoney. But at a press conference, Street curtly cut Timoney off, and while Timoney joked to reporters that he might get fired tomorrow, he was apparently only half-kidding, and started shifting about to get out, while the getting was good.
Late last year, Timoney resigned to become CEO, in January, of Bo Dietl & Associates, the investigative and security company founded by the flamboyant, ex-NYPD detective.
So far, there has been no sign that Sylvester M. Johnson, the 36-year veteran first deputy commissioner appointed last month as Timoney’s successor, plans on changing a thing.
On April 13, at an NAACP training convention in Philadelphia, Mayor John Street shouted, “The brothers and sisters are running the city. Oh, yes. The brothers and sisters are running this city. Running it! Don’t let nobody fool you, we are in charge of the City of Brotherly Love . . .”
Oh, yes, Mayor Street. Nobody is being fooled.
Father's Day, 2010
I hope that all of the fathers among my readers enjoyed a happy, healthy Father's Day yesterday, as did I.
Nicholas Stix
Sunday, June 20, 2010
The Philadelphia Story: When the Cops are Crooks
By Nicholas Stix
May 3, 2002
Toogood Reports/A Different Drummer
Part I of a Two-Part Series
Part II: “Solving Philly Crime with an Eraser: The “Good Irishman” and the Race Man
What do you call someone who plays an impromptu game of "show-and-tell," by passing a pistol around a room full of nine and ten-year-olds, and upon getting it back, re-loads it, drops it, and while picking it up, fires the weapon, coming within an inch of killing a child?
And what do you call someone who habitually lies about crime, in misrepresenting felonies as misdemeanors, or even as non-crimes?
In Philadelphia, in both cases, the answer is, "Officer."
Later this month, Officer Vanessa Carter-Moragne (also spelled Carter-Morange), of the Philadelphia Police Department (PPD), will have a Board of Inquiry hearing. On February 6, Office Carter-Moragne, 39, grazed ten-year-old James Reeves in the cheek when she accidentally fired her service weapon in James' classroom. James received five stitches at Temple University Children's Hospital.
In a world of defined-down standards, I suppose we should be satisfied that the shooting wasn't deliberate, and that there were no fatalities.
So many things stink about this incident, it's hard to know where to begin. Officer Carter-Morange, a police officer since 1996, violated every rule of gun safety, including those imposed by the Philadelphia Police Department and the Philadelphia public schools. The second of the universal gun safety rules enumerated at the Americans for Gun Safety web site, is "Treat every firearm as if it is loaded." Always. One of the many implications of the foregoing rule, is that there is no playing "show-and-tell" with a firearm.
The incident occurred at the Imani Education Circle Charter School. Because Imani is a charter school, Philadelphia's public school rules prohibiting drawing guns in school (in non-emergency situations) don't apply. Thus, Officer Carter-Morange didn't violate any school (as opposed to PPD) rules, because there weren't any to break. Imani Circle Charter is a racially segregated, Afrocentric school.
(Charter schools are nominally private, but are not subject to market discipline. They are run entirely through tax dollars, yet are subject to no public oversight. Thus, as far as I can see, they combine the worst aspects of public and private schools.)
As PPD Capt. Edward Chiodetti remarked, albeit in the passive, Clintonian voice, "The gun should not have been pulled out." Barbara Boyer and Thomas J. Gibbons Jr. reported in the February 6 Philadelphia Inquirer, "Capt. Edward Chiodetti said that about 3 p.m., the officer went to the school to pick up her son and was interacting with the students in the boy's classroom. Chiodetti said the children first wanted to see her badge, which she displayed, and then asked to see her weapon, a 9 mm Glock semiautomatic.
"Officials said the officer removed the clip from the weapon and then passed it among the children. Although a clip, which contains the bullets, is removed, a round can remain in the chamber unless it is removed separately. [Hence the rule, to treat every gun as if it were loaded!]
"A girl who was among the 23 children in the classroom at the time of the incident, 9-year-old Aatiqah Johnson, said: 'Everybody was passing it around.'"
After the weapon was returned to Officer Carter-Morange, she dropped it, and then, as Aatiqah Johnson reported, "She accidentally pulled the trigger."
By all rights, Officer Carter-Morange should be fired and prosecuted for reckless endangerment, and for endangering the welfare of a child. She may not be a vicious person, but she is clearly a menace to society. However, I'm laying odds that Carter-Morange will keep her freedom and her job, getting off with a reprimand, and perhaps, a brief suspension. In fact, Vanessa Carter-Morange doesn't even rank very high among the PPD's problems.
Take officers Gina McFadden and Dawn Norman. Please. Last October 18, Officer McFadden (then 25 years old), spread an anthrax hoax through her squad car computer. Newspaper reports said that the message was obscenity-laden, and praised Islam, but withheld the juicy particulars, publishing only, "We don't care ... We can't stand America. We have anthrax in our car ..."
Although the hoax was all Officer McFadden's doing, Officer Norman, then also 25, did nothing to talk her out of it, and lied to her superiors, in seeking to protect her partner. When the message was traced to their squad car, both officers insisted to their bosses, that they had been out of the car at the time. Thus did the city waste money and precious resources, treating the incident as a legitimate anthrax threat, before determining that only the two officers' fingerprints were present in the car.
(None of the many reports I read noted anything peculiar about the patrol car's being clean of any but the officers' fingerprints. The squad car of active officers will contain countless fingerprints from suspects under arrest, crime victims, and fellow officers.)
Officers McFadden and Norman were suspended, and later dismissed from the force. Joann Loviglio of the Associated Press reported last November 20, that "The women could be sentenced to up to 46 years in jail if convicted on all nine charges against each, including felony counts of criminal mischief and criminal conspiracy and misdemeanor counts of terroristic threats and making false reports, [Philadelphia D.A. Lynn] Abraham said." But they probably won't serve a day in jail.
In case you suspect that Gina McFadden and Dawn Norman are aberrations, note that PPD spokeswoman, Stephanie McNeil, told me that in 2001, "We had 26 police officers dismissed from the department" for engaging in criminal acts. Some of those rogue officers had previously been dismissed, and reinstated.
A November 21 AP report quoted Jim Pasco, the executive director of the national police union, the Fraternal Order of Police, as blaming poor recruitment and hiring decisions: "Making better recruitment and hiring decisions on the front end would ease the embarrassment of having to fire officers on the back end."
"'What we need to do is look at the breakdown in recruitment and hiring that allows them to get on the police force in the first place," Pasco said. "In almost all incidents, someone who is a lawbreaker after being hired had something in their background that was a red flag.
"When departments rush through background investigations of police recruits, people who shouldn't be officers are sometimes accepted onto the force. He said an accelerated hiring policy and poor background checks in the Washington, D.C., police department led to the 'Notorious Class of '89.' Over time, more than two dozen officers from that class were arrested and sent to prison for a variety of crimes."
Similar scandals plagued the Miami-Dade Police Department at about the same time, and for the same reasons.
Philadelphia police spokesman Lt. David Yarnell told AP, "We have mechanisms in place to spot these officers' behavior on the force. But it is 'essential' that problems are spotted before someone is recruited."
Lt. Yarnell was being diplomatic. Even if "problems" are spotted, they are unlikely to be solved, until they have become scandals. In the PPD, race-based hiring has apparently gone farther down the slippery slope than in New York. And yet, as far back as 1992, a psychologist who was a consultant to the New York City Police Academy told me, "It's incredible, the pressure to pass people, just because they're minorities. It's all racial. They push, push, push, with people who are inappropriate and are often antisocial themselves."
May 3, 2002
Toogood Reports/A Different Drummer
Part I of a Two-Part Series
Part II: “Solving Philly Crime with an Eraser: The “Good Irishman” and the Race Man
What do you call someone who plays an impromptu game of "show-and-tell," by passing a pistol around a room full of nine and ten-year-olds, and upon getting it back, re-loads it, drops it, and while picking it up, fires the weapon, coming within an inch of killing a child?
And what do you call someone who habitually lies about crime, in misrepresenting felonies as misdemeanors, or even as non-crimes?
In Philadelphia, in both cases, the answer is, "Officer."
Later this month, Officer Vanessa Carter-Moragne (also spelled Carter-Morange), of the Philadelphia Police Department (PPD), will have a Board of Inquiry hearing. On February 6, Office Carter-Moragne, 39, grazed ten-year-old James Reeves in the cheek when she accidentally fired her service weapon in James' classroom. James received five stitches at Temple University Children's Hospital.
In a world of defined-down standards, I suppose we should be satisfied that the shooting wasn't deliberate, and that there were no fatalities.
So many things stink about this incident, it's hard to know where to begin. Officer Carter-Morange, a police officer since 1996, violated every rule of gun safety, including those imposed by the Philadelphia Police Department and the Philadelphia public schools. The second of the universal gun safety rules enumerated at the Americans for Gun Safety web site, is "Treat every firearm as if it is loaded." Always. One of the many implications of the foregoing rule, is that there is no playing "show-and-tell" with a firearm.
The incident occurred at the Imani Education Circle Charter School. Because Imani is a charter school, Philadelphia's public school rules prohibiting drawing guns in school (in non-emergency situations) don't apply. Thus, Officer Carter-Morange didn't violate any school (as opposed to PPD) rules, because there weren't any to break. Imani Circle Charter is a racially segregated, Afrocentric school.
(Charter schools are nominally private, but are not subject to market discipline. They are run entirely through tax dollars, yet are subject to no public oversight. Thus, as far as I can see, they combine the worst aspects of public and private schools.)
As PPD Capt. Edward Chiodetti remarked, albeit in the passive, Clintonian voice, "The gun should not have been pulled out." Barbara Boyer and Thomas J. Gibbons Jr. reported in the February 6 Philadelphia Inquirer, "Capt. Edward Chiodetti said that about 3 p.m., the officer went to the school to pick up her son and was interacting with the students in the boy's classroom. Chiodetti said the children first wanted to see her badge, which she displayed, and then asked to see her weapon, a 9 mm Glock semiautomatic.
"Officials said the officer removed the clip from the weapon and then passed it among the children. Although a clip, which contains the bullets, is removed, a round can remain in the chamber unless it is removed separately. [Hence the rule, to treat every gun as if it were loaded!]
"A girl who was among the 23 children in the classroom at the time of the incident, 9-year-old Aatiqah Johnson, said: 'Everybody was passing it around.'"
After the weapon was returned to Officer Carter-Morange, she dropped it, and then, as Aatiqah Johnson reported, "She accidentally pulled the trigger."
By all rights, Officer Carter-Morange should be fired and prosecuted for reckless endangerment, and for endangering the welfare of a child. She may not be a vicious person, but she is clearly a menace to society. However, I'm laying odds that Carter-Morange will keep her freedom and her job, getting off with a reprimand, and perhaps, a brief suspension. In fact, Vanessa Carter-Morange doesn't even rank very high among the PPD's problems.
Take officers Gina McFadden and Dawn Norman. Please. Last October 18, Officer McFadden (then 25 years old), spread an anthrax hoax through her squad car computer. Newspaper reports said that the message was obscenity-laden, and praised Islam, but withheld the juicy particulars, publishing only, "We don't care ... We can't stand America. We have anthrax in our car ..."
Although the hoax was all Officer McFadden's doing, Officer Norman, then also 25, did nothing to talk her out of it, and lied to her superiors, in seeking to protect her partner. When the message was traced to their squad car, both officers insisted to their bosses, that they had been out of the car at the time. Thus did the city waste money and precious resources, treating the incident as a legitimate anthrax threat, before determining that only the two officers' fingerprints were present in the car.
(None of the many reports I read noted anything peculiar about the patrol car's being clean of any but the officers' fingerprints. The squad car of active officers will contain countless fingerprints from suspects under arrest, crime victims, and fellow officers.)
Officers McFadden and Norman were suspended, and later dismissed from the force. Joann Loviglio of the Associated Press reported last November 20, that "The women could be sentenced to up to 46 years in jail if convicted on all nine charges against each, including felony counts of criminal mischief and criminal conspiracy and misdemeanor counts of terroristic threats and making false reports, [Philadelphia D.A. Lynn] Abraham said." But they probably won't serve a day in jail.
In case you suspect that Gina McFadden and Dawn Norman are aberrations, note that PPD spokeswoman, Stephanie McNeil, told me that in 2001, "We had 26 police officers dismissed from the department" for engaging in criminal acts. Some of those rogue officers had previously been dismissed, and reinstated.
A November 21 AP report quoted Jim Pasco, the executive director of the national police union, the Fraternal Order of Police, as blaming poor recruitment and hiring decisions: "Making better recruitment and hiring decisions on the front end would ease the embarrassment of having to fire officers on the back end."
"'What we need to do is look at the breakdown in recruitment and hiring that allows them to get on the police force in the first place," Pasco said. "In almost all incidents, someone who is a lawbreaker after being hired had something in their background that was a red flag.
"When departments rush through background investigations of police recruits, people who shouldn't be officers are sometimes accepted onto the force. He said an accelerated hiring policy and poor background checks in the Washington, D.C., police department led to the 'Notorious Class of '89.' Over time, more than two dozen officers from that class were arrested and sent to prison for a variety of crimes."
Similar scandals plagued the Miami-Dade Police Department at about the same time, and for the same reasons.
Philadelphia police spokesman Lt. David Yarnell told AP, "We have mechanisms in place to spot these officers' behavior on the force. But it is 'essential' that problems are spotted before someone is recruited."
Lt. Yarnell was being diplomatic. Even if "problems" are spotted, they are unlikely to be solved, until they have become scandals. In the PPD, race-based hiring has apparently gone farther down the slippery slope than in New York. And yet, as far back as 1992, a psychologist who was a consultant to the New York City Police Academy told me, "It's incredible, the pressure to pass people, just because they're minorities. It's all racial. They push, push, push, with people who are inappropriate and are often antisocial themselves."
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Moslems Behaving Badly: The Iraq Honor Killing Story that AOL News and the San Francisco Chronicle Don’t Want Americans to Read
By Nicholas Stix
Earlier today, I read an AP story about Elena Kagan, the current U.S. Supreme Court nominee of the John Doe calling himself “Barack Obama.”
I’d opened the story either yesterday, or in the wee small hours of the morning today, while working on my previous column, “AOL Continues Total Censorship Comments Policy…”
The story was one of the many links on the right side of the page, with the unambiguous title, “Son kills father who translated for US in Iraq.” Even the link was unambiguous: http://www.aolnews.com/story/son-kills-father-who-translated-for-us/806553?cid=12
But if you hit the link, you will now be taken to a completely different AP story, “Anger over power cuts leads to violence in Iraq,” by Hadeel Al-Shalchi and Bushra Juhi:
I don’t get it. The censors at AOL News replaced one story about Moslem barbarism with another story about Moslem barbarism.
Let’s look at the original story, at Yahoo! News, which does not keep stories up for long.
Oh. I get it now. The first story was of Moslems behaving like Moslems, while the second story was of Moslems behaving like heroic American blacks protesting in Selma and Birmingham, AL for their piece of the flag, a la the media and academic machinery-created mythology of the civil rights movement.
Except of course, for that little Islamic detour about the Moslem gunmen murdering the irrigation department worker and three members of his family. But that’s just normal, right? I mean, if your neighborhood gets shorted on water, you just murder a water worker and his family. (Well, that’s if you’re a member of “a protected group”; if you’re a normal, white, heterosexual guy and do that, you’re a mass murderer.)
The 48-word paragraph can be excised without having to change a thing, otherwise. Indeed, some media outlets apparently did just that.
“BAGHDAD -A protest over electricity shortages in oil-rich southern Iraq turned deadly” turns up 411 results at Google, but “In another case of anger boiling over into violence, gunmen killed an employee” turns up but 4 hits at Google. (Actually, I can’t be sure if it was the news outlets or Google itself that suppressed this part of the story, because if you give it a second try, and hit “In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 4 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included,” you get 406 hits.)
And of course, the original story shows all that sectarian Moslem killing. You just can’t tell typical white Americans about all that. They can’t be trusted to draw the proper conclusions. The MSM know better. That’s why they normally refuse to report nationally on black racist violence, and denounce anyone who does (like yours truly) as a “white supremacist.”
For all of the virtues of the Internet, the disappearing of this story points up one of its gravest shortcomings: It serves as the greatest memory hole ever invented. All a censor need do is to delete a story and replace it with a different one, at the same URL. (Some NYPD precincts have been caught doing the same thing, recycling police report forms, so that previous crimes are “disappeared” and replaced with newer ones, but working with paper leaves messy erasures.) Fortunately, the evidence for AOL’s censorship is in the URL itself. AOL News, like some other media outlets, has gone over to the blog-style system for generating URLs based on a story’s title, rather than through the older system of randomly generated numbers. That’s good for journalists who want to catch the propaganda provider in misdeeds. (The Chronicle uses the old, randomly-generated system, but the news story nevertheless came up, when I punched in the quote from its predecessor at Google.)
The question remains, as to who caused AOL News and the Chronicle to “disappear” the story. Did a Moslem terrorist front, such as CAIR complain? Did an anti-Western newsroom enforcer complain? Did the White House complain? Well, you can forget about getting a straight answer from the propaganda organizations; you might just as well rely on David Axelrod and his gang in the Left Wing. But you can still complain about their shenanigans. They can’t have you thrown in jail for that … yet.
Chief Censors
San Francisco Chronicle
Ward H. Bushee, executive vice president and editor
901 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94103
Phone: 415-777-1111
AOL News
Tim Armstrong, AOL president & CEO
AOL Inc
770 Broadway
4th Floor New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 652-6400
Mike Nizza, acting editor-in-chief
Claire Robinson, managing editor
(Press time update: The Kagan story has also been disappeared! Look at the URL:
http://www.aolnews.com/story/in-kagans-e-mails-politics-often-trumps/1076061?cid=10
The original story was titled, “In e-mails, politics often trumps policy.” It has been replaced by “Kagan unscathed by revelations from past.”)
Earlier today, I read an AP story about Elena Kagan, the current U.S. Supreme Court nominee of the John Doe calling himself “Barack Obama.”
I’d opened the story either yesterday, or in the wee small hours of the morning today, while working on my previous column, “AOL Continues Total Censorship Comments Policy…”
The story was one of the many links on the right side of the page, with the unambiguous title, “Son kills father who translated for US in Iraq.” Even the link was unambiguous: http://www.aolnews.com/story/son-kills-father-who-translated-for-us/806553?cid=12
But if you hit the link, you will now be taken to a completely different AP story, “Anger over power cuts leads to violence in Iraq,” by Hadeel Al-Shalchi and Bushra Juhi:
BAGHDAD -A protest over electricity shortages in oil-rich southern Iraq turned deadly when police opened fire to disperse the crowd on Saturday, killing one protester in a melee that warned of growing anger over the government's failure to provide basic services.
More than 3,000 protesters marched through Basra, which suffers from searing summer temperatures that can reach 120 degrees (50 degrees Celsius) and high humidity. They carried banners and chanted angry slogans demanding a solution to the power cuts that persist despite billions of dollars in reconstruction money since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
It was a scene that has become more frequent across the nation as patience wears thin among Iraqis struggling to cope with less than six hours of electricity a day.
But the demonstration turned violent when protesters started throwing stones and advanced on the Basra provincial council building, setting fire to a guard's cabin and prompting government security forces to fire into the air to disperse the crowd.
Police and hospital officials said one man was killed and three others wounded.
The Iraqi public has become increasingly frustrated over the government's inability to provide power, clean water and other utilities despite security gains that have led to a sharp drop in war-related violence in recent years.
In another case of anger boiling over into violence, gunmen killed an employee of a local irrigation department and three of his family members Friday west of Baghdad — the latest in a series of attacks stemming from a tribal dispute over water distribution in the Abu Ghraib area.
Within hours of the protester's death in Basra, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered a delegation of officials to Basra to address their concerns. He urged restraint, saying those responsible for the shortage would be punished, but he didn't spell out how the stubbornly persistent problem would be remedied.
Provincial council member Ahmed al-Suleiti said the governor would form a committee to investigate the protester's death.
Complicating the issue is the failure of Iraq's politicians to reach agreement on a new government more than three months after inconclusive March 7 elections.
Iraq's electrical woes have long been a source of discontent among the public, with Iraqi families forced to spend more than $50 a month on private generators to make up for the frequent power outages. But many can't afford the cost, leading them to pilfer electricity from other buildings and government offices.
The decline of the electrical grid began during the 1991 Gulf War, when it was targeted by U.S. warplanes. Facilities were further damaged during the 2003 invasion and the subsequent looting and insurgent attacks.
U.S. Army engineers tried to fix the grid immediately after Saddam Hussein's ouster, but the effort foundered in the face of barely operating power plants suffering from years of neglect brought on by wars and U.N. trade sanctions.
Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, 340 miles (550 kilometers) southeast of Baghdad, has an average of less than two hours of electricity a day, according to Ziyad Ali, head of the provincial council's electricity committee. Without even fans to cool them people spend exhausting, sleepless nights on their roofs or in their gardens to escape the heat.
The Ministry of Electricity said power generation was supposed to get a boost in mid-June after an overhaul of several power stations. But the program faced several unexpected problems, including one station in Basra that went off line.
"This maintenance program was supposed to raise the electricity production, but we were faced with several unexpected problems," ministry spokesman Ibrahim Zeidan said.
Officials also have blamed a delay in the fuel imported from Kuwait and Iraq needed for the power plants. Zeidan said his ministry needs about 2.4 million gallons (9 million liters) of fuel a day to generate power but the Oil Ministry is providing less than 670,000 gallons (2.5 million liters).
Zeidan said there was also a lack of coordination and cooperation between the provincial council and the electricity officials in Basra, and fairer distribution plan for the city's residential areas needed to be drawn up.
The topic has even come in the weekly Friday sermons.
An aide to Iraq's most revered Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, called for a "partial solution" to be found to alleviate the suffering of people this summer, saying the problem was shaking people's trust in officials.
"Let the officials feel the suffering of the people and try to live 18 or 20 hours without electricity," Sheik Abdul-Mahdi al-Karbalaie said during his sermon Friday in Karbala. "If they do so they will try to find a quick solution to the problem."
—
Associated Press Writer Sameer N. Yacoub contributed to this report.
I don’t get it. The censors at AOL News replaced one story about Moslem barbarism with another story about Moslem barbarism.
Let’s look at the original story, at Yahoo! News, which does not keep stories up for long.
Son kills father who translated for US in Iraq
By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer – Fri Jun 18, 7:09 pm ET
BAGHDAD – An al-Qaida-linked insurgent shot and killed his own father as he slept in his bed Friday for refusing to quit his job as an Iraqi interpreter for the U.S. military, police said, a rare deadly attack on a close family member over allegations of collaborating with the enemy.
The attack happened on a particularly bloody day in Iraq, with at least 27 people killed nationwide in bombings and ambushes largely targeting the houses of government officials, Iraqi security forces and those seen as allied with them.
Hameed al-Daraji, 50, worked as a contractor and translator for the U.S. military for seven years since shortly after the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003.
He was shot in the chest about 3 a.m. while sleeping in his house in Samarra, a former insurgent stronghold 60 miles (95 kilometers) north of Baghdad, police Lt. Emad Muhsin said.
Authorities arrested the son and his cousin, saying the young men apparently were trying to prove their loyalty after rejoining the insurgency. Police were also looking for another son who allegedly took part in the attack.
Citing confessions, police said the son whom they arrested, Abdul-Halim Hameed, 30, was a former member of al-Qaida in Iraq who quit the terror network in mid-2007 under pressure from U.S.-Iraqi security operations that have led to a sharp drop in violence in the area.
Col. Hazim Ali, a senior security official in Samarra, said Hameed, his 19-year-old cousin and 24-year-old brother remained committed to extremist causes.
With U.S. troops withdrawing from the country, Ansar al-Sunnah, an insurgent group with ties to al-Qaida, recently lured the men into their ranks with offers of hard cash, Ali said.
The U.S. military said it was looking into the report.
The Samarra assault brought into focus the fears of Iraqis who have worked with the Americans and are worried they'll face renewed violence as their employers prepare to leave the country by the end of next year.
Already, many have been targeted by extremist groups who view them as traitors. But Iraqis could not think of another case in which a family member killed an immediate relative because of his or her employment with the Americans in this country.
Such attacks have happened elsewhere, though.
Several suspected collaborators have been killed by relatives in recent years in the Gaza Strip in an attempt to clear the family name. Most recently, three alleged informers for Israel were killed by family members after busting out of Gaza's central prison during Israel's military offensive against Gaza in the winter of 2008-2009.
Samarra, in the Sunni heartland north of Baghdad, has been one of the hardest areas to control since the U.S.-led invasion. It was the site of the February 2006 bombing that destroyed a revered golden-domed Shiite mosque, sparking a wave of retaliatory sectarian violence that pushed the country to the brink of civil war.
The area has been relatively peaceful since local tribal leaders revolted against al-Qaida in Iraq, but Ali said sleeper cells were waiting for the chance to regroup.
"Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups are trying to recruit some young people in order to carry out attacks in an apparent attempt to show that they are still active," Ali said.
In other violence Friday, gunmen ambushed a checkpoint near the Anbar province town of Qaim, a former insurgent stronghold near the Syrian border, killing seven Iraqi soldiers, according to police, hospital and provincial officials.
They said the gunmen shot an eighth soldier several times but left him alive "to convey a message to the Iraqi army."
Provincial council member Sheik Efan Saadoun blamed the attack on a decision to replace police with Iraqi soldiers who are less familiar with the local surroundings.
Meanwhile, car bombs targeting a police captain and a provincial council member tore through two restive cities north of Baghdad.
One blew up in the city of Tuz Khormato about 50 yards (meters) from the house of Niazi Mohammed, an ethnic Turkomen member of the Salahuddin provincial council, according to police.
City police chief Col. Hussein Ali blamed al-Qaida for the attack, which killed at least eight people and wounded 69. A second car bomb was discovered about 100 yards (meters) from the blast site, but it did not explode, Ali said.
Another blast targeted the house of police Capt. Mustafa Mohammed in the city of Baqouba, killing two neighbors and wounding 27 other people, including some of the officer's relatives, police said.
Hours later in the Sunni district of Abu Ghraib, west of Baghdad, a bomb exploded at the gate of a house, killing a man and two women who sold tea and water to soldiers at a nearby Iraqi army checkpoint, according to police and hospital officials.
Police said the residents had ignored insurgent warnings to cut off relations with the soldiers.
In a separate attack in Abu Ghraib, gunmen killed an employee of a local irrigation department, 40-year-old Faisal Hassan, his wife and two children as part of an apparent tribal dispute over water distribution, officials said.
Also Friday, two rockets slammed into a group of houses near the Baghdad International Airport, killing two people and wounding eight, police said.
___
Associated Press Writers Sameer N. Yacoub in Baghdad and Ibrahim Barzak in Gaza City contributed to this report, as did an AP employee in Tikrit, Iraq.
Oh. I get it now. The first story was of Moslems behaving like Moslems, while the second story was of Moslems behaving like heroic American blacks protesting in Selma and Birmingham, AL for their piece of the flag, a la the media and academic machinery-created mythology of the civil rights movement.
Except of course, for that little Islamic detour about the Moslem gunmen murdering the irrigation department worker and three members of his family. But that’s just normal, right? I mean, if your neighborhood gets shorted on water, you just murder a water worker and his family. (Well, that’s if you’re a member of “a protected group”; if you’re a normal, white, heterosexual guy and do that, you’re a mass murderer.)
The 48-word paragraph can be excised without having to change a thing, otherwise. Indeed, some media outlets apparently did just that.
“BAGHDAD -A protest over electricity shortages in oil-rich southern Iraq turned deadly” turns up 411 results at Google, but “In another case of anger boiling over into violence, gunmen killed an employee” turns up but 4 hits at Google. (Actually, I can’t be sure if it was the news outlets or Google itself that suppressed this part of the story, because if you give it a second try, and hit “In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 4 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included,” you get 406 hits.)
And of course, the original story shows all that sectarian Moslem killing. You just can’t tell typical white Americans about all that. They can’t be trusted to draw the proper conclusions. The MSM know better. That’s why they normally refuse to report nationally on black racist violence, and denounce anyone who does (like yours truly) as a “white supremacist.”
For all of the virtues of the Internet, the disappearing of this story points up one of its gravest shortcomings: It serves as the greatest memory hole ever invented. All a censor need do is to delete a story and replace it with a different one, at the same URL. (Some NYPD precincts have been caught doing the same thing, recycling police report forms, so that previous crimes are “disappeared” and replaced with newer ones, but working with paper leaves messy erasures.) Fortunately, the evidence for AOL’s censorship is in the URL itself. AOL News, like some other media outlets, has gone over to the blog-style system for generating URLs based on a story’s title, rather than through the older system of randomly generated numbers. That’s good for journalists who want to catch the propaganda provider in misdeeds. (The Chronicle uses the old, randomly-generated system, but the news story nevertheless came up, when I punched in the quote from its predecessor at Google.)
The question remains, as to who caused AOL News and the Chronicle to “disappear” the story. Did a Moslem terrorist front, such as CAIR complain? Did an anti-Western newsroom enforcer complain? Did the White House complain? Well, you can forget about getting a straight answer from the propaganda organizations; you might just as well rely on David Axelrod and his gang in the Left Wing. But you can still complain about their shenanigans. They can’t have you thrown in jail for that … yet.
Chief Censors
San Francisco Chronicle
Ward H. Bushee, executive vice president and editor
901 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94103
Phone: 415-777-1111
AOL News
Tim Armstrong, AOL president & CEO
AOL Inc
770 Broadway
4th Floor New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 652-6400
Mike Nizza, acting editor-in-chief
Claire Robinson, managing editor
(Press time update: The Kagan story has also been disappeared! Look at the URL:
http://www.aolnews.com/story/in-kagans-e-mails-politics-often-trumps/1076061?cid=10
The original story was titled, “In e-mails, politics often trumps policy.” It has been replaced by “Kagan unscathed by revelations from past.”)