"UNITED WE STAND" - Is It Just A Motto, and Not A Creed?

I was out and about today when I noticed a bumper sticker... one that I have seen probably a thousand times in my life. It stated simply, "United We Stand", but, for some reason, it struck me as odd this time.

Odd that we have it as our national motto, odd that it appears on our money (in Latin, no less; "e pluribus unum" - which translates as "From the many, one"), and even more odd that some people actually choose to display that sentiment on a lowly bumper sticker. It may have applied during our War of Independence -also known as the Revolutionary War - when we had a population of approximately 497,000. But, this antiquated sentiment has little application in the 21st Century, and for reasons of pure selfishness. (How old is this sentiment? Its origins have been traced back to the Greek slave, Aesop, who lived in the 6th and 7th century B.C.)

The current administration is working diligently to undermine our laws by discounting Congress and usurping our Constitution - that document which (until recently) was the foundation of our country's management philosophy, and is the basis for all United States laws (English Common Law notwithstanding). This so-called "transparent" administration relies almost exclusively on smoke, mirrors, misinformation, disinformation and flat-out lies. Obama's attempts to destroy our culture and our economy, incorporates the core precepts of the Cloward-Piven Strategy (Google it if you have no idea how to destroy a country), and is divisive in its implementation.

The areas of division are many, including (but certainly not limited to) these few:

Class Divisions - the old "have-nots vs haves", the rich vs the significantly-less-than-rich

Employment Divisions - the labor unions vs supporters of the right to work, and workers vs the indolent

Religious Divisions - the atheists vs religious, Christianity vs Muslims, Muslims vs the World

Educational Divisions - the educated vs dropouts,

Sexual Preference Divisions - "gays" vs "straights"

Racial Divisions - the whites vs non-whites

and last, but certainly not least...

Political Divisions - Republicans and Democrats are obviously the two major political divisions, but there are several smaller - virtually impotent - political parties. These two parties control our legislative process, and both claim to want what's best for the country. However... their philosophies are diametrically opposed, so it follows that neither is 100% engaged in what is best for the United States. Each is so busy trying to undermine the plans of the other that, more often than not, each party is overlooking any good that the other may proffer! Who the hell is looking out for our Democratic Constitutional Republic?? If you chose "none of the above" as your answer, you're probably right.

The Obama administration is replete with left-wing, "redistribute the wealth", disarm the citizenry (except them), Socialist-Progressives and communists, as I reported in this blog on August 2, 2009. Let's look at the techniques they are implementing to facilitate the destruction of the United States of America as we know it.

Pitting the "have-nots vs the haves" has probably been going on since the beginning of time. The most successful of the hunters and gatherers were undoubtedly envied and/or resented by those who either lacked the requisite skills/sufficient motivation to develop/improve those skills. But, without lifting a finger (with the possible exception of the middle one), they were allowed to gnaw the residual meat from the bones the hunters discarded, and eat the nuts and berries accidentally dropped by the gatherers. However, the insufficient felt that they too should be able to feast on the flesh of the animals and sit close to the fire. Unfortunately for them, this was the time during which the biggest, strongest and smartest made the law. When the do-nothings complained about their place in the Neanderthal society, the tribe either beat them into submission and forced them to work in some capacity, or banished them from the safety and security provided by the tribal lifestyle. Harsh treatment was necessary in order to insure the survival of the many in those harsh times... it was primarily a PoP (Produce or Perish) social structure. The term "entitlement" had not yet been accepted by society.

The employment divisions are equally clear, and is simply a variation of "haves vs have-nots". However, the right to work class struggle, strangely enough, is initiated by those who have. In order to protect themselves, members of labor unions believe that all skill marketing should be strictly controlled within the domain of the union. As tribes expanded into villages, and villages grew into towns, there became a need for job specialization within the community. Initially the specialization process was one of hit-and-miss. Successes were rewarded, failures were not. Trade "guilds" (first formed in the 14th century) were the forerunners of labor unions, and the concept was quite simple then. A youngster was "apprenticed" to a skilled artisan, where he/she would learn that trade from the ground up - first doing the most menial of tasks (many of which were probably not job-related), and eventually developing the skills of the trade. During this apprenticeship the "pay" was provided in the form of room and board. After a period of several years, the master craftsman would recommend his apprentice to the local guild, which body then decided if the apprentice was qualified to set out on his/her own. Today, union membership is about keeping jobs and pay raises for the less-than-qualified and the totally incompetent. The important thing is continuing the influx of union dues. My personal belief is that we have an inherent right to profit from our individual labors... not from those of our neighbors.

Religious divisions are slightly more difficult to identify, but just as easily provoked by those who wish to pit one belief system against another. Each belief system is certain that theirs in the only true belief. Quite simply then, if any one belief is true, then all others are - by default - false. This creates an ideal condition for fomenting inter-religious and, by extension, interpersonal discord! And, by way of comparison, the Judeo-Christian system(s) are primarily ones of tolerance and acceptance of variations in doctrine, whereas the Muslim/Islamic system is one of intolerance toward, and total rejection of, all other belief systems. Even within the Judeo-Christian system there are those who preach divisiveness for a myriad of reasons - most of which have no basis in fact or reality. Nonetheless, they seem to be at least minimally effective in creating those divisions. Everyone in this country has the right to believe - or not believe - as they so choose.

Educational divisions are relatively easy to pinpoint. Those with advanced education are generally in executive and management positions within an organization, and those with insufficient education are more likely to be found in the labor intensive jobs. This does not mean that one is superior to the other as insofar as their worth as human beings is concerned. It just means that one has taken greater advantage of their educational opportunities to prepare them for a work experience that provides them with a higher standard of living. Unfortunately, the professors of academia are overflowing with left-wing liberal Socialist-"Progressives" who subscribe to the Marxist philosophy of "to each according to his needs, from according to his ability", and thus it is taught, provoking discord between liberals and conservatives. The proper philosophy for a Democratic Republic should be, "to each by his own means", reflecting that we may only prosper from our own labors.

The sexual preference division is a relatively new social partitioning, and has been accomplished via the granting of "special protections" which are above and beyond those provided to the general populace under the Constitution. These special protections put the minority "homosexual community" at odds with the majority heterosexual community. In essence, it places them on some type of "endangered species" list... which may be an accurate description, since they cannot reproduce strictly within their own community. The creation of "hate crime" laws was instrumental in creating this division, and it includes other minorities including but not limited to, racial, religious and ethnic minorities. Such laws are totally unnecessary, because any physically aggressive action is well-covered in previously existing laws. Laws against assault, battery, theft, maiming, manslaughter, homicide, etc., have been around for centuries, and provide for "equal protection under the law". "Hate crimes" cover the state of mind of a transgressor - or quite plainly put, how he/she felt about the group in which the victim is identified, and the reason they took criminal action against them. Reason makes no difference - a criminal act has taken place, and should be punished under the law based upon that fact alone!

Racial divisions are fairly obvious since identification is based upon stereotypical physical features such as skin color and facial features. According to our president (lower case "p" is intentional), apparently white people don't like anybody of color just because they are "of color". We especially don't like Blacks because of the high contrast, and illegal aliens because most of them are brown (certainly not because they violated our laws entering this country). But, as long as the government can benefit (somehow?) from portraying the majority (white Christians) as basically racist, they will continue to do so. The only possible "benefit" to the political party is at election time, when they capitalize on this strategy at the voting booth. This brings me to...

Political divisions. Political divisions are similar in one respect to religious divisions; we are greatly influenced in our choice of each by the authority figures in our life... mainly our parents. All parents want their children to be "more" than they are, so we intentionally try to pass along our traditional belief systems (which most of us inherited from our parents) to our children. This is not exactly fair of us, but it is "normal" human behavior. It diminishes, to some degree, the child's right to choose. But, to permit that total freedom of choice would imply that we were not strong in our own beliefs, so we indoctrinate our children.

I have a personal theory that we are each endowed by our creator (your choice here - intervention by a "Supreme Being" or the sperm donor's DNA) with a unique internal "blueprint" for our life. My theory goes on to postulate that this unique internal blueprint is socialized out of us, beginning almost at the moment of birth. This is the "Cookie Cutter Mentality" at work. (If you want to be a socially acceptable "cookie" you have to fit the same mold as all the other little cookies.) It has its good points, and a multitude of bad points. What would happen if we were allowed free reign, with the exception of say, physically aggressive behaviors? There would likely be little if any prejudice in the world, because prejudice is a learned behavior, and there is no innate dislike of the unlike.
Reducing learned prejudices from our repertoire of behaviors, would result in minimal racism and less "my belief system is better than your belief system". With little physical aggression, there would be fewer boundary disputes between neighbors, whether next door or across the national border. It's a nice theory, but given human nature, it is not practical to expect such radical changes. We humans are fallible creatures. On the whole, we are not solitary beings, and we do tend to "go along with the crowd" in order to insure and preserve our acceptance in the society into which we were born. And therein lies the rub - to get along, one must go along. But, I digress...

With so many divergent social paths available in a free society, is it any wonder that free societies can be torn asunder from within? Yet oppressive societies also suffer from a similar tearing apart, by the inherent yearning that all people have for certain freedoms, especially the freedom to choose.

The above is not meant to be a "lesson", but rather to provoke thought and perhaps stimulate social discourse. Most sentient beings find it enjoyable to simply think, and consider it good fortune to have someone to share their thoughts with. Try thinking outside the box... you may like it! And remember, "United we stand, divided we fall"... it must be more of a creed than an empty motto, or we shall surely perish!

Y'all Gotta Excuse Old Jimmy - His Mouth Has Survived The Death of His BRAIN!

Former President James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, Jr. allowed his hummingbird brain to gain control of his hippopotamus mouth, and suddenly blurted out, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American." Let's dissect that sentence, shall we?

First of all "I think" is an overstatement. Jimmy rarely thought when he was occupying the White House, and now that he's 85 years old he probably he likes to think he's thinking. As for his statement that there is "intensely demonstrated animosity toward Barack Obama"... the old man has apparently forgotten what the word "intensely" means. Jimmy needs to look back at the Democrats constant attacks on President George W. Bush during Gee Dubbya's last term to get the true meaning of "intensely demonstrated animosity". The only part Carter got right was that Barack Obama is President (Rosalynn Carter probably had to remind him of that). Obama is not "a black man", he is a gray man. Obama is an equal mix of the black and white races - who has elected to identify with - and emphasize - only with that portion of his genetic makeup which is black. (Being black, combined with his ability to say nothing meaningful better than most people, is, after all, the thing which got him elected. It was his "hook", his gimmick, which he played very well against the guilt many white people have been carrying around for decades. His campaign was essentially saying to the country, "Prove to the world that you aren't racists - elect Barack Hussein Obama - a totally unqualified black man - as the next President of the United States of America!") And, finally, there's the "African American" claim. His father was an African national, and his mother was an American national. I will concede the "African" part, but it takes more than simply being born in the USA to be an American. Part of being an American is having pride in America, its history, its culture, its constitution, and its singularly unique accomplishment of having gone - in a scant 200 years - from l'enfant terrible (a rebellious infant) to world leadership. This is an achievement that heretofore had taken other nations a thousand years - or more - to accomplish... an achievement that most nations failed to accomplish even with a thousand year head start. One does not show pride in their country by traveling the globe apologizing for that country. One does not demonstrate pride in their country by rejecting its culture. And, one does not show pride in one's country by diverting it from the path of success, or by belittling, ignoring, or attempting to change it's Constitution! There are not enough voters of color in the USA to have elected Barack Obama as president if every one of them voted several times. It was those "racist" white Americans who carried Obama into the White House.

Can we not dislike Obama simply because his only qualification for office of President is that he carried the majority of the popular vote (many of whom are now regretting that decision)? Obama is a professional politician with less than 180 days in the U.S. Senate, who voted "present" over 90 percent of the time (thereby avoiding any real commitment to anything), and spent twice as many taxpayer paid days campaigning for president as he did fulfilling his duties in the Senate! Can we not demonstrate animosity toward any man (or any Congress) whose policies would destroy our financial system? Is it wrong that we feel uncomfortable with a President who has a documented history of association with terrorists, and intentionally surrounds himself with tax cheats, avowed Communists, Marxists, Maoists and other assorted socialists and revolutionaries in an effort to change our system of governance from a Democratic Republic to a dictatorship? Is it wrong that patriotic Americans are both embarrassed and angered by a President who displays a general disdain for the people and the nation over which he presides? If the best plan he can come up with is, "We will spend our way out of bankruptcy!", do we not have the right to voice our displeasure at such arrogant ignorance? America may need a few little "tweaks" to correct some minor flaws... but it does not need to be re-engineered from the ground up!

If you think there's any chance I could be wrong about this... think again! Your brain is probably as atrophied as Jimmy Carters...

"Fla. Hospital Defends Secretly Deporting Patient"

Here's the scenario, as reported by the Associated Press: "During the early hours of a steamy July 2003 morning, Martin Memorial Medical Center chartered a private plane and sent 37-year-old Luis Jimenez back to the Central American country without telling his relatives in the U.S. or Guatemala — even as his cousin and legal guardian, Montejo Gaspar, frantically sought to stop the move."

Jimenez was seriously brain injured in an automobile accident in 2000. He spent more than a year in a "vegetative state", and eventually improved to where he had the cognitive ability of a fourth grader.

The question now is one of, "What's a hospital to do with a patient who requires long-term care, is unable to pay and doesn't qualify for federal or state aid because of his immigration status?".

My point of view is, as always, perhaps overly simplistic:
1. As an illegal immigrant in our country, he should NOT have access to benefits or services for which he cannot pay... except medical treatment for life threatening injury or illness.
2. The hospital had fulfilled their responsibility at the point which Jimenez was no longer in danger of dying as a result of his injuries. Any services provided beyond that point were strictly humanitarian in nature.
3. The hospital, which spent more than $1.5 million on his care over just three years, says Jimenez wanted to go home. If their claim is true, then their act was one of "repatriation," not deportation. Deportation is a legal process of the government, not the administrative process of a hospital releasing a patient. And yes, it probably was financially beneficial to the hospital to assist their patient in fulfilling his desire to return to his home country, but their moral and legal obligations to him had been satisfied for years. People do get homesick, and hospitals are a business... in this case it was a win-win situation.
4. A hospital is not a hotel. A hospital is a facility which provides immediate care for the sick and injured. The only procedures a hospital should have to provide on a pro bono basis are life saving and stabilization procedures if a patient doesn't have the means to pay... BUT, that should apply to ALL patients, not just illegal aliens.
5. The availability and quality of care Jimenez can receive in his own country should not even be considered. It is whatever it is, but it is where he belongs... what it is NOT, is it is not our problem.

I realize how easily my opinion could be interpreted as "racist", but it has absolutely nothing to do with his race... it has to do with his immigration status. People whose first act upon stepping onto American soil is criminal, deserve NO free benefits or services for having violated our immigration laws and procedures! If Jimenez was a white man named Lablanc, in the USA illegally from Canada, I would feel exactly the same way.

My attitude about illegal immigration could be completely wrong, but I tend to see things mostly in high contrast, with very few shades of gray. An act is generally either right or wrong.

Conservative Kiosk Not Allowed At Mall

Here's an interesting story from WCNC in Charlotte, N.C.. The upshot of this story is that a man opened a kiosk in the Concord Mills Mall in the spring of 2009, only to be told that he would not be allowed to renew his lease upon expiration the last day of July 2009. What was he making available to the public that was so horrific the mall no longer desired his business? Was he selling pornography? Drugs? Alcohol without a license? No, he was offering none of those things.

Loren Spivack, the owner of the kiosk, was selling items critical of King Barack Obama's administration. Among the items he offered for sale were poster and bumper stickers bearing slogans like:

"Impeach Obama."

"Al Qaeda's favorite days: 9/11/01 and 11/04/08."

"Work Harder. Obama needs the money."

At least one passerby found them racist and bigoted, and took time to tell the mall in a letter and a letter to the editor of the Charlotte Observer. Racist?? I don't see anything racist in those political statements. There is no use of the of the dreaded "N" word, nor is there any reference to Obama being half white or the first gray president of the USA.

What I do see is an expression of disagreement with the outcome of the 2008 election and with the extravagant disbursal of taxpayer money by an administration too stupid to put any restrictions of use on the bailout contracts - if the government lawyers even bothered to make contracts! Perhaps that was just payback for financial support during the campaign...

I love our Constitution, because it guarantees us protection from so many things... and guarantees us protection of many other things. In fact, our founders felt it was so important to protect our RIGHTS to freedom of religion, freedom of speech (and by extension, freedom of expression) and freedom of the press, that they guaranteed those freedoms in the very 1st Amendment! I used to work in Concord N.C., 40-odd years ago, and I recall those folks as being God-fearing, freedom- and Constitution-loving Americans. Looks like they all died or moved away... and were replaced by yellow-bellied, left-wing, California Democrats. (We have America's left-wing, liberal, public education system to thank for those attitudes.)

For all the things our Constitution guarantees us, nowhere does it guarantee - or even suggest - that we have a right to never be offended. Here's an unusually clever idea - if you find things in a store that you find personally offensive... DON'T SHOP THERE! Organize a boycott, picket the store - exercise your 1st Amendment right to express your feelings about their products. In a free market economy, you have choices as to where you wish to spend your money. If enough people share your point of view, then the issue will become self-correcting when the store goes out of business in 6 months. Don't go whining to daddy about, "How dare they sell something with which I disagree... oh yeah, and I find it offensive as well!" As a margin note, I should also mention that the owner of the mall group, Mel Simon, is known as a generous contributor to Democratic causes and politicians, including Barack Obama.

Personally, I hope that Loren Spivack gets a first rate attorney, and sues the mall ownership into bankruptcy. For the complete story go to (copy-n-paste):
http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-072109-mrn-freemarketwarrior. 63b5b ce2.html

Black Scholar's Arrest Raises Racial Profiling Questions

At first glance, the AP's headline is somewhat disturbing. Reading further on we see that a hot lead-in turns into a rather lukewarm story. But, that's how we're sold everything - first step: you must get the attention of your audience.

Okay, they did that... now I'm hooked and must read the entire article to satisfy my curiosity. It seems that the police in Cambridge Massachusetts responded to a call about "two black males" breaking into a home near Harvard University ended up arresting the man who lives there — Henry Louis Gates Jr., the nation's pre-eminent black scholar. (Okay... that's what the police are supposed to do, respond to calls reporting possible crimes in progress.)

Cambridge police say they responded to the well-maintained two-story home after a woman reported seeing "two black males with backpacks on the porch," with one "wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry." (I don't see any problem there, either. Neighbors watching out for neighbors - what a concept! People used to do that all the time about 60 years ago... back before most of the country went blind, deaf and mute about crime.)

"By the time police arrived, Gates was already inside. Police say he refused to come outside to speak with an officer, who told him he was investigating a report of a break-in." (First mistake goes to Gates, for failing to cooperate with police investigating a possible crime in or around his place of residence.)

Gates' response was reportedly, "Why, because I'm a black man in America?"

Gates initially refused to show the officer his identification, but then gave him a Harvard University ID card, according to police. (Second mistake goes to Gates, for continuing to be uncooperative with police investigating a possible crime in or around his place of residence. Without identification, how could they know he actually belonged inside that domicile? And, of course, Gates just had to "play the race card".)

"He was shocked to find himself being questioned and shocked that the conversation continued after he showed his identification," Gates' attorney, fellow Harvard scholar Charles Ogletree said. (Maybe he should have been a bit more responsive to the officer's initial request for that identification. Now Gates is beginning to sound like an activist who didn't get the memo regarding the success of the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s.)

Some of Gates' African-American colleagues say the arrest is part of a pattern of racial profiling in Cambridge. (Inasmuch as I live on the opposite coast from Cambridge, I have no idea about the accuracy of that claim. However if there is smoke, there may be a fire somewhere in the Cambridge P.D.)

Lawrence D. Bobo, the W.E.B Du Bois Professor of the Social Sciences at Harvard, said he met with Gates at the police station and described his colleague as feeling humiliated and "emotionally devastated." (Perhaps he could have avoided both those feelings by cooperating with the police, rather than opposing them.)

The Rev. Al Sharpton is vowing to attend Gates' arraignment. (Oh yeah... that will be helpful! We all know how level-headed and objective, and what a calming influence "Reverend Al" is. Am I the only person in the country who remembers the Tawana Brawley incident back in 1987?)

Here's the encapsulated, step-by-step version of how the whole deal sounds to me (based on the AP article):
1. Police were called by a citizen reporting what appears to be a crime in progress, being committed by someone simply described as a "black man".
2. Police responded to that call, and encounter a "black man" at the scene.
3. Police make the standard requests - "Step outside and talk with us" and "Show us some identification". (From what was reported, it doesn't sound as if Gates was ordered to the ground at gunpoint, and handcuffed while an officer had his knee in Gates back.)
4. Gates initially refused both demands, because he felt embarrassed and annoyed by the officers imposing on his dignity, and decided to make a "race case" out of it.
5. The longer and louder Gates decried this miscarriage of justice - and violation of his civil rights on the basis of his skin color - the less sympathetic the investigating officers became (having worked in law enforcement, this is a concept I can understand and appreciate).
6. He was arrested on a disorderly conduct charge after police said he "exhibited loud and tumultuous behavior." He was released later that day on his own recognizance. An arraignment was scheduled for Aug. 26.

Granted, I have not lived the "black experience", therefore I am certain that I cannot appreciate the full impact of it on the psyche of many black Americans. However, I have lived the human experience, which is not any "bed of roses" itself.

I recognize that some black Americans are hyper-sensitive over the challenges which they and their forebears had to overcome, and that for many the struggle against racial inequities has not yet ended. However, overuse of the "race card" diminishes it's effectiveness when there is a genuine need for it. When the report is simply of a "black man breaking into a residence", then any black man found in or around that residence is - and should be - treated as a suspect, until the situation is resolved to the responding officers' satisfaction. Let's not waste the officers' time, by demanding they stop and interrogate male Asians or little white girls, when the suspect has been identified as a black male.

I also know that when people have had a bad day some folks tend to be understandably "testy".

I know that police officers have certain established procedures that they follow... routines that are designed to insure the protection and safety of all parties involved. Deviation from these procedures can result in injury or death to any of those involved.

Henry Gates overreacted to a standard, accepted police procedure (justified or not), which brought otherwise unnecessary grief upon himself. A confrontational attitude will get anybody -black, white, red, yellow or green - arrested more often than not.

Perhaps all parties could have been more understanding about the human dynamics that were in play. Henry could have stepped outside, said "I live here, here's my drivers license - check the address." and the officers probably would have said, "Thank you sir. Sorry to have disturbed you, but we were responding to a report of a crime in progress at this address.", and everybody goes away on relatively good terms.

I could be wrong about this... but not in this lifetime.

Dr. Kamau Kambon - An Intelligent, But Severely Delusional Man

Racial bias and hatred are not strictly the domain of white supremacists, like the KKK and Aryan Brotherhood, as evidenced by Kamau Kambon's harangue on October 14, 2005. (Perhaps Dr. Kambon should be the first person tried under our lovely new hate crimes legislation for "hate speech"... or is that charge specifically reserved for members of the clergy preaching against homosexuality?)

"RALEIGH‚ NC ¬ A Raleigh activist and bookstore owner told a panel at Howard University Law School on Oct. 14 that the solution to many of the problems faced by black people is the extermination of "white people off the face of the planet.” Dr. Kamau Kambon, who taught African Studies 241 in the Spring 2005 semester at North Carolina State University, also said this needs to be done‚ "because white people want to kill us.”

Addressing a panel on‚ "Hurricane Katrina Media Coverage,” broadcast in its entirety on C-SPAN, Kambon told the audience that white people "have retina scans, they have what they call racial profiling, DNA banks, and they are monitoring our people to try to prevent the one person from coming up with the one idea.

Prior to his call for acts of genocide against white people, Kambon, who owns Blacknificant Books in Raleigh, told the panel that‚ "we are at war.” He said that white people had set up an "international plantation" for blacks, which made "every white person on earth a plantation master.” He said that, "You are either supporting white people in their process of death, or you're for African liberation.”

He stressed one point in particular. "White people want to kill us. I want you to understand that. They want to kill you,” he said. "They want to kill you because that is part of their plan.”

Kambon closed his remarks by urging participants and C-SPAN viewers to "get very serious and not be diverted from coming up with a solution to the problem, and the problem on the planet is white people."

Before teaching at NCSU, Kambon was a professor of education at St. Augustine's College in Raleigh, a historically black institution. The Triangle, and a left-wing newspaper, The Independent Weekly, gave him a Citizen’s Award in 1999. Ironically, Kambon is also an opponent of the death penalty.

Propagating the "Final Solution”, his words are extreme, but Kambon does however make some interesting points. Lets not forget that similar views to Kambon’s also exist amongst those he condemns. Many White Supremist, Right-Wing and other groups argue similar points, but receive much less publicity. There is state sponsored genocide and segregation evident in places such as Iraq, Sudan and Palestine, while blacks are concentrated in the countless inner-city slums of the West.

Those words were uttered by Dr. Kamau Kambon while speaking to an audience Howard University Law School (and broadcasted by C-SPAN). Obviously, he felt quite comfortable sharing his views."

(There is little doubt that Dr. Kambon's personal views on genocidal acts against white people made it into his classroom teachings at NCSU.)

Kambon is as nutty as was Hitler, or George Lincoln Rockwell (founder of the American Nazi Party), or Nathan Bedford Forrest (founder, and first Imperial Wizard of the KKK). There are haters of all colors, ethnicities, cultures, philosophies and religions in the world. Luckily, they are in the minority in most cultures. Given the history of the black man throughout the world, some slight degree of paranoia is understandable. However, there are no remaining slaves from the Antebellum South, nor are there any "White Only" or "Black Only" signs publicly displayed throughout the modern south. We have more than one-half century of civil rights for black Americans, which followed about 90 years of emancipation (quick head math, ± 10%)... but, it was emancipation with discrimination. No person should ever have thought they had the right to own another human being, or to treat them as lesser beings because of their skin color.

However, "mans inhumanity to man" has been with us since the beginning of time, and will probably remain with us until the end of time. In fact, that concept may be responsible for bringing about the end of time! If you need further proof, just look at the condition of the world today - most of which is involved in conflict of one sort or another.

I could be entirely wrong about Kambon. His soul may be overflowing with "the milk of human kindness", and I just totally misunderstood his use of the phrase, "the solution to many of the problems faced by black people is the extermination of "white people off the face of the planet.” He may have meant "exterminate" in the nicest possible way... but, I doubt that.

Why Is Obama Moving So Quickly To Implement His "Changes"?

There are many things changing under the Obama administration. A few may even be for the benefit of some of the people, but the majority of his changes aren't reported in the media. It may simply be because they are considered minor, or not particularly newsworthy.

Then again, it may be because, if they were made a matter of public record, they would not do anything to maintain Obama's popularity among the left-wing Marxist liberals and the left-wing media who elected him.

Why is Obama moving to implement Marxist controls so quickly? Because if he slows down long enough for people to get a sense for the direction in which he is moving our country, he could find himself looking at impeachment proceedings. What exactly has he done? If you can't tell, then perhaps you should ask the Russians - they can see exactly where he's taking our country (see my blog entry, "When The Russians Can See Where We Are Headed, Why Can't Most Of Us See it?", June 4th, 2009).

Obama has, in any practical sense of the word, nationalized our automotive industry, and our major financial institutions.
1. He has placed Edward Whitaker jr., the former CEO of AT&T, at the helm of GM. Whitaker is a man who is on record as having said, "I don't know anything about cars. I do know about business and I know about big business." Knowing about business - and especially big business - may not be of much help as the Chairman and CEO of General Motors. Trading at under $1 per share, Government Motors barely qualifies as in business!
2. Next we have the appointments to Obama's cabinet posts -
a. Janet Napolitano, the Director of "Homeland Security" is a proponent of open borders! So much for protecting the homeland.
b. Tim Geithner, the Director of the IRS is, himself, a tax dodger! There's not much else one needs to say about that fact.
c. Strangely enough, Leon Panetta, the newly appointed Director of the CIA, seems to be more capable than one might have expected, given that he lacks any background at all in the intelligence field. At least he appears to be (publicly) defending his operatives and their integrity.

Then there's Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, who is on record with positions indicating she is not just sexist and racist ("I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."), but she apparently also believes that if a member of a minority group can't qualify for promotion, then you should promote nobody (see Ricci v. DeStefano), thereby punishing the successful candidate(s)! So much for "equal justice under the law".

And, where he can't get support from Congress for changes to the existing laws, he simply issues an Executive Order decreeing a change to be so. On June 10, I posted a blog noting that the administration had, through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency, reworded USC15, Chapter 29 (Sections 1241-1245, which defines "switchblade knives") to include in that definition any folding knife that could be opened using only one hand... which would include about 112 million thumb-operated, spring-assisted folding knives owned today throughout the USA. Add to that the fact that our State Department may be on the verge of cutting off all imports of certain calibers of firearms ammunition. Ammos listed for this rumored ban include the .50BMG, 7.62x39mm Soviet, 7.62x51mm NATO, .308 Winchester, 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington. Additionally, it's said that an expansion of this proposed ban might be broadened to include the 6.8mm SPC, 9mm Parabellum, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP - among others. In other words, State Department officials may be floating a trial balloon to see if there are howls of protest, or whimpers of compliance (as of this posting I have been unable to confirm this as having become law... yet). This could be seen as a backdoor method by which the government can manipulate its way around the Second Amendment (right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) by controlling the availability of affordable practice ammunition.

You can now see how quickly the boots of tyranny can trample the rights of "free people"... and how little resistance there is to it. Not because we don't wish to resist, but because we are not informed that there is something which needs to be resisted.

"CONSTITUTION VOID WHERE PROHIBITED BY LAW"

As usual, I suppose I could be wrong about this... and I hope I am!

Voter Intimidation Okay As Long As You Do It For The Favorite

According to the May 29,2009 issue of the Washington Times, the Obama "Department of Justice", headed by Eric Holder, has directed it's legal staff to drop the civil charges against three members of the "New Black Panther Party". If you recall, on November 3rd, 2008, there were complaints about one polling place in Philadelphia, where it was reported that the entrance to the building was being blocked by members of the NBPP.

The Obama administration won the case last month, but moved to dismiss the charges on May 15, at the direction of "unnamed political appointees". The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. (And what's with Jerry Jackson - how come he didn't get one of those really cool names? Or, was Shabbigg Shaddummy already taken?) Prosecutors also say Shabazz "supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews." Sounds like a thug to me!

My first question would be - why was this a "civil action" in the first place? Voter intimidation is civil rights violation, and a criminal act under federal law. Maybe that particular section of the United States Code is only enforced if you "encourage" people to vote for the wrong candidate.

I realize that it's not PC to imply that anyone outside the white race could possibly be a racist, but that is precisely my point. It's just that the media and others have an unwritten, informal, handshake agreement to ignore the fact that there are racists of all creeds, colors and ethnicities. Yes, folks, there are black, brown, red and yellow racists. "Whitey" does not have a corner on ignorance or prejudice. There are people who will hate you just for your skin color... or because you're a Jew, Muslim, Christian, or Atheist... or because you are a Liberal, Conservative, or politically non-affilliated. You can be hated for having a better job than somebody else - like it's your fault! And, if they can't find a better reason to hate you, they will hate you just because you are. You may rest comfortably in the knowledge that somewhere in the world there is somebody to hate everybody for any ridiculous reason.

Apparently though, racism is only bad when white individuals and private white organizations (KKK, Aryan Nation, Skinheads, the Council of Conservative Citizens, etc.) practice it. When the government practices racism (and yes, reverse racism and preferential racism is still racism), or minorities indulge in racist behaviors, it's expected to be acceptable. Racism is primarily a philosophy and practice of the ignorant. Nobody likes to look down the ladder of success, and see there are no lower rungs than the one upon which they are standing. Seeing oneself as being powerless (and perhaps, in reality, just too lazy) to do anything about improving their position, it prompts many people to create - if only in their mind - their own verison of "nigger". They do this using any/all of the preceding criteria, or perhaps additional/unmentioned criteria. Some people cannot stand being on that bottom rung - they then have to create what they see as an "inferior being" to look down upon. Their "nigger" isn't necessarily black, either - this "nigger" is an ego-saving concept, not a skin color or race. It could easily be folks that some people refer to as "white trash". And you don't necessarily have to be poor to be "white trash".

That's the truth as I see it. However, I could be completely wrong about this whole thing. What's your truth?