Congress may apologize to blacks (but not poor whites) for slavery and Jim Crow laws

Congress May Apologize for Slavery and Jim Crow Laws

The House of Representatives was poised Tuesday to pass a resolution apologizing to African-Americans for slavery and the era of Jim Crow. The resolution does not address the controversial issue of reparations. Some African-Americans have called on lawmakers to give cash payments or other financial benefits to descendents of slaves.

Maybe the African nations now should apologize to African Americans for selling slaves to the (tiny handful of) Europeans and Jews (who could afford to own plantations). And, $3 TRILLION tax dollars and forty years of cultural chaos later, maybe Congress now should apologize to hard-working, law-abiding European Americans for selling them down the river in order to appease minority groups.

In the middle of the *nineteenth century*, when slavery was abolished in America (but not in Africa, where it continues to this day), most southern whites were barely better than slaves themselves, living on land they couldn’t own and dying in droves from malnutrition. In fact, the early southern slaves were all white, until the elite slave owners decided they could control and recapture African slaves better than European ones.

What’s the statute of limitation for a practice that few whites participated in, and which was ended by whites? Two centuries? Three? You can only beat a horse that died in 1863 so long. After that, you have to grow up, get a job and stop blaming America for the problems in your community.

If Iran Attacks It Might Really be Israel says CIA Officer

If Iran Attacks It Might Really be Israel says CIA Officer

Some intel types are concerned that the Israelis might do something completely crazy to get the US involved. There are a number of possible “false flag” scenarios in which the Israelis could insert a commando team in the Persian Gulf or use some of their people inside Iraq to stage an incident that would make it look like Iran was the pepetrator

Some are blaming ‘conservatives’ or ‘conservatism’ for the Iraq/Iran debacle. This is bogus.

There’s nothing conservative about globalism or imperialism. The ‘defensive imperialism’ of Wilson, the Roosevelts, Johnson, Clinton, and the Bushes is the game of the elite profiteering and protecting their global interests, not men limited by the Constitution or the Founders’ ideal of freedom from tyranny. Most of today’s self-identified ‘conservative’ pundits and politicians are followers of FDR, not Ben Franklin. In fact, the old, 1940’s pro-war propaganda from the NYT and FDR administration front groups is eerily similar to what we see today (foreign war necessary to ‘liberate the oppressed,’ excuses for how the ‘liberation’ caused more death and destruction than the oppression did, the imminent danger the distant enemy poses to Americans — based on phony documents and intelligence, the necessity of increasing arms sales and lending/giving money to our supposed allies. The ‘neoconservatives’ (Jewish globalists) even make explicit the reference by openly making bogus comparison between Iraq/Saddam, Iran/Ahmadinejad and Germany/Hitler. Today’s ‘conservatives’ are simply FDR liberals, and today’s pro-Israel war on the Middle East is simply the pro-Britain war on Germany. Nothing ‘conservative’ about either.

Illegal flow from Mexico worse than any gas price concerns

Illegal flow from Mexico worse than any gas price concerns

Rep. Grijalva is offering his legislation under the guise of protecting the environment, but it’s clear what his intentions are. He’s attempting to facilitate illegal immigration now that the Border Patrol has stepped up its enforcement.

Grijalva is part of the Latino supremacist ‘la reconquista’ movement to reclaim the Southwest for the foreign state of Mexico. In less-liberal times, this would have been called ‘treason.’

Trouble in the Senate: Will Lieberman Go Republican? (Hint: Israel First Party)

Trouble in the Senate: Will Lieberman Go Republican?

What a difference a few years can make. Back in 2000, Al Gore had found in Joe Lieberman the perfect running mate. But by 2006, the political winds had changed. Already, whispers in Washington are suggesting that Democrats may move to strip Lieberman of his chairmanships if the party manages significant gains in 2008. But is it a wise move?

Lieberman should start a formal ‘Israel First Party.’ Then all the Zionists like Lieberman and Berman, and the AIPAC shills who’ve grown fat on American tax dollars laundered through the Israel lobby (pretty much everyone else except for Paul and a few others) can promote Israel’s interests unencumbered.

(Not) All about the Palestinians

All About the Palestinians

An American-Israeli blogger and former journalist in Israel discusses some of the common misconceptions about the Palestinian people, as well as the complexities that U.S. media outlets ignore or dumb-down in their reports on the conflict. This is the fifth post in a series about life in Israel

Leaves out a lot (Zionist terrorism against the Brits, Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, etc.) and misrepresents the Palestinians’ plight (just because they didn’t have a formal country doesn’t mean they were less entitled to not be slaughtered by hard-line Jewish nationalists). However, the author does a good job of representing some of the complexity of the issue.

The Palestinians are not, as the author points out, monolithic — like an army or a bureaucratic state with complete and compulsory control over the people. Palestinian society is essentially grouped into two large prison states, with a ruling political party and groups of militants fighting not only to overthrow the Israeli oppressors, but to achieve power within the Palestinian prison states. Their underlying world view, like the Judaists’, is based on savagery and manipulation. (And, hypocritically, the Jews did to the Palestinians exactly what they attacked Hitler and Churchill for doing to Jews in WWII. Apparently, prison camps are okay as long as the prisoners aren’t Jewish.)

The Marxist view, popular with CAIR and American university instructors (and formerly popular in the American media, before it became more openly pro-Israel in the last five years), is that the Palestinians are ennobled and justified by their oppression by the Israelis. Nothing they do can be wrong. The Jewish supremacist view is that the Palestinians are sub-humans with no rights and the best thing to do is lock them up (with the more-extreme members of the ADL and AIPAC advocating ethnic cleansing using the provocation of Israeli settlements to justify military assaults). In-between lie more rational views, with most reasonable commentators opining that the Palestinians deserve some kind of (non-prison) state, but that they must adopt legal means to achieve this outcome. That’s the view of the US State Department, although it tends to back down and tow the AIPAC line when confronted. (Bush and Cheney have repeatedly caved in to the Zionists, ignoring the advice of their military advisors, and the Iraq debacle is the most-obvious example of militant Zionist influence over our foreign policy.)

Anyway, I thought the author made an honest attempt to be balanced, although arguing from a Zionist world view.

Rally against McBama’s pandering to extremist group

Tell McCain And Obama You Object!

We have just a few short hours to rally 50,000 Citizen Letters to McCain and Obama protesting their appearance at the La Raza Convention. Please sign by Friday NOON to help us reach the goal and get your letter to the protest rallies in San Diego!

Missed the deadline on this one, but it’s worth noting who we’re dealing with.

La Raza is a Mestizo supremacist organization that receives federal tax dollars and promotes ‘la reconquista’ — the conquest of the American Southwest by Mexicans through illegal colonization and ACLU-affiliated lawsuits.

It’s also a hate group that has been given full cover by the dominant Judeo-liberal media. Much of the liberal media propaganda about illegal (Mestizo) immigration — painting aliens as ‘poor, hard-working undocumented laborers’ eager to do the jobs that Americans won’t do, covering up their high rates of crime and cost to American taxpayers, and portraying resistance to illegal colonization as ‘xenophobia’ and ‘racism’ — comes from La Raza talking points.

Patti Smith Indicts George W. Bush, and people are starting to remember the revolution

Patti Smith Indicts George W. Bush

On Digg.com there’s a video of American punk rock singer Patti Smith ‘declaring independence’ from George W. Bush’s regime. The speech makes the obligatory references to the original Declaration of Independence from England, and it does make some good points regarding Bush’s support for tyrannical measures. (I would argue that Smith missed a chance to blast Bush on other important issues — e.g., filling his cabinet with, and basing his foreign policy on the advice of, domination-hungry militant Zionists.)

A user named ‘Hangly’ found the bright side in this, pointing out that the end result of Bush’s war-mongering and statism is to reawaken an online resurgence in interest in the Founding Fathers and their ideology (which today might be described as ‘right-libertarianism’):

Has there ever been a time in American history when the founding fathers and founding documents were more popular than they are now? Among the youth no less?

I love this trend. I foresee good things.

Agreed. However, I doubt that Patti Smith is a sincere fan of the Founders or of traditional American culture or law in general. This rant mixes some appropriate and correct criticism of Bush with some radical messages about government salvation of New Orleans and ‘the environment.’ She comes across as the typical big-government liberal who references the Founders and concepts like liberty when it suits her cause, and whose appeal for freedom only covers those who think like her.

Borat, as “Bruno,” burns Israeli and Palestinian experts

Borat, as “Bruno,” burns Israeli and Palestinian experts

Former Mossad agent Yossi Alpher and a Palestinian colleague were not surprised when contacted by a production company for interview on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to youth.They couldn’t have known he was really Sacha Baron Cohen — better known as Borat — hunting unsuspecting participants and gathering material for his new film “Bruno.”

Good that this might bring more attention to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to American viewers, but it will doubtlessly be from a Judeocentric-Arabophobic viewpoint, just as ‘Boorish’ (I mean, ‘Borat’) had a Judeocentric-Caucasophobic perspective.

The New and Not Improved Barack Obama is Disappointing (and hollow)

The New and Not Improved Barack Obama is Disappointing

Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. But now he seems to have changed for the worse. We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Obama ’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics

‘because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics’

That is, ‘because liberal newspapers and TV networks campaigning on his behalf told us he would.’

More plausible scenario: The reason he doesn’t have a game plan or anything other than nebulous claims of ‘change’ is that he was chosen as a non-threatening challenger for Hillary, one who couldn’t win because he had no credibility, but who could augment an Affirmative Action ticket for the Democrats. The DP simply overestimated the liberal media’s support for Hillary — and underestimated their pro-minority zeal — ending up with a hollow liberal media favorite struggling to define his candidacy.

Will Liberal Media Report Bill Clinton’s Lingering Anger Towards Obama?

Will Media Report Bill Clinton’s Lingering Anger Towards Oba

Bill Clinton is still very angry at the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee, and he’s not close to calling a ceasefire. In fact, according to the British Telegraph, Clinton is still on a war footing. With press members itching for a united Democrat party, it will be interesting to see how much attention the MSM gives it.

Some interesting discussion of the Billary-Obamamiah feud over at Digg.com. A couple of comments caught my attention:

I think Hillary was kinda “guaranteed” the nomination, but Obama took off like a rocket and the press decided to push him instead.

I think Obamamiah took off like a shot *because* the Democrat-dominated corporate media pushed him so heavily. Of course, although it’s almost impossible to understand how the liberal media makes its decisions, it seems to me that at least two components were involved: (1) the media support for Hillary since 1999, while gratuitous, was purely political and not heartfelt; (2) no one in the media wanted to risk not endorsing a somewhat-credible (half) black candidate.

Bill isn’t a commie at all. He’s just a power seeker and attention getter. Hillary may be closer to the real think… but Obama is the real thing.

I don’t think any of the liberals in question are ideological Marxists/Communists. To the contrary, they’re all elitists who would have a lot to lose should a true Marxian revolution take place. Rather, they’re simply elitist products of the managerial-bureaucratic revolution that took place in the US (instead of the violent Communist revolutions that took place in the East). Put another way, Hillary, Obama, and Nader all grew in the liberal managerial flower box. Hillary and Obama don’t want to overturn the flower box, because they would lose their limousines. Nadar, on the other hand, wants to overturn the flower box and redistribute the soil evenly (which sounds nice on paper, but tends to guarantee poverty and an end to liberty).

I still believe that Bill and Hillary pushed BHO into the race initially because they never expected him to go very far. If the only money he got had been localized contributions it would have gone as planned. Hillary did not want to run against any of her friends. BHO looked stunned when he raked in huge Internet donations, way beyond what the Clintons could garner.

Interesting hypothesis. There have been a lot of machinations in this election. The NYT “endorsed” McCain in the primaries, presumably because they felt he would fall to a liberal candidate in November. Both left-wing and right-wing pundits and blogs “endorsed” the weakest enemy of their favorite candidate. If “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” maybe in the primary system, “the weakest enemy of my friend is my friend.”