Thursday, September 30, 2010

Dick Morris: Obliterating a Generation of Democrats

By Nicholas Stix

Dick Morris is predicting possibly the biggest Democratic bloodbath ever, in November.

Thanks to the leadership of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, the Democratic Party is facing the biggest defeat in midterm elections in the past 110 years, perhaps surpassing the modern record of a 74-seat gain set in 1922. They will also lose control of the Senate.

And he’s got lots of company. Why, some crack Republican analysts are already talking about how the party will increase its 2010 gains in the 2012 election, resulting in “a filibuster-proof Senate.”

Three problems arise with this scenario: Specifically, regarding Morris, his constant predictions rarely turn out right. (I don’t know who’s a worse handicapper: Morris or the New York Times’ Tom Friedman.) You’re better off flipping a coin. Second, the Republicans and their friends (Morris is a political chameleon) have a recent history of suffering from premature celebration, and then quitting. And third, the John Doe calling himself “Barack Obama” has at his disposal the biggest vote fraud and vote suppression machine, this side of Zimbabwe (ACORN, SEIU, the New Black Panther Party, etc.).

Do Republicans have the grit to ferret out vote fraud, clear out the black supremacist gangsters, demand and get election officials to check “voters’” ID, and not be intimidated by the now routine Democrat/MSM hoax, asserting that white men with guns suppressed the black and Hispanic vote? Because if they don’t have what it takes, they can kiss their ‘historic victory’ goodbye. In that case, we will instead hear of “miraculous” Democratic comebacks, the way we heard of “Obama’s” amazing victories in all of the early caucuses in 2008.

I have much more faith in my ten-year-old’s ability to ensure an honest election, than I do in the professional “experts” in charge of the Republican Party.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

“Peter Brimelow practices female genital mutilation"!

By Nicholas Stix

Read the charge here.

Of course, if Peter were black, there’d be nothing wrong with that. Then again, if there is no such thing as race, which is merely a “social construct,” maybe Peter is black, in which case he can go on, allegedly mutilating (or as Essence magazine calls it, “circumcising”) females’ genitals, to his heart’s content.

Isn’t education wonderful?

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

In Honor of Molly Norris: Reprinting the Mohammed Files

By Nicholas Stix

Molly Norris is the Seattle-based newspaper cartoonist who inspired "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day" with a poster she drew, in response to Moslem death threats (a fatwa) against South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, after they censored an episode of their show that was supposed to depict the founder of Islam.

A fatwa against Norris has led to her quitting her job, and going into hiding, with a new identity, with the help of the FBI. (I’m surprised AG Eric Holder permitted protection to a white with the wrong politics.) The funny thing is, Norris had quickly backed off her initially bold position. But for bellicose Moslems—like bellicose blacks—no amount of groveling is ever enough.

The newest wrinkle in Norris’ case is that a group of American Moslems has signed a petition defending the First Amendment rights of Norris, Parker, Stone, and the signatories. Will wonders never cease!

We, the undersigned, unconditionally condemn any intimidation or threats of violence directed against any individual or group exercising the rights of freedom of religion and speech; even when that speech may be perceived as hurtful or reprehensible.

We are concerned and saddened by the recent wave of vitriolic anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic sentiment that is being expressed across our nation.
We are even more concerned and saddened by threats that have been made against individual writers, cartoonists, and others by a minority of Muslims. We see these as a greater offense against Islam than any cartoon, Qur’an burning, or other speech could ever be deemed.

We affirm the right of free speech for Molly Norris, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and all others including ourselves.

As Muslims, we must set an example of justice, patience, tolerance, respect, and forgiveness.

The Qur’an enjoins Muslims to:

* bear witness to Islam through our good example (2:143);
* restrain anger and pardon people (3:133-134 and 24:22);
* remain patient in adversity (3186);
* stand firmly for justice (4:135);
* not let the hatred of others swerve us from justice (5:8);
* respect the sanctity of life (5:32);
* turn away from those who mock Islam (6:68 and 28:55);
* hold to forgiveness, command what is right, and turn away from the ignorant (7:199);
* restrain ourselves from rash responses (16:125-128);
* pass by worthless talk with dignity (25:72); and
* repel evil with what is better (41:34)….

April 22, 2010

Partially Censored South Park Muhammad Episode

South Park Muhammad episode censored
US Muslim group warns creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker

[It is blasphemy, punishable by death, to show pictures of Matt and Trey!]

Alexandra Topping and agencies, Thursday 22 April 2010 11.14 BST
Article history

South Park is not known as a show that shies away from controversy, but last night its creators appeared to bow to threats of violence from a US Muslim group by censoring a typically irreverent episode about religious leaders, including Muhammad.

Wednesday night's show was labelled with the word "Censored" after the words Prophet Muhammad were beeped out during broadcast and images of the prophet in a bear outfit were substituted with ones of Santa Claus in the same costume.

But whether the changes were intended to acquiesce to the threats, or make fun of them, was not immediately clear. In the first part of the 200th episode screened last week, Muhammad appeared several times inside a bear suit, while the leaders of other religions were also depicted irreverently, including a scene which showed Buddha snorting drugs.

Before last night's show was aired, Islamists warned its creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, they could face severe retribution for repeating the depiction of Muhammad in costume.

A posting on the website of the US-based group, Revolution Muslim, warned Stone and Parker they would "probably wind up like Theo van Gogh" if the images were broadcast.

It posted a graphic photo of Van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was stabbed to death in 2004 by an Islamic militant over a movie he had made that accused Islam of condoning violence against women. The post, which has since been removed, also included a link to a news article which contained details of a house in Colorado that the writers are thought to co-own and listed the addresses of Comedy Central's New York office and the show's production office in California.

Written under the name Abu Talhah al-Amrikee, the post said: "We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

Amrikee later said the posting was not an incitement to violence but had been published to raise awareness of the issue and to prevent it happening again.

Asked if Parker and Stone should feel threatened by it, he said "they should feel threatened by what they did". He said he was disappointed that commentary on the posting had focused on the potential danger to the producers, but admitted, "I could shoulder some blame".

It is not the first time Stone and Parker have faced calls to censor their work. In 2006, Comedy Central prevented Stone and Parker from showing an image of Muhammad in an episode designed to comment on the Danish Prophet Muhammad cartoon, which sparked worldwide protests. The majority of Muslims consider any physical representation of their prophet to be blasphemous.

Comedy Central declined to comment on the latest controversy.
* * *

The Jyllands-Posten Gallery

The Islamic Gallery

Moslems will kill, lie, and deny this--pretty much in that order--but there is a 1,000-year-old tradition of Moslems depicting Mohammed pictorially, including his face. The following illustrations were all drawn or painted by devout Moslems, between the Christian Middle Ages (as opposed to the Islamic Medieval Period, which has now lasted almost 1400 years) and circa 1930.

Mohammed giving his final sermon

Mohammed receiving his first revelation from the angel Gabriel

Mohammed's (L) flight from Mecca

Tips ‘o the hat to Kathy Shaidle, the invaluable Mohammed Image Archive, and to my good friend, Michelle Malkin.

East Orange, New Jersey: Let Me in the Party, or I’ll Kill You!

By Nicholas Stix

One coed is dead, and four other people are wounded, because a thug who was refused entry to an over-filled party in East Orange, New Jersey, went and got a gun from a friend, and came back shooting.

Nicholas Welch, 25, is charged with “murder, conspiracy and weapons offenses,” for murdering Jessica Moore, 19, an honors student at nearby Seton Hall University. He is being held on $2 million bail. Police seek his friend, 19-year-old Marcus Bascus, whom they say supplied Welch with the murder weapon, on the same charges.

Police said Welch tried to enter the party, was refused admittance and then returned moments later with a gun and started firing. Nineteen-year-old Seton Hall student Jessica Moore, an honors student from Disputanta, Va., who was majoring in psychology, was shot and died later that day.

The injuries to the other four victims weren’t considered life-threatening. Two of the injured were 19-year-old women who go to Seton Hall, and one was a 25-year-old man who attends the New Jersey Institute of Technology. The other was a 20-year-old man from New York who is not a student.

Laurino credited a police lockdown of the block after the shooting for helping hasten Welch’s arrest.

“He probably stayed in his house because he couldn’t leave his house,” Laurino said.

“1 arrested, 2 charged in shooting near Seton Hall,” Jamie Roth, Eyewitness News and AP, Updated at 5:56 a.m. today.

One partygoer said, “No remorse, ruthless, and he deserved to be punished.”

As the handcuffed Welch was about to be placed in a police car, he turned to news cameras and declared, “I’m innocent, I ‘in’t do it.”

Beyond the obvious—a promising young life snuffed out, and four wounded—there’s good news and bad news about this story. The primary reason that a suspect was taken so quickly into custody, was that a witness immediately notified a police officer, and called 911. That is particularly striking, given that all of the people involved were black, and the "Don't snitch" ideology that is pervasive in black communities. The bad news is that ABC News identified the witness by name, thereby putting his life at risk.

While the MSM go out of their way much of the time, to shield black criminals, by refusing to identify their race, of late, I am seeing more cases where witnesses to black men’s violent crimes are being identified by the media by name. Either the reporters and editors doing this are incredibly stupid, or they are aiding and abetting criminals for whom murdering witnesses has become standard operating procedure.

Courtesy of the tireless Nivius Vir.

‘Why I Became a Republican’: GOP Women Learn Tips on Minority Outreach

By Nicholas Stix

That’s the title of a fairly predictable article by Mary C. Curtis for AOL. Curtis is a black woman, who quotes black Republicans on why the GOP must give blacks more race-based goodies, er, I mean, must reach out more to blacks, and make them feel “valued.” (Note that to Curtis, “minority” is synonymous with “black.”)

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Linda Jones knows the GOP has a problem, and she wants to do something about it. As president of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Republican Women, she would like her group of 200 to have more African American members; she said she doesn’t think it has any right now. So, in the name of minority outreach, last week’s meeting featured Toussaint Romain, and his topic: “Why I Became a Republican.”

At least Curtis mentions that black Republicans catch hell from black Democrats, and does quote one (white) Republican, Linda Jones, as lamenting that “We’re too PC and it stifles dialogue.”

Jones’ remark came in response to Curtis’ question,

… if [Jones] thought that the party itself sometimes gets in the way of this message – such as when Sarah Palin defended Dr. Laura Schlessinger ’s N-word-laced rant on First Amendment grounds (and was chided by black GOP groups) or when Newt Gingrich recently excoriated the president’s “Kenyan, anti-colonial” mindset.

Curtis leaves no doubt as to her own pc racial assumptions, but at least she doesn’t engage in deception or rancor. But she also doesn’t question whether “minority outreach” (racial pandering) is in the interest of the Republican Party or its overwhelmingly white base.

The GOP has been reaching out to, and sucking up to black and Hispanic voters for years. The results include the minority mortgage meltdown and the election victory of the John Doe calling himself “Barack Obama.”

Blacks and Hispanics have always demanded and gotten race and ethnicity-based handouts, at the expense of the party’s white base. The more the GOP reaches out to minorities, the more its white base will stay home on Election Day, as occurred in 2008. And black Republicans, most notoriously today racist Party Chairman Michael Steele, consistently bite the hand that feeds them.

The article has an accompanying picture of Colin Powell, the ultimate embodiment of the black Republican. When his military career was on the rocks, due to a lousy evaluation, Ronald Reagan rescued him. The Party was willing to make him its standard bearer in 1996, when he would likely have won, but he chickened out. When the RNC made him its keynote speaker at the 1996 convention, he stabbed it in the back, with a race-baiting speech. Ronald Reagan made him national security advisor, George H. W. Bush made him chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and George W. Bush made him secretary of state, and Powell repaid them by leaking like a sieve, in order to harm them and increase his power with the media, and ultimately by giving the party the Judas kiss of endorsing Obama.

Mary Curtis inadvertently shows why pandering to blacks is a waste of time for Republicans.

“Black folks are by and large conservative people,” and should be attracted to the GOP, [“C. Morgan Edwards, a black Republican who is running for the North Carolina state Senate with the backing of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Republican Women”] said. However, in terms of signing up recruits, neither his comment that too many African Americans relate to the Democratic Party because “you can get something free,” nor Romain’s remark that he was taught “never to ask for a hand out” but to always “have my hand out to help” seemed likely to help.

If not even having black Republicans criticize the black welfare mentality is acceptable, there is nothing that Republicans can do to attract blacks, while remaining recognizably Republican. And imitating Democrats hasn’t worked, because black voters will always prefer real Democrats to imitators.

Minority outreach has nothing but negatives for the GOP. As Steve Sailer has pointed out for 10 years, its viability as a national party depends on its engaging in “in-reach” to its white base. Unfortunately, the Party has long been run by people who have neither the intelligence nor the fortitude to do that. If that doesn’t change, demographics will, to the point that even if whites stay with the party, there won’t be enough left of them to elect a Republican dog catcher. When that happens, which at this rate will occur during our lifetimes, the Party will simply die. As will America.

Monday, September 27, 2010

More on the Justice Department Civil Rights Division's Conspiracy to Disenfranchise Whites, Violate Their Civil Rights, and to Obstruct Justice

By Nicholas Stix

Following the bombshell testimony given by Christopher Coates last Friday before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, LA Watchdog’s Hal Netkin has put together an updated collection of Fox Videos from the past few days on the scandal that the socialist MSM have sought for almost two years to ignore.

The case started on Election Day, 2008, when the genocidal, black supremacist, New Black Panthers violated whites’ voting rights in Philadelphia. I don’t have to say “allegedly,” because it was all caught on tape. Since the “Obama” administration took power, an ongoing conspiracy within the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has allegedly aided and abetted the Panthers, denied whites the equal protection of the law, and covered up the CRD’s crimes.

Various whistleblowers and critics have identified DOJ officials Assistant Deputy Attorney General Steve Rosenbaum, Deputy Associate Attorney General Sam Hirsch, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes and Loretta King, acting head of CRD, as co-conspirators.

DOJ officials have also illegally ordered employees under subpoena to refuse to testify before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Christopher Coates, the former chief of the CRD’s voting rights section testified Friday in spite of the illegal orders, invoking the protection of federal whistleblower laws, and after Cong. Frank Wolf (R-VA) wrote AG Eric Holder, warning him against retaliating against Coates, who still works for DOJ, albeit in South Carolina, where the Department has exiled him.
While the U.S. Commission on Civil rights has alone carried the ball on the New Black Panthers/Civil Rights Division case, the agency has endured some internal dissension, as members of both parties have sought to sandbag its investigation. Republican commissioner Abigail Thernstrom, the co-author with husband Stephan, of America in Black and White and No Excuses, has impugned the importance of the NBP/CRD case in general, while Democratic Commissioner Michael Yaki has invoked racial fantasies, in order try and ridicule the investigation.
Abigail Thernstrom, the a [sic] conservative commissioner who disagrees with the focus on this case, called the New Black Panther Party a dysfunctional fringe group. She said she was frustrated that the commission was making the event the focus of its entire report for the year of 2010, especially when reports from previous years on issues like immigration have yet to be published.
Democratic Commissioner Michael Yaki said the commissions focus on the case was making it a laughingstock, and that the conservative commissioners where looking to create a “Whitewater-esque conspiracy that isn’t going to get us anywhere and is only going to undermine the credibility of the commission.”
“When you look at what happened during the Bush administration, when you look at the fact that they declined [to prosecute] people with guns intimidating Latino voters, that they declined [to prosecute] people who interviewed elderly black voters in their homes in Mississippi…where this commission has turned a blind eye to Katrina, turned a blind eye to so many other issues, but somehow we’re going to find fault with the Justice Department on this partisan issue is the height of hypocrisy,” said Yaki.
The 2010 Enforcement Report by the commission, which centers of the New Black Panther Party case, is expected to be released ahead of the mid-term elections.
“People with guns intimidating Latino voters” sounds like a DNC/SPLC fabrication. “Interview[ing] elderly black voters in their homes in Mississippi” is not a crime. As for “turn[ing] a blind eye to Katrina,” Yaki’s vagueness expresses the power of baseless racist talking points. The group whose members suffered the most continuous and dramatic violation of their civil rights during the anarchy following Hurricane Katrina was whites. Michael Yaki clearly holds whites in contempt. “The height of hypocrisy,” indeed.

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division is a racist gangster organization working under color of authority. Some people mistakenly sign on at CRD, thinking that it is devoted to equal enforcement of the law, but they soon learn otherwise. For the first time, the public is getting a chance to peek behind the curtain, at the great and powerful Justice.

I wrote about this case previously, in:

“Diversity is Strength! It’s also…’Jim Snow’ Disenfranchisement of Whites”; and

New York Times Finds Civil Rights Commission’s Condemnation of Hate Bill (and AG Holder’s Jim Snow Policies) Unfit to Print.”

According to Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, the decision to dismiss the New Black Panther case was made by Loretta King, the acting head of CRD. Given reports that the dismissal was decided by a political appointee at Justice, and Perez’ other incredible testimony, suggesting a willingness to perjure himself about the weather, I’m not sure how much credibility I’d grant his claim.

In any event, Loretta King has been an ongoing embarrassment for Justice, assuming folks there are capable of being embarrassed. She has been criticized by “both the Supreme Court and the federal district court” for her habit of pursuing civil rights cases that are frivolous, even by CRD standards in the case Johnson v. Miller.

King was already guilty of violating the civil rights, and engaging in malicious prosecution of Jeremiah Munsen, whom she railroaded for engaging in constitutionally protected speech, when he mocked supporters of the Jena Hoax. Though he had not committed any crime, Munsen was imprisoned, and is still serving a five-year sentence of probation, such that he could be thrown back into federal prison for five years, for spitting on the sidewalk. For her crimes in the Munsen case alone, Loretta King should be in prison.

I wrote about the Munsen case in:
“O Canada! Modern Show Trials.”

See also: “Voting Rights Official Calls Dismissal of Black Panther Case a ‘Travesty of Justice’”.

Friday, September 24, 2010

Immigrant Mass Murder Syndrome “Gunman” Wounds 3, Kills Himself in Nebraska Workplace Shooting

By Nicholas Stix

“26-year-old Akouch Kashoual of Lincoln.”

That’s how two AP reports by Margery A. Beck, Josh Funk, and Nelson Lampe describe the gunman who opened fire in Americold Logistics’ lunchroom at 9:50 p.m. during Wednesday’s evening shift, wounding three colleagues (here and here).

Akouch Kashoual may have been staying in Lincoln, but he wasn’t of Lincoln.

Fortunately, the only person whom Kashoual killed (so far) was himself. He stepped outside, and shot himself in the head.

The three people wounded all work at the plant and live in Crete, [Saline County Attorney Tad] Eickman said.

The most seriously wounded, 40-year-old Elizabeth Canas, was taken by helicopter about 30 miles from Crete to Lincoln late Wednesday night with 11 gunshot wounds to her torso and arm.

Dr. Reginald Burton, a trauma surgeon at BryanLGH Medical Center West in Lincoln, said the injuries to her liver, spleen, colon, diaphragm, kidney and arm required surgery that lasted all night. By Thursday afternoon, she was listed in critical condition and had not fully regained consciousness.

Burton said a second victim, 23-year-old Renee Villareal, was shot four times and had surgery. He was released from the hospital Thursday afternoon.

A third victim, 42-year-old Paul Rivera, was treated at a Crete hospital and released Thursday.

“Doctor: Workers in Neb. plant shot several times,” by Margery A. Beck, Josh Funk, and Nelson Lampe, AP/Salon, September 23, 2010, 19:24 EST.

The initial AP report provided no background on “Akouch Kashoual of Lincoln,” but a follow-up report by the same AP team tells us that Kashoual was a Sudanese immigrant with a green card.

In this crime, two factors bisect: Immigrant Mass Murder Syndrome and Moslem mens’ treatment of women. My VDARE colleague, Brenda Walker, has repeatedly emphasized both the emotional strains that immigration can have on a person, particularly on certain personality types, and the tender mercies that Moslem men routinely visit upon the feminine sex. (Having lived for over five years in West Germany, during which time I could never afford to come home for a visit, I can personally attest to the strains of immigrant life.)

The initial AP report provides background information on Americold Logistics:
The Americold facility is a couple of miles south of Crete and next to a Farmland Foods plant. Both were locked down immediately after the shooting, although authorities don't believe the gunman ventured onto Farmland property. By Thursday morning, both plants had reopened.

A worker who answered a phone at the Farmland plant Thursday declined to comment.

Americold also has facilities in Fremont and Grand Island, Neb. The company's website describes it as the largest temperature-controlled food storage network in the U.S., with about 100 facilities nationwide. Food producers, distributors and retailers rely on temperature-controlled warehouses to protect the products they sell.

“Gunman wounds 3, kills himself in Nebraska workplace shooting,” by Margery A. Beck, Josh Funk, and Nelson Lampe, Associated Press/The Grand Forks Herald, September 23, 2010.

In other words, Americold provides jobs in the same economic sector, and to the same socio-economic groups as meatpacking, jobs which Americans used to do, in order to provide a working and lower-middle class life for their families, until employers in those fields simultaneously slashed wages and benefits by over 50%, and feloniously shipped in illegal aliens from south of the border, in order to get rid of their American workforce. The employers and their mouthpieces, such as George W. Bush, then declared that these were “Jobs that Americans won’t do.”

More recently, employers, the Refugee Industry, and the federal government have conspired to bring in thousands of primitive Moslem immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa, a new “pliant” work force, which as Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch has amply documented, has not only robbed American citizens of jobs, but caused nothing but trouble in the workplace.

Ms. Canas, who is clinging to life with 11 gunshot wounds, was clearly the primary target of Kashoual’s wrath, suggesting the possibility that sexual rage was at work.

Note that Kashoual was not alone in this country, what with relatives here, but that did not keep him on the straight and narrow. Moslems from anywhere are already completely hostile to the American way of life, based on their religion and culture, and the Sudan is one of the most primitive places on the face of the earth.

We are importing evil, when we already produce a bumper crop, domestically.

(I thank reader-researcher Stan Sipple, who provided me with the first AP story and the headline.)

One of Eve Carson’s Killers Gets Sentenced to Life Until Parole


Eve Carson

By Nicholas Stix

Late last night, my reader-researcher David in TN wrote,

Today, one of Eve Marie Carson’s killers, Demario James Atwater, 24, was sentenced to “life without parole” in federal court. He recently received the same sentence in state court. Both were the result of plea bargains.

Miss Carson was the student body president of the University of North Carolina. For some mysterious reason, the sentencing was covered locally only.

The other suspect, Lawrence Lovette Jr., not only has yet to be tried, but two and a half years after the murder, no trial date has even been set. Lovett was 17 at the time of the murder.

Atwater apologized to Eve Carson’s parents. “I wish to say personally I’m sorry for everything that has happened,” he told them. Eve Carson’s family said they chose not to speak in court or confront Atwater. At Atwater’s May sentencing in state court, they issued a statement supporting a life sentence because “it honors Eve’s love of life and all people.”

DeMario James Atwater
“Atwater … was also ordered to pay $212,947.10 in restitution and to undergo treatment for substance abuse…”

I wouldn’t hold my breath, waiting for Atwater to pay the restitution money.

Actually, since Eve Carson was probably a communist, it’s unlikely that she loved “all people.” (She spent a semester studying in Cuba.) And yet, she was certainly a formidable figure, a double-major in biology (i.e., pre-med) and political science of seemingly boundless energy, who charmed people wherever she went, not the least through a gift for goofy improvisation that expressed itself in, for instance, whispering to a friend in “secret agent jargon” that she had made up on the spot, as they walked through a dim airport corridor in the Bahamas.

Atwater (and allegedly Lovette) murdered her on March 5, 2008.

Note Atwater’s use of the passive voice: “I’m sorry for everything that has happened,” not “I’m sorry for everything that I did.”

Atwater’s attorney, Kimberly Stevens, is even more rhetorically gifted. Out of one side of her mouth, she said, “Today was about accepting responsibility,” while out of the other side, she depicted the cold-blooded carjacker-kidnapper-robber-murderer as a victim of the system:

…she feels her client was failed by several systems – none of which, she emphasized, excused murder.

“There’s a lot of social issues in the case, issues about the department of social services, child protective services’ involvement with this family, the probation and parole issues that the press repeatedly raised and talked about,” Stevens said. “But we decided – he decided – that wasn’t appropriate for today.”

Abhijit Mahato
Lawrence Alvin Lovette Jr. has also been charged with robbing and murdering Abhijit Mahato, 29, a Duke Ph.D. engineering candidate from India, on January 18, 2008, just two days after Lovette had received “a two-year suspended sentence for misdemeanor larceny and breaking and entering and was placed on probation,” for crimes he had committed in November, 2007.

Atwater shot Carson once in the face with a shotgun, at the same time that Lovette allegedly shot her four times with a pistol.

In the Mahato murder, Lovette allegedy placed a pillow on Mahato’s face and fired through it, using it as silencer, killing him with one shot through the forehead.

Lawrence Lovette Jr.
According to Mahato’s adviser, engineering professor Tod Laursen, he was “intellectually curious, kind and outgoing.”

“He made friends very easily and always had a smile on his face. Our research team was particularly close to Abhijit. He was very well read in both poetry and literature, and enjoyed conversation with others about what they were reading.”

There has been no word on Lawrence Alvin Lovette Jr.’s literary tastes.

If the charges against Lovette hold up, it would mean that he murdered two people a mere 46 days apart. Although that would entail that he is a super-predator with the savvy of a veteran criminal (e.g., for using the pillow-as-silencer technique), because he was only 17 at the time of the two murders, he would not be eligible for the death penalty. Then again, black super-predators today almost never get the death penalty, no matter how heinous their crimes.

Recent years have seen waves of violent crime committed by racist blacks against white and Asian college students and personnel both on campus, and in nearby neighborhoods known to be full of residents and visitors from campus. Since colleges not only refuse to warn people about this violent reality, but engage in institutionalized disinformation campaigns actively misleading their own people, as well as the public about black racism and black crime, racist black predators correctly see such areas as holding bins full of easy prey.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Race, Rape, and Riots: “Because They Nicked Themselves Shaving”: Robert Lindsay Performs a Thought Experiment

Let us do a little thought experiment here:

A White nationalists commenter cited figures of 100 White women raped by Blacks for every Black woman raped by Whites. The rape rates are way worse than what you site. 37,000 White women are raped by Blacks every year. That is over 100/day. However, basically zero (or between 0-10) Black women are raped by Whites every year. Instead of 100-1, it is more like 37,000-1, or at best, 3,700-1. Even the lower figure is utterly mindboggling.

Just sit back and think if the situation were reversed. If White men raped 100 Black women every day, 1/3 of which were gang rapes, and there were basically zero rapes of Whites by Blacks. The Blacks and all the rest of the non-Whites, and all of the liberal and leftwing Whites, including probably me, would be up in arms about the “racist rape epidemic” being perpetrated on Blacks by White racists to keep them in the niggers in their place….

Every now and then a Black guy or Black woman would go psycho and kill a (probably totally innocent) White guy, or a few White guys, and the media, the Left and the non-Whites would all but cheer it on. If it was a few Blacks who did it, the same crowd would quickly name them the “Oakland 8″ or whatever, and rallies would be held in their name across the land….

Johnny Cochran types across the land would rush to defend the murderers of the innocent Whites. The trials would go forward, and heavily Black juries would acquit all the killers. Defiant Black female jurors would say, “I just could not send another Black man to prison. This prison-industrial complex is genocide against our men.”

Whites across the land would seethe, but there would be little violence and no riots. After all, Whites have hardly rioted since the Civil War, while Black riots, so regular you wonder if they riot because they nicked themselves shaving, is routinely elided and mistranslated by the usual suspects as “rebellions” even when innocent Whites are murdered in cold blood.

[Boldfaced emphasis mine.]

“Interracial Rape Epidemics: A Thought Experiment,” by Robert Lindsay, February 28, 2009.

That’s the most remorselessly, sardonically honest take that I’ve yet read, on black race riots. Of course, if a black man nicks himself shaving, the Devil made him do it!

By the way, Lindsay's black male-on-white-female rape stat is correct; that includes 10,000 black-male-on-white-female gang rapes during the same year.

Aaron McGruder and “The Package”

By Nicholas Stix

February 12, 2002
Toogood Reports/A Different Drummer

Many white folks like to kid themselves that the problem with race relations is black demagogues like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who supposedly lead black folks astray. That is a comforting thought, but if it were true, it would mean that most black folks are mental defectives.

I expect to hear the demagogue theory repeated quite a bit in the days to come, due to the February 10 installment of The Boondocks, an Afrocentric cartoon strip by Aaron McGruder. White folks—and not a few black folks—like to joke, “What are you going to do with a degree in black studies?” Well, Aaron McGruder got his college degree in black studies.

In the strip in question, two black children are talking on the telephone. One says, “I keep getting this forwarded e-mail saying that the Voting Rights Act will expire in 2007, and black people won’t be able to vote anymore. Is that true?” The second child responds, “That’s ridiculous. The Voting Rights Act was a means to enforce the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, which is what actually gives black people the right to vote.” First Child: “Oh. So, when does the 15th Amendment expire?” Second Child: “That expired November 7, 2000.”

In confusing the purpose of the Voting Rights Act, and lying about the 2000 presidential election, McGruder managed to kill two birds with one stone. I suppose he saw that dishonest strip as part of his contribution to Black History Month. Then again, for Aaron McGruder, every month is Black History Month.

The Voting Rights Act (VRA) was enacted in 1965, in order to combat the massive disenfranchisement of black voters in the South through poll taxes, selectively enforced literacy tests, threats and violence. For many years, however, the federal courts misrepresented the VRA, twisting its application beyond recognition. Based on the racist, unconstitutional notion that blacks must live in black-only districts, and be represented only by blacks, oddly-shaped patches of land were racially gerrymandered into congressional districts that joined distant people with no geographical bond. The Supreme Court has since struck down such gerrymandering. Many blacks, however, including Aaron McGruder, cling to the notion that it is racist for the feds NOT to engage in racism on behalf of blacks.

As for Florida, all of the claims that white authorities disenfranchised blacks have been discredited. Gore campaign manager, Donna Brazille, notwithstanding, no white police used “guns and dogs” to keep blacks from voting. And despite Jesse Jackson’s claims to the contrary, the one police roadblock for automobile registration checks was not near a voting site, and did not intimidate a single black voter out of exercising the franchise. Nor was it true that poor, black neighborhoods were saddled with malfunctioning keypunch voting machines, while wealthy, white neighborhoods had superior optical scanners. Indeed, when the chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, “historian” Mary Frances Berry, held hearings in January, 2001, seeking to perpetuate the Florida Hoax, not one person testified that he had been disenfranchised, or had witnessed anyone else being disenfranchised.

I have not met any black folks who would admit that the disenfranchisement charges have been disproved. Have they studied the matter? No; they “don’t have to!” White folks usually avoid such discussions. Even many hard-core, white racists will suck up to blacks, agreeing with them on charges of racism that the whites laugh about in private.

And “progressive” whites are hardly different. Back in 1988, at the height of the Tawana Brawley Hoax, a white socialist political operative said to me, “You can’t expect blacks to participate as equals in public discourse.” Had the woman made the same statement on her job, working for black socialist Manhattan Borough President David Dinkins, she would have had to find a new profession. And that was many hoaxes ago.

The Florida Disenfranchisement Myth goes deeper than Florida, and has nothing to do with issues of truth or falsity.

The Florida Myth is part of what I call The Package. The Package is a bundle of Big Lies, all of which insist on the reality of black victimization: the Texaco, black church arson, racial profiling and Adam’s Mark Hotel hoaxes (in many quarters, the Tawana Brawley hoax, too); the necessity for affirmative action; charges of rampant, white-on-black police brutality; and blaming racism as the cause of black kids’ failure in school and black males’ increasing troubles with the law. In New York, where I live, any white who fails to defer to any black on any aspect of The Package, is automatically labeled a racist, and consequently, in big trouble.

(Does that mean that no blacks are ever victimized by whites? Of course not. But those blacks who truly are victims of racism, don’t get TV face time with Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, or legal help from the NAACP. And the blacks who get such help almost always turn out to be frauds. The only high-profile case that occurs to me that contradicts this scenario, is that of Abner Louima, whom NYPD officer Justin Volpe sodomized with a broom handle in 1997. Volpe is currently serving a thirty-year prison sentence.)

Black expectations of white deference are not limited to race hoaxes. Beginning in August, 1997, while teaching college, I moonlighted as a security guard at Toys’R’Us stores in New York City. My first day at a store in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, I introduced myself over lunch to a 20-something, American black bicycle mechanic named Eddie. At some point in the conversation, Eddie suddenly got up from the table, stood a few feet away from me, and never spoke to me again. I have no idea what I said, but I know I hadn’t made a bold statement on a hot button issue.

Ultimately, The Package includes anything that any black sees fit to include in it, at any given moment.

I used to work in New York as a caseworker for foster children who had been abused and neglected by their natural (aka “bio”) parents. Almost all of my foster children and foster parents were black (most foster agencies refuse to place black children in white foster homes, even if there are no black homes available). A black American woman named Donna, about thirty years of age, worked a few feet away from my unit, in the Family Day Care department. We saw each other constantly, and developed a cordial relationship, while investigating, and ultimately terminating, a crooked family day-care provider who was also one of my foster parents. (The woman was my one Hispanic foster parent.)

One day, when I complained to Donna about one of my “church ladies,” she accused me of racism.

“Church lady” was not a racially inflammatory or ambiguous term. It referred rather to certain devoutly Christian, black foster mothers who were notorious for lying to the agency, breaking state laws, and thwarting case workers. For instance, although state law forbade foster parents from ever hitting foster children, church ladies all beat their foster kids. If you developed good rapport with a foster mother, and dug a little, you could sometimes get her to admit it. (One foster mother practically dared me to shut down her home, bragging, “You got to hit the children!,” but she was unique.) Friends and relatives comprised church lady foster parent networks, training each other to repeat, Stepford Wife-like, the same refrain: “I never beat the children; I only take away privileges.”

I could have defended myself to Donna, but why permit myself to be put on the defensive?

The truth has little to do with most accusations of racism. The point is to constantly bully whites, and make them squirm, defend themselves, apologize and beg for forgiveness. And then, often as not, blacks get the white in question fired. It’s all about power.

I told Donna, “Don’t you dare pull that. And don’t talk to me anymore.”

My Chinese-American supervisor had already told me, regarding problems I’d had with an incompetent, black supremacist supervisor (who was fired), “The only reason you’re still working here, is because this agency is run by white males.” And she was telling the truth!

At the agency where I had previously worked, black workers would threaten whites, “I’ll kick your white ass,” right in front of the director, without suffering any repercussions. The director, a white woman of Irish descent, would play deaf.

Note that the above stories are from the good old days of the late 1980s!

During the same period, just before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Timothy Garton Ash reported, in The Uses of Adversity: Essays on the Fate of Central Europe, that in the Soviet East Bloc, there was a division between “public” and “private” opinion. “Public opinion” referred to Communist Party propaganda; “private opinion” referred to the truths people talked about away from the prying ears of party officials and informers.

That America is not a dictatorship, makes it all the more incredible, that it should have the same split. “Public opinion” in America refers to the fairy tale, according to which blacks constantly suffer from white racism. “Private opinion” refers to the truth that whites and other non-blacks share among themselves: That American-born blacks are the single most racist group in America.

While there are exceptions to The Package, they are just that, and they are increasingly rare. While economists Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams are two black men who are arguably the most trenchant critics of The Package, in black America, they are two very lonely men. Old men, too, for whom no successors are in sight.

During the early 1960s, Martin Luther King reportedly said that, because of the threat posed by racial separatist Malcolm X, whites were forced to deal with King. Today, blacks’ refusal—aided by white elites—to permit honesty to play any role in talk about race, is making white separatism look more legitimate by the day for unsophisticated young whites who see no reason for playing the private-public game. At the rate things are going, blacks may someday need to pray that white Martins will arise to offer an alternative to the white Malcolms that will prove to be the surprise inside The Package.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Obama’s Auntie Zeituni, a Common Criminal, Says: You Owe Me Citizenship

By Nicholas Stix

“If I come as an immigrant, then you have the obligation to make me a citizen,” says this racist, third-world, criminal invader.

She did not come as an immigrant, but as a criminal, and we have no obligations to her whatsoever.

And I would add that the refusal of the John Doe calling himself “Barack Obama” to insist that she be immediately deported, when she was originally slated for deportation, constitutes yet another ground for his impeachment, because his refusal to insist that America’s immigration laws be enforced against his criminal aunt served to signal the immigration judiciary that she should be protected.

My VDARE colleague Matthew Richer has more on this criminal invader, in “Aunt Zeituni’s Immigrant Entitlement Complex.”

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Karl Rove, on the Delaware Senate Race: It’s My Way, or the Highway

By Nicholas Stix

If the real political history of the period from circa 2000-2010 is ever written—if America survives such that people can still write real political histories without being imprisoned, tortured, murdered, or simply silenced—it will not show that America was brought to the brink of doom solely by men like the John Doe calling himself “Barack Obama” and David Axelrod, but at least as much by men like George W. Bush, John McCain, and Karl Rove.

And after all he’s done to harm America, Rove is still at it, as unapolegetic as ever, seeking, among other things, to sabotage the U.S. Senate candidacy of Delaware GOP primary winner Christine O'Donnell, who in Rove’s eyes is guilty of the unpardonable sin of being a Tea Party candidate, and of having beaten Rove’s guy, nine-term RINO Cong. Mike Castle, in the primary.

One of the motivations of the Tea Party movement is to take back the GOP from greasy operators like Rove, who work to destroy the life chances of the patriotic GOP base, whose votes it takes for granted.

I think that Rove’s reputation for brilliance is a myth that owes its existence to his having hitched his wagon while young to a rising Republican alumni brat named George W. Bush. Rove has neither principles nor great intelligence. He is, in short, a hollow man.

Christine O'Donnell


While I was never impressed overly much by [Christine O'Donnell], I do think that anyone who can make Karl Rove blow a fuse is worth something.

The "dabbling in witchcraft" thing should, I think, blow over. O'Donnell has long since repudiated witchcraft and is an evangelical Christian, so I have a hard time believing that her previous experiences are going to turn off conservative Christian voters once it is clear to them that she has been redeemed from her past sins….

As for Rove, his big problem is that whatever his reservations about her were during the primary, to continue to harp on her deficiencies after her nomination is counter-productive. He seems almost determined to make certain that she loses because she beat the guy he wanted in, and that is bad sportsmanship. I saw Bill Kristol on a Fox News show, and his treatment was far more savvy, admitting to her problems, and that he would have voted for Castle as more electable, but then saying that she actually had a much better chance than we have been told and stating that he would support her in the general election no question.

Not that I mind Karl Rove criticizing the nominee; but if he does, it should be for substantive issues of policy that he wants her to change her position on, or, if he does want her to lose, it should be because of sever policy differences that make him prefer the Democrat. What makes Rove's treatment of her so bad is the fact that (a) it is not as if he has huge policy disagreements, and (b) it seems more driven by resentment over her defeating Castle than over a concern about her performance were she to be elected. His attitude seems to be "I said she was unelectable, and by God, I will make certain that if nominated she WILL be unelectable!"

That is all.

“Christine O'Donnell,” by Glaivester, September 20, 2010.

Monday, September 20, 2010

You’ll Scream ‘Til Your Lungs Collapse! You’ll Wet Your Pants! When You See the Horror Masterpiece, “When Republican Writers Dabble in Race”

Starring Dinesh D’Souza and Michelle Malkin!


Republican Super Stars Dinesh D’Souza and Michelle Malkin!

By Nicholas Stix

I have repeatedly told of the horrors of reading Michelle Malkin’s forays into the for her uncharted territory of race: “Triangulation” and “omission” are her bywords.

Well, another non-white Republican writer, who once showed great promise, is back in that field where no Republican can be trusted. Dinesh D’Souza, who once pilfered from Jared Taylor, and defamed the late Sam Francis, getting the latter fired as the top editorial writer at the Washington Times, is back with a work in which he reportedly not only engages in triangulation, omission, and the stealing of credit from better writers, but also sows the seeds of a bumper crop of confusion:
The Roots of Obama's Rage. See Steve Sailer’s new column, “Dinesh D’Souza: The Right Enemies, but the Wrong Thesis.”

Four More Victims of Racism


Victims: top: “Delightful” Deonte Bennett (left), Niesha Taylor; bottom: Sonya Smith (left), Lisa Justin.

By Nicholas Stix

The four sexually ambiguous people pictured above are racism’s (and genderism's?) newest victims, arrested by San Mateo County authorities, and charged with seeking to defraud the county out of aid designated for victims of the deadly gas explosion in San Bruno.

See the American Renaissance posting, “San Bruno Scams: Officials Watch for ‘Vermin.’”

Deonte Bennett has had an especially bad time, being racially profiled by law enforcement:

.... Bennett, who listed himself as an Oakland resident, is well-known to San Francisco police, and is named in a city anti-gang injunction that restricts his movements in the Oakdale public housing development in Bayview-Hunters Point.

In January 2009 Bennett was charged with plotting to kill a 23-year-old San Francisco woman, but pleaded guilty to assault and got probation after the case unraveled.

Earlier, Bennett was accused of murder in the 2005 slaying of an alleged gang member, 20-year-old Arkeylius Collins. A bystander wounded in the attack, Terrell Rollins, cooperated with prosecutors and agreed to enter a witness protection program.

Authorities warned Rollins not to visit the city unguarded, but he was shot to death in May 2006 when he brought his car to a repair shop on Bayshore Boulevard. No one has ever been charged with the killing, which forced prosecutors to free Bennett and his co-defendant.

Bennett’s attorney, Joe O’Sullivan, said Bennett is a “delightful young man.”

“I’m sure it’s just a big mistake,” O’Sullivan said of the DMV arrest, “and he’ll be absolved of any wrongdoing.”

Always keeping the black man down!

Saturday, September 18, 2010

The 10 Most Compelling On-Screen Gangsters

By Nicholas Stix

An hour or so ago, my Inbox told me that one of Salon’s hacks just came up with a list of “The 10 Most Compelling On-Screen Gangsters.” Not to be outdone, before perusing the Salon list, I spent about 30 minutes coming up with my own list; another 10 minutes moving them around and cutting off four honorable mentions (Robert DeNiro, The Untouchables, 1987; Humphrey Bogart, The Petrified Forest, 1936; Paul Muni, Scarface, 1932; and Al Pacino, The Godfather: Part II); and another 15 or so minutes adding another seven (DeNiro and James Woods, Once Upon a Time in America, 1984; Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway, in Bonnie and Clyde (1967);, 1974; Warren Oates, in Dillinger (1973); and Andy Garcia and Eli Wallach, The Godfather: Part III (1990).

I did not consider Al Pacino in the remake of Scarface, because I have only seen a few minutes of it, and did not consider Denzel Washington in American Gangster, because I have not seen the picture at all.

My List

1. Marlon Brando, The Godfather, 1972.
2. Humphrey Bogart, High Sierra, 1941.
3. Jimmy Cagney, Angels with Dirty Faces, 1938.
4. Jimmy Cagney, White Heat, 1949.
5. Robert DeNiro, The Godfather: Part II, 1974.
6. Lee J. Cobb, On the Waterfront, 1954.
7. Humphrey Bogart, Dead End, 1937.
8. Jimmy Cagney, The Public Enemy, 1933.
9. Edward G. Robinson, Key Largo, 1948.
10. Edward G. Robinson, Little Caesar, 1931.

The Salonista List

1. Al Swearengen, "Deadwood" (2004-2006)
2. Tony Soprano, "The Sopranos" (1999-2007)
3. Michael Corleone, "The Godfather Saga" (1972, 1974, 1990)
4. Tom Reagan, "Miller's Crossing" (1990)
5. Connie Corleone, "The Godfather Saga" (1972, 1974, 1990)
6. Cody Jarrett, "White Heat" (1949)
7. Nino Brown, "New Jack City" (1991)
8. Sam "Ace" Rothstein, "Casino" (1995)
9. Aniki Murikawa, "Sonatine" (1993)
10. Tony Camonte, "Scarface" (1932), Tony Montana, "Scarface" (1983)

The Salon list, compiled by Matt Zoller Seitz, got one thing right: Jimmy C. in White Heat. Otherwise, it was clearly compiled based on multicultural mishigass, rather than aesthetics. And you don’t mash together movie and TV lists.

Thus, although the performances by James Gandolfini in The Sopranos and Ian McShane in Deadwood were wonderful, they belong on a different list.

Seitz listed Gabriel Byrne (Miller’s Crossing), who is one of the most incompetently hammy actors on the face of the earth, because he’s a communist. Heck, the best performance as a gangster in Miller’s Crossing was by Albert Finney! I guess Finney wasn’t far enough left, to be considered for Seitz’ list.

In another ridiculous pick, Seitz listed Talia Shire (The Godfather Saga), merely because she’s a woman.

Likewise, Wesley Snipes ("New Jack City") got the black supremacist AA slot. (Snipes was good, but not nearly good enough.)

Seitz chose Robert DeNiro’s performance in Casino, one of the least distinguished of his many performances as a gangster, while snubbing the three great performances I cited, because in Casino, DeNiro played a Jew.

Seitz either gives Jews an AA slot, or he did it to be cute, since people who know nothing about the history of crime in America don’t think of Jews as gangsters. But other actors have given much more compelling performances as Jewish gangsters: Warren Beatty, Harvey Keitel, and Ben Kingsley, in Bugsy; and Lee Strasburg, in The Godfather: Part II. But as great as those performances were, they don’t come close to the ones I chose.

He filled the Asian slot with Takeshi Kitano (Sonatine).

And while Al Pacino may well, for all I know, have given a great, if hammy performance in Scarface—I’ve heard the blurb of him saying, “Say hello to my little friend” at least 100 times—Seitz chose the role, because it was Cuban in the remake.

Indeed, a great many performances that I didn’t even give honorable mentions to now come to mind, that leave Seitz’ affirmative action choices in the dust: Jimmy Caan and Richard Castellano, in The Godfather; Michael V. Gazzo, John Cazale, and the aforementioned Strasberg, in The Godfather, Part II; Richard Widmark, in Kiss of Death (1947); Joe Pesci in Goodfellas (1990); Roman Polanski in Chinatown (1974); and Tony LoBianco and Fernando Rey in The French Connection (1971).

I’m sure that with a little thought, and a review of gangster movie lists, which I did not do for this essay, I could add plenty of other great performances. But that’s not even necessary, in order to counter Seitz’ list. For the most obvious slights: No Brando?! No Bogey?! If it seems as if Seitz purposely snubbed greatness, it’s because he did.

(The Salon list’s teaser, which I read only after having written this essay, is “Slide show: From the Corleones to Nino Brown, the characters that breathed new life into the mobster genre.” But that’s just a pretext, in order to multiculturally cleanse almost all of Hollywood’s Golden Age.)

Conversely, my criterion was greatness. And I chose based on performances, since if you’re going to talk about the characters, without judging the actors’ performances as them, you would have to read the scripts, and try and forget the performances. But Seitz didn’t say anything about reading scripts, so we’re left with performances. He talks about “characters,” because he’s reducing them to the political significance they have for him. And his politics leaves no room for greatness.

Matt Zoller Zeitz loves neither great movies nor great acting.

Friday, September 17, 2010

Greetings to Readers from Brian Lee's Blog!

Thanks, Brian!

Listen to Civil Rights Legend and Current Non-Voting D.C. Delegate to Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Soliciting a Bribe from a Lobbyist



Big Government Exclusive: Delegate to Congress for the District of Columbia Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton leaves voice mail citing her seniority and stimulus-based projects in lobbyist’s “sector”.

“I was, frankly, uh, uh, surprised to see that we don’t have a record, so far as I can tell, of your having given to me despite my uh, long and deep uh, work. In fact, it’s been my major work, uh, on the committee and sub-committee it’s been essentially in your sector.

I am, I’m simply candidly calling to ask for a contribution. As the senior member of the um, committee and a sub-committee chair, we have (chuckles) obligations to raise, uh funds. “

It’s as charming a felonious solicitation as you’re likely to hear. And given Holmes’ racist sense of entitlement, and the authorities’ refusal, for over 40 years, to prosecute such black racial extortion, she surely told herself that she was not committing a crime. Like when she committed tax evasion for years, without ever being prosecuted. Media protection and academic hagiographies notwithstanding, “civil rights leaders” have always routinely committed extortion, tax evasion, and sundry other crimes. Graft, sex, power: What else is there to the civil rights racket?

And it’s not just “civil rights leaders.” The overwhelming majority of blacks in this country do not believe that “the white man’s laws” apply to them, in the first place.

The scoop is courtesy of Andrew Breitbart’s outfit, Big Government. Look for yet another race hoax to be engineered against Breitbart very soon, as revenge.

Tips ‘o the hat to American Renaissance and The Blast.

Bethany Storro Admits to Hoax; Splashed Acid on Her Own Face

By Nicholas Stix

My reader-researcher David in TN alerted me to this last night at 8 p.m. I’ll have more to say on the matter later. Needless to say, haters of whites and Christians of all races and religions have been enjoying endless orgasms of self-righteousness, since the news broke.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Obama Shocks International Community by Unapologetically Defending American Interests!

Refuses to take insults to America lying down.

By Nicholas Stix

New York (AP) – U.S. President Barack Obama upended a U.N. summit to defend his own nation's honor, vowing Thursday to keep deporting undocumented immigrants, despite accusations that the U.S. is being racist and unfairly targets Latinos.

The summit was supposed to be a forum for molding a unifying, international policy regarding undocumented peoples, but it turned into a drama of discord—with the outspoken Obama usurping the podium to preach his policies and lash out at his critics.

Obama said that comments by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees that linked the expulsions to the mass deportations of World War II were "disgusting."

"Let me be clear. I am the chief executive of the American state. I cannot let my nation be insulted," Obama told reporters.

The wartime comparison stung many in the U.S. The U.S. deported some one million undocumented Mexican immigrants during the unfortunately named Operation Wetback, undertaken in 1954 by conservative Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower, and interned thousands of Japanese-American citizens in concentration camps in the U.S. during the Second World War II.

Obama insisted the U.S. expulsions of unauthorized immigrants are a matter of security and said the U.S. doesn't have to take lessons from anyone, as long as it respects human rights. He called the sanctuary cities and federal lands that ICE raids had disrupted and cleared in the U.S. in recent weeks havens of crime and undignified living conditions.

"Let me be clear. We will continue to end the sanctuary cities and retake public lands, whoever is there," Obama said. "The U.S. government cannot close its eyes to millions of people riding roughshod over our democratically enacted laws, and causing a whole host of additional, far-reaching problems…."

Alright, I know. You smell a rat. And indeed, your nose did not err.

I took an AP story and made some slight changes, while tweaking the phrasing. In the real story, at a European Union summit, EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding of Luxembourg condemned France for expelling illegal alien Gypsies, aka Romas, an ethnicity which maintains a centuries-long tradition of living off of stealing from everyone else. French President Nicolas Sarkozy went ballistic, and defended the honor of France against Reding. Sarkozy has also offered to let Luxembourg provide a haven to the Gypsies.

In reality, of course, the John Doe calling himself “Barack Obama” is loyal to illegal aliens, and anyone else seeking to destroy America, irredeemably hostile toward the historic American people, and never defends the nation whose honor he is supposed to be defending, and whose interests and laws he has sworn to uphold.

The excerpt from the original AP story follows.

BRUSSELS (AP) - French President Nicolas Sarkozy upended a European Union summit to defend his own nation's honor, vowing Thursday to keep clearing out illegal immigrant camps despite accusations that France is being racist and unfairly targets Gypsies.

The summit was supposed to be a forum for molding a unifying European foreign policy, but it turned into a drama of discord _ with the outspoken Sarkozy usurping the podium to preach his policies and lash out at his critics.
Sarkozy said comments by EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding that linked the expulsions to the mass deportations of World War II were "disgusting."

"I am head of the French state. I cannot let my nation be insulted," Sarkozy told reporters.

The wartime comparison stung many in France and other members of a bloc designed to overcome and prevent the kind of hostilities that divided Europe in the past. France deported some 76,000 Jews from France to Nazi concentration camps, and interned thousands of Gypsies in camps in France during the war.

Sarkozy insisted France's expulsions of Gypsies, or Roma, are a matter of security and said France doesn't have to take lessons from anyone, as long as it respects human rights. He called more than 100 Roma camps dismantled in France in recent weeks havens of crime and undignified living conditions.

"We will continue to dismantle the illegal camps, whoever is there," Sarkozy said. "Europe cannot close its eyes to illegal camps…."

Why can't America have a leader like that?!

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Bound for Glory: America in Color, 1939-1943

Farm auction, Derby, Connecticut, September, 1940.


Exactly one month ago, a longtime New York reader-buddy (though we’ve never met in the flesh) sent me this incredible Library of Congress collection, i.e., it’s the people’s property, which the Denver Post had been kind enough to post online.

The DP intro reads,

These images, by photographers of the Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information, are some of the only color photographs taken of the effects of the Depression on America’s rural and small town populations. The photographs are the property of the Library of Congress and were included in a 2006 exhibit Bound for Glory: America in Color.

Actually, there is one glaring error in that intro: Nothing is “the property of the Library of Congress.” The Library of Congress holds, protects, and maintains the property of the American people.

The collection contains 70 images, or at least 70 have been posted on line, though one fails to load. I’ll re-publish a few at a time, for your education and edification.

Some of the DP captions were clearly re-written, to conform to multicultural ideology, e.g., changing “Negro” to “African American.”

All of the shots in this installment were taken by Jack Delano.

My buddy wrote,

This brings back a time when hard work made this country great.
View only when you have time to really enjoy the pictures.

Stonington, Connecticut, November, 1940.

Outside a starch factory, Arostook County, Maine, October, 1940.

A large farm, in the vicinity of Caribou, Arostook County, Maine, October, 1940.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

If Ines Sainz and Kevin Blackistone are “Sports Journalists,” Sports Journalism is Dead

By Nicholas Stix

Highlights from the Sports Journalism Career of Ines Sainz





Ines Sainz is the Spanish beauty queen who was hired by Mexico’s TV Azteca to be a hot tamale on TV. Then, when she went to interview New York Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez in a locker room full of naked men, something happened which, if you read pc sports writers and professional feminists, was something like a gang rape, or… men calling out her name.
Prior to her presence in the locker room - where players called out to the TV Azteca reporter - footballs were thrown in her direction by a Jets coach during practice.

Sainz knows she’s no journalist, Azteca knows it, and sports fans know it. Unfortunately, people like Kevin Blackistone are saying otherwise. Blackistone, a walking feminist talking points machine, is also no journalist, but he seems to have deluded himself into believing that he is. Or maybe he doesn’t care.

I made some bracketed remarks within the text. I previously wrote an essay-length response, but in spite of multiple attempts to post it at AOL, which published Blackistone’s piece, I couldn’t so much as get a box to open. My response follows his column.

Ines Sainz Issue Shows Us Why Sexism Doesn't Belong in Pro Sports
9/13/2010 11:46 PM ET By Kevin Blackistone

Little time passed between the moment TV reporter Ines Sainz tweeted Saturday about how uncomfortable some Jets' coaches and players made her feel, as she attempted to do her job interviewing Mark Sanchez, and the initiation of an investigation by the Jets' brass and the NFL into her complaint.

Jets owner Woody Johnson (pictured below) reached out immediately to Sainz in apology, promised that he would get to the bottom of it and issued a statement decrying any boorish behavior toward women in the locker room. League spokesman Greg Aiello stated Sunday that commissioner Roger Goodell wanted to know all the facts.

That was a far cry from what happened 20 years ago this week when my colleague Lisa Olson suffered derision in the Patriots' locker room aimed at her gender. The Patriots owner at the time crudely dismissed her complaint. The league finally got around to looking into what happened to her, which resulted in a voluminous report damning the behavior of some Patriots, particularly Zeke Mowatt, who was fined for his abhorrent behavior.

So if there is a positive to be taken from the still-unfolding Sainz story, it is that some people -- those most responsible for selling America's pastime to more sports fans, especially women, than any sport in our country -- were reminded of something rather fundamental in this country: Sexual harassment and discrimination has [sic] no place in our workplaces. Both, in fact, are against the law.

"I want to make it clear that in no moment did I even feel offended, much less at risk or in danger while there."

What some people in sports need to have underscored for them in our new journalistic environment, however, is that that protection doesn't shrink with the fit of jeans or disappear with the height of a hemline. Women in journalism, or any line of work, shouldn't be subjected to as much as sexual innuendo for any reason.

Some among us aren't taking seriously what Sainz, who reports for TV Azteca in Mexico, said happened to her because she is a former Miss Spain and Miss Universe contestant, allows her employer's Web site to post pictures of her in bikinis, refers to herself as "the hottest reporter in Mexico," and reinforces all of the above in her work attire. At the Colts' last Super Bowl press day, she even allowed herself to be hoisted onto the shoulder pads of a couple of linemen and paraded around like some Babylonian goddess.

No, Sainz doesn't share the same rung in journalism as a distinguished and serious writer like Olson, or the women -- Lesley Visser, Christine Brennan, etc. -- who rallied around Olson twenty years ago and this week are rallying around Sainz. She's part of the growing breed of female journalists who stand out more because of how they look than what they report.

Sainz doesn't represent a new model. To some extent, Jayne Kennedy and Phyllis George (maybe even Downtown Julie Brown) preceded her. But there are a lot more Sainzes, Kennedys and Georges nowadays, including women whose reporting is just as noteworthy as whatever aesthetic they meet yet find themselves diminished, unfortunately, because of their appearance.

If all of that sounds sexist, it's because it is. Men rarely if ever get judged similarly, in large part because we're doing most of the evaluating. But it is as sexist to judge people's abilities based on their gender as it is racist to make a similar distinction based on skin color.

It doesn't matter that Sainz made the media rounds on Monday telling every interviewer that what she tweeted happened at the Jets' practice facility wasn't as terrible as maybe her tweet made it sound. "I want to make clear that in no moment did I even feel offended, much less at risk or in danger while there," the New York Daily News quoted Sainz telling the Spanish-language program DeporTV on Monday. "It was simply a situation that got out of hand. I waited for the interview with Mark Sanchez, we did it and it turned out great. ... the next day the press is reporting that I was a victim of harassment and inappropriate behavior by the Jets."

What happened to Sainz is bigger than her.

What happened to Sainz is why the NFL in 1985 implemented a policy mandating that female journalists have the same access to players as male journalists. It is why a month after Olson was violated that then-NFL boss Paul Tagliabue levied what then was the biggest fine against a coach, Sam Wyche, after Wyche barred a female reporter from his Bengals locker room declaring that, "I will not allow women to walk in on 50 naked men."

I've never seen a nude woman in a women's locker room, and never looked for one.
The NFL couldn't afford to let that sort of culture fester if it hoped to appeal to everyone. [Appealing to everyone is an impossibility. And how would yielding to feminists who have no interest in it, save for undermining it, make a masculine sport more popular?] Fast forward 20 years and the league can't afford [why not?] the sort of culture Jets' coach Rex Ryan -- our favorite new caricature of the boisterous, cussing football coach, thanks to Ryan's self-absorbed performance on HBO's "Hard Knocks" -- seemed to be cultivating with his club.

First, there were all the characters he brought in, most notably Antonio Cromartie, who was stereotypically portrayed as an irresponsible black man by having a multitude of children by a multitude of women. (It never gets pointed out that white men like Clint Eastwood, Rod Stewart, Charlie Sheen, Mick Jagger, Kevin Federline or Kevin Costner have a multitude of children by a multitude of women, but that's a subject for another column.) Then came his salty language that got him in trouble with the NFL's moralist, former coach Tony Dungy.

[Oh, so it’s white men who are fathering over 70% of their children out of wedlock. Thanks for straightening me out on that matter. And who “stereotypically portrayed” Cromartie “as an irresponsible black man,” as opposed to simply irresponsible? Don’t hide behind the passive voice.]

And all of that came before a team with a fan base that was criticized for how it encouraged women to demean themselves on game days at the old Giants Stadium where the Jets played.

The Sainz incident also came after an offseason in which the league suspended the Steelers' Super Bowl-winning quarterback Ben Roethlisberger for all but preying on young women.

A New York Daily News poll asked readers if Ryan's "Hard Knocks" performance and the Sainz incident gave the Jets an undesirable image. At last look, 57 percent of respondents said it did. [And how many of them were actual Jets’ fans, and how many fans are now going to refuse to watch Jets’ games, as opposed to the influx of fans whom Ryan is attracting to the club?]

Pro football may be a man's game, whatever that means [?!]. But masculinity doesn't have anything to do with disrespectfulness.

Response by Nicholas Stix

Kevin Blackistone,

You never supported your title: “Ines Sainz Issue Shows Us Why Sexism Doesn't Belong in Pro Sports.”

As you yourself pointed out, Sainz was hired because of her sex, and everything that she and her employer do, flaunts that. Then you contradict yourself, and say that she shouldn’t be judged, based on that. I see logic isn’t your strong suit.

“Sexual harassment and discrimination has no place in our workplaces. Both, in fact, are against the law.”

If a woman walking around a locker room full of naked men isn’t sexual harassment, then the term means nothing more than yet another feminist power play.

Lisa Olson didn’t belong in that locker room 20 years ago, and Ines Sainz doesn’t belong in one now.

Sam Wyche took a heroic stand on behalf of common sense and basic decency.

“Women in journalism, or any line of work, shouldn't be subjected to as much as sexual innuendo for any reason.”

If a woman acts like a slut, then she should be recognized as such. You condemn men who act boorishly. You don’t say that they are entitled to the same respect as men who act gentlemanly. So, you’re a hypocrite, which makes logical consistency and moral decency impossible. But then, your being a feminist makes hypocrisy obligatory.

“If all of that sounds sexist, it's because it is. Men rarely if ever get judged similarly, in large part because we're doing most of the evaluating.”

It’s because men don’t get hired to be sports reporters, based on their having won a beauty contest, and on how good they look in tight jeans or bikinis. Otherwise, Sainz wouldn’t have her job. She’s not a “journalist” at all.

“I've never seen a nude woman in a women's locker room, and never looked for one.”

Either you’re a liar, or there’s something very wrong with you. In any event, you no more belong in a women’s locker room than a woman belongs in a men’s locker room. But I’ll tell you this: I’m so near-sighted, that my eye doctor measures my vision in miles—I’m 20/20, as in, I see from 20 feet away, what other people see from 20 miles away—but I guarantee you, if I was in a locker room full of naked women, I would see naked women.

(BTW, based on your assertions, there can be no justification for sexually segregated locker rooms, bathrooms, or changing rooms at any age, or in any walk of life.)

Your argument, far from supporting your pre-set conclusion, supports the opposite conclusion.

* * *

The only thing worse than Kevin Blackistone impersonating a sports journalist, is that he is also impersonating a journalism professor, and thus in a position to sabotage the future of any aspiring journalist unwilling to jettison logic and decency. Blackistone is a professor at the University of Maryland’s Philip Merrill College of Journalism, whose most famous former student is New York Times affirmative action hire, fraud, and serial plagiarist, Jayson Blair (See here, here, and here). Hey, maybe Kevin Blackistone can mentor the next Jayson Blair. That’s the ticket!