Nicholas Stix

Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Qualifications

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:31:00 +0000

By Nicholas Stix

Sit on the Supreme Court? Heck, Sonia Sotomayor isn't fit to sit on a jury!

Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Senate confirmation hearings today enter their fifth day. On Day One, Sen. Lindsey Graham (Vichy-SC) stated to her, on the record, “Unless you have a complete meltdown you’re going to get confirmed.”

Sotomayor was a longtime board member of the racist, irredentist, Hispanic supremacist group, La Raza (The Race), which is the equivalent of a white being a Grand Kleagle of the KKK. She has a history of bullying lawyers. She has publicly made in-your-face racist and sexist statements about her approach to deciding the law, and publicly bragged, in violation of the constitutional separation of powers, of legislating from the bench.

Not only did Sotomayor ignore the cast-iron cinch of an argument for the white firemen plaintiffs in Ricci v. DeStefano that came before her three-judge appeals panel, but with her two colleagues engaged in unethical deception, in seeking to “bury” the case with “a one-paragraph, unpublished, summary order with no mention of … the ‘questions of exceptional importance’ raised in the appeal,” in an attempt to hide this fundamental constitutional case from the Supreme Court. And they would have succeeded, had Judge Jose A. Cabranes, a colleague from the full Second Circuit, not publicly dissented.

The poorly reasoned decisions of this “quota queen” have been reversed by the Supreme Court at an extraordinary, 66.7 percent rate, including Ricci.

Sotomayor has repeatedly lied, in insisting that it has been “proven” that all mental and professional tests—on which she admittedly performed mediocrely—are “culturally biased.” “… my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates. And that’s been shown by statistics, there are reasons for that. There are cultural biases built into testing, and that was one of the motivations for the concept of affirmative action to try to balance out those effects.”

That would be an Asian cultural bias.

As Larry Auster and others have pointed out (from here to here), Sotomayor has also repeatedly engaged in deception during her sworn testimony before the Senate this week, in misrepresenting her repeated racist (“wise Latina woman”) and unethical statements (about making policy from the bench). All the training in the world from David Axelrod, et al., couldn’t help her there. What has saved her, however, has been the cowardice of the Living Dead Party. If there were any men left in the Senate, they would have announced that Sotomayor’s racism disqualified her from the bench.

Any judge worth his salt would be ashamed to use his ethnicity as a “qualification” for the bench, because it would be a confession that he was an unqualified, incompetent interpreter of the law. Yet Sotomayor revels in her ethnicity.

At every step of the way, Sotomayor has benefited not from her ability, but from affirmative action, in other words, from racism. Indeed, she has bragged, “I am a product of affirmative action. I am the perfect affirmative action baby.”

She has agitated for Hispanics’ “right” to be admitted to “highly selective” universities, despite demonstrably inferior test scores, and to be hired as professors despite a lack of scholarship, based on nothing more than their ethnicity, and for “Hispanic” litigants’ (who, since she assumes they do not know English, sounds like a euphemism for illegal aliens) “right” to have Hispanic judges preside over their court cases, i.e., take their side against non-Hispanics and American institutions. Thus would Sotomayor reduce all public life to a rigged ethnic spoils system, thereby throwing generations of valid mental and professional testing and scholarship, the merit principle, 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and 1964 Civil Rights Act out the window.

Sotomayor isn’t a jurist at all; this self-styled “wise Latina woman” is an ethnocentric, separatist advocate who, consistent with her racism and sexism, hates the rule of law, fairness, science and meritocracy.

Is there a single positive reason why this woman should be sitting on the bench in traffic court? To ask the question is to answer it.

But Sotomayor is not only unqualified to serve as a traffic court judge. As former U.S. attorney—but please don’t hold it against him—Andrew McCarthy has pointed out, Sotomayor is unqualified even to serve as a juror in the lowest level court.

McCarthy quotes the standard instruction that every judge must read to the jury:

You have two duties as a jury. Your first duty is to decide the facts from the evidence in the case. This is your job, and yours alone. Your second duty is to apply the law that I give you to the facts. You must follow these instructions, even if you disagree with them…. Perform these duties fairly and impartially. Do not allow sympathy, prejudice, fear, or public opinion to influence you. You should not be influenced by any person's race, color, religion, national ancestry, or sex.

McCarthy then asks,

Would Judge Sotomayor be qualified to serve as a juror? Let's say she forthrightly explained to the court during the voir dire (the jury-selection phase of a case) that she believed a wise Latina makes better judgments than a white male; that she doubts it is actually possible to "transcend [one's] personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law"; and that there are "basic differences" in the way people "of color" exercise "logic and reasoning." If, upon hearing that, would it not be reasonable for a lawyer for one (or both) of the parties to ask the court to excuse her for cause? Would it not be incumbent on the court to grant that request? Should we have on the Supreme Court, where jury verdicts are reviewed, a justice who would have difficulty qualifying for jury service?

For what job, then, is this self-proclaimed “wise Latina woman” qualified? If she were a man with a strong back, I’d say digging ditches. But that’s not an option, though it would be fit punishment.

What do we do with racist, treasonous, incompetent “persons of color” who are good for nothing? Why, we make them President!

Fighting Racism: The Case of Judge Sonia Sotomayor

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 07:16:00 +0000

By Nicholas Stix

Sonia Sotomayor is waging war on “racism.” If you don’t believe me, just ask her. Why do blacks and Hispanics not do as well as whites on standardized tests? “Racism.” (Never mind about the Asians.) Why are more blacks and Hispanics in jail than whites? “Racism.” We can’t have capital punishment, either. As The Urban Grind observes, “Judge Sotomayor also believes that capital punishment is racist.”

The Urban Grind observes, as well, that Judge Sotomayor “believes that denying felons the right to vote while they’re still in prison is racist.”

During the 2000 Great Florida Disenfranchisement Hoax, as the overlapping groups of Democratic operatives, white leftists, and black supremacists sought to steal the election after the fact, they employed at least two different strategies:

• Telling ever more exaggerated race hoax stories supporting their claim that Republican forces in Florida had stolen the election via the disenfranchisement of black voters (in reality, some of the black voters claiming disenfranchisement, at three segregated black colleges, were found to be guilty of vote fraud, through having voted twice, but none was prosecuted); and

• Projecting their contemporary hoax onto the past, by inventing a white conspiracy to disenfranchise blacks through denying felons the vote, after they had served out their sentences.

(According to the Miami Herald, some 5,000 convicted felons, 75 percent of whom were registered Democrats, illegally voted in Florida in 2000. To my knowledge, none of the felons who committed vote fraud was prosecuted, either, as Florida officials backed off, in the face of black racial demagoguery.)

Back then, the purpose of strategy #2 was to get all black felons who had finished their jail sentences reinstated as voters, under the assumption that the overwhelming majority would vote Democratic. (It wasn’t clear whether they had to have actually finished their sentences, i.e., including their terms of parole or probation, meaning that the hoaxers likely sought to get the convicts’ franchise re-instated while they were still convicts.) The Village Voice even made this racist strategy explicit, with references to Marcus Garvey and black power.

The Urban Grind quotes Ben Johnson:

Sotomayor’s position came in a terse dissent to the 2006 case Hayden v. Pataki. The case argued that New York’s law barring convicted felons from voting until they are released from prison or complete parole is racist and thus unconstitutional. Its supporters made this argument on the grounds that “[m]ore than 80% of the New Yorkers disenfranchised…are Blacks or Latinos, who lose their right to vote at more than ten times the rate of other citizens.” Plaintiff Joseph “Jazz” Hayden, before he began his humanitarian crusade on behalf of the disenfranchised, was convicted in 1987 of stabbing a sanitation worker to death.Most Second Circuit Court of Appeals judges disagreed with him, but Sotomayor found Hayden’s objection supported by the “plain terms” of the Voting Rights Act.
Her minority opinion (no pun intended) puts into perspective precisely what a judicial activist she is and how deeply concerns of ethnicity color her view of the law.

Johnson then enters into a scholarly discussion of the ancient Greek roots of the practice of disenfranchising felons, and shows that, contrary to racial socialists’ phony claims, in America the practice is older than the black franchise.

Note Sotomayor’s further radicalization beyond the 2000 talking point. Back then, forbidding ex-convicts to vote was “racist”; now, forbidding current convicts from voting is “racist.”

And one may not disagree with Sotomayor, et al. Merely disagreeing with these people is “racist.” Referring to them as “these people” is “racist,” too! Given Sotomayor’s documented viciousness from the bench, just imagine oral arguments in a Supreme Court on which she sat. It would be like a contemporary university faculty senate meeting!

In case anyone should accuse me of hyperbole, the practice whereby black and Hispanic racists and their white allies constantly harass whites with charges of “racism” regarding the most innocent, trivial linguistic usage, in order to continuously keep them on the defensive, is an over 20-year-old tradition.

(When Sotomayor’s critics argue that she lacks “judicial temperament,” they are implicitly making the same sort of character requirement of jurists that was a given in pre-affirmative action, pre-“diversity” higher education, back in those benighted days before “diverse” faculty and administrators had their own goon squads, with which to terrorize colleagues. In City on a Hill: Testing the American Dream at City College (1994), James Traub showed how tenured black supremacist Leonard Jeffries used his personal goon squad—almost certainly at taxpayer expense—to physically intimidate people, including Traub, at the City College of New York. Thanks to thugs like Jeffries, and the jettisoning of all moral and academic standards, in a few short years, City College deteriorated from America’s most rigorous undergraduate college, to a racist, ghetto hellhole.

How long will it be, at this rate, before Supreme Court justices have personal goon squads, with which to “persuade” their fellow justices as to the power of their arguments?)

Note too Sotomayor’s rationale: By assuming that any law that “impacts disproportionately” on blacks’ or Hispanics’ versus whites’ voting rights (or, apparently, blacks’ or Hispanics’ murder rights) is racist, she is applying what is called “disparate impact” to voting rights (and the death penalty).

“Disparate impact” is the pseudo-scientific fig leaf that has been used since circa 1970 to cover the racist power grab that successfully, more often than not, illegally violated civil service law, the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, in order to racially discriminate against qualified whites and East Asians on behalf of radically unqualified blacks and Hispanics, destroy the merit system, and turn America into a system of racial spoils.

According to “disparate impact,” any government action, regardless of intent, that results in rewarding “protected classes” (initially blacks, then Hispanics and American Indians, now the handicapped and homosexuals, and sometimes, depending on political expediency, white women) in a smaller proportion than it does non-protected classes (white, heterosexual men and sometimes, depending on political expediency, white women), is discriminatory.

“Disparate impact” made the counter-factual assumptions that, absent discrimination, all racial (and due to political alliances since) and other demographic groups which, due to political expediency will be counted in a given situation, will have identical average IQs, test scores, grades, poverty rates, school and college graduation rates, crime rates, etc. (Those indices, such as professional sports, in which “protected classes” have disproportionately higher success rates than non-protected classes are either to be ignored or attributed to the virtues of the protected class in question. ‘Heads we win, tails you lose.’)

The combination of using “disparate impact” and screaming “racist!” (or “sexist!,” etc.) at every critic, and if those tactics didn’t work, firing, “whitelisting,” and/or assaulting him, ushered in a counter-scientific revolution. “Scholars” and lawyers no longer had to marshal evidence and prove intent. All they had to show was inequality of results, in order to “prove” their case.

But why arbitrarily limit the criticism’s target? Given that blacks are incarcerated at over eight times the rate of whites—and at over 30 times the rate of Asians!—the criminal laws themselves must be repealed as racist. (Hispanics are imprisoned at half the black rate.)

The sophistry of “disparate impact” is central to the racial profiling myth. If it is declared unthinkable, the facts be damned, that blacks and Hispanics commit crime at higher rates than whites, and whites are blamed for every social ill, higher rates of black and Hispanic imprisonment must necessarily be the fault of white racism.

These are the logical consequences of disparate impact dogma, which Sonia Sotomayor and “Barack Obama” both embrace. If we accept disparate impact’s backwards theory of the law, whereby the law’s legitimacy is determined after the fact, based on whether its enforcement results in parity of imprisonment between minorities and whites, there can be no criminal law. It must be jettisoned, while anti-white civil rights laws must be retained.

“Disparate impact” dogma demands that the worse blacks and Hispanics conduct themselves, the more whites and Asians must be punished, especially when the original black and Hispanic misconduct entailed victimizing whites and Asians! And there must be ever more blacks and Hispanics, and ever fewer whites and Asians. “Disparate impact” is a weapon of ultimately genocidal race war.

“Disparate impact” is incompatible with science or any rational, fair, system of law. For Sonia Sotomayor, as for the man who nominated her, there is no law or science; there is only race war.

Tiger Woods is Chopped Liver, Says AOL Sportswriter

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:04:00 +0000

Is a woman a better golfer than Woods?

People differ as to who the world’s greatest athlete is. Some say it’s David Wright, some pick Carlos Beltran, still others prefer Johan Santana, and some are still carrying a torch for Jose Reyes. But not AOL’s Kevin Blackistone. In “Ochoa Hottest Athlete in Sports,” he says it’s female golfer, Lorena Ochoa, who just won four consecutive tournaments. Though Valentine’s Day was two months ago, Blackistone even wrote a valentine to Ochoa:

“Dear Ms. Ochoa,

“Please accept my congratulations on the continuation of your magnificent run in the LPGA last weekend in Reunion, Fla., at the Ginn Open. Even Tiger Woods hasn’t done what you just did, win a fourth title in four consecutive weekends. And we all marvel at his stranglehold on the PGA. Some among us have even said he’s the most-dominant athlete out there. Well, what does that make you?”

Tiger Woods! Oh, I forgot all about him, what with it being baseball season, and me preparing to have my heart broken all over again, by those overpaid bums in Flushing. Back to the valentine.

“It’s just a shame the nearly unprecedented body of work you’ve put together as a golfer in general and woman sports standout in particular was overshadowed coming out of last weekend by novelty.”

Blackistone is mad because race car driver Danica Patrick finally won a race, the Indy Racing League’s Japan 300. He doesn’t like Patrick because she’s pretty, and she does awful things like wearing slinky skirts when she appears on late night talk shows that accentuate her, um, “personality.” Boo! Hiss! And men race car fans like the way she looks. Double boo/hiss!!

“Indeed, the best thing about Patrick’s victory in the Indy Racing League’s Japan 300 was that it put her in the sports news for the right reasons finally rather than sexist reasons, which she not only perpetuated but exploited….

“As much as Patrick, 26 like you, appeared to be daring to advance the cause of women in sports by challenging the guys on the Indy circuit, she was stalling the women’s movement, if not setting it back.”

This mook isn’t a sportswriter; he doesn’t like sports at all. He’s a feminist! All he cares about is the so-called woman’s movement (i.e., feminism). He’s just trying to pass himself off as a sportswriter, in order to peddle his propaganda.

Ochoa and Patrick aren’t advancing causes, they’re seeking glory, which is as it should be.

Yeah, I know, I’m a political writer, too, but I don’t pose as a sportswriter. (And I can write on sports.)

Now, if Blackistone merely wanted to celebrate Ochoa as the best female golfer, that would be unobjectionable. But that’s not enough for him.

“If you pull of [sic] the Lorena Slam [Blackistone’s coinage], capturing the LPGA Championship and U.S. Women’s Open, you would match what Tiger did at the turn of the millennium by owning all four majors in your game at the same time.

“I read that like Sorenstam, and the one-time girl golf prodigy Michelle Wie, you’ve been invited to play in PGA Tour events but you’ve declined. You are to be applauded for not feeling the need to prove your excellence by playing against men….

“Ms. Ochoa, you are the best at your sport – if not any sport – and by a long shot right now. That’s saying a lot more than winning a single event.”

Lorena Ochoa’s sport is golf; “women’s golf” is not a sport. If Ochoa is “the best at [her] sport,” it means she is better than Tiger Woods. But of course, she isn’t, so she isn’t the best at her sport. She’s the best female golfer right now. And I’m not slighting that. If I sound pedantic, it’s because I have to be, in order to root out Blackistone’s sophistry.

There is no equality in sports (or much else, for that matter), no matter what Kevin Blackistone may fantasize and try through word games to bring about, assuming he doesn’t engage in such silliness just to impress his wife or girlfriend.

That was one aspect of pc in Blackistone’s propaganda op. Another was the question to an AOL poll on the same page. “Which athlete is more dominate [sic] in their sport?” with Lorena Ochoa and Tiger Woods as possible answers. As if they played different sports. Sixty-five percent of respondents chose Woods.

“More dominate”?! Blackistone’s screed was itself an exercise in affirmative action propaganda, and that question was AA in action. It sounds like something a Hispanic who wasn’t fluent in English might say. And whatever the ethnicity of the individual who wrote that question, neither he nor the editor who proofread it has any business working in journalism. Hell, I never made mistakes like that when I wrote in German.

Actually, there was yet a fourth exercise in pc on the page, a poll question, “Which tour is more competitive?” with LPGA and PGA as possible answers. Eighty-three percent of respondents chose PGA.

In a bygone era, George S. Schuyler (1895-1977) referred to stuff equivalent to what AOL posts for its customers to read as “moron fodder.” AOL is a poorly run business, and promotes not only political correctness, but stupidity, and has contributed to the general impoverishment of American culture. Bad business practices, “diversity,” and general stupidity all together? Can such a divergence be mere coincidence?

By Nicholas Stix

Black Fairy Tale, White Nightmare? Hillary Clinton’s Race Troubles

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 07:00:00 +0000

By Nicholas Stix

For her entire adult life, Hillary Clinton has promoted anti-white racism. Unfortunately for her, black voters have recently discovered that Clinton is herself white.

Bill Clinton on Monday accused Barack Obama of fudging his early position on the Iraq war, and then said, “This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.” The comment provoked criticism from black leaders and Obama supporters.

[Quoted passage added by AOL to Black Leaders Question Clinton Remarks, New York Times, Jan 12, 2008.]

New York Times reporters Carl Hulse and Patrick Healy led their January 12 story,

The Clinton campaign moved Friday to try to quell a potentially damaging reaction to recent comments by Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton that have drawn criticism from African-Americans just as the presidential primary campaign reached Southern states with significant numbers of black voters.
In a call on Friday to Al Sharpton’s nationally syndicated talk radio show, Mr. Clinton said that his “fairy tale” comment on Monday about Senator Barack Obama’s position on the Iraq war was being misconstrued, and that he was talking only about the war, not about Mr. Obama’s overarching message or his drive to be the first black president.
“There’s nothing fairy tale about his campaign,” Mr. Clinton said. “It’s real, strong, and he might win.”

But of course the impeached former president was fudging, since the truth is unspeakable, to wit, that Barack Obama’s entire campaign is an affirmative action fairy tale.

The Clintons have also caught heat from blacks over Hillary’s statement that, as the AP phrases it, Martin Luther King’s “dream of racial equality was realized only when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” That’s true, of course, but blasphemous, due to its suggestion that all racial good things have not flowed directly from the will of St. Martin.

AP’s Beth Fouhy, et al.:

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested Sunday that Barack Obama's campaign had injected racial tension into the presidential contest, saying he had distorted for political gain her comments about Martin Luther King's role in the civil rights movement.

In the run-up to today’s South Carolina Democratic primary, in which 50 percent of voters are expected to be black, both Clintons spent much of the last two weeks in intensive damage control, with Bill calling in to black radio talk shows, and Hillary appearing on Meet the Press, hosted by Tim Russert, longtime chief of staff to the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Hillary Clinton’s immediate senatorial predecessor.

Beth Fouhy, et al.:

“This is an unfortunate story line the Obama campaign has pushed very successfully,” the former first lady said in a spirited appearance on NBC's “Meet the Press.” “I don't think this campaign is about gender, and I sure hope it's not about race.”

But of course the campaign is about “gender” (sex) and race. What else could it possibly be about?

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both leftwing Democrats. They both rabidly support affirmative action (AA) and multiculturalism (MC), which form the entire foundation of Obama’s political career. (And what of Hillary, you ask? Hillary Clinton’s political career is based entirely on having married a privileged white male.) Affirmative action was originally the 1960s’ federal policy of racially discriminating against qualified whites and white-owned firms that were competing for certain scarce goods (jobs, admissions to selective universities, and contracts let by public agencies), and instead giving said scarce goods to unqualified blacks and unqualified black-owned firms.

The Consequences of Bad Intentions

AA was later illegally and unconstitutionally extended to the private sphere, and even to the political realm: Just as the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act was reinterpreted by Justice Department officials and the federal courts to mean not simply guaranteeing equal opportunity (non-discrimination against blacks) but, turning the Act’s explicit wording upside down, to entail engaging in egregious racial discrimination against whites, the 1965 Voting Rights Act was reinterpreted by the same parties such that rather than guaranteeing blacks the franchise, it guaranteed them rigged elections.

As Arch Puddington persuasively argued in Commentary, circa 1990, multiculturalism, or what I call hate studies (black studies, women’s studies, gay studies, Hispanic studies, etc.) exists to rationalize affirmative action.

I’ll see Puddington, and raise him. MC was developed by Marxists to destroy liberal democracy, the market economy, and the rule of law, and replace them with a totalitarian dictatorship. Institutionalized sexual and racial hatred are for Marxists means towards that end. The Marxists worked hand in hand with black racists, who also seek to impose a totalitarian dictatorship, though for different reasons, while the latter bleed whites dry.

Multiculturalism is not a philosophy or a science, but rather an attitude for guiding revolutionary political struggle. All words and acts must be geared towards aiding privileged identities, and harming disenfranchised identities. (This is not to be confused with identity politics. Identity politics would simply benefit members of certain groups, but in MC, members of those same groups are enemies, if they do not embrace the revolutionary struggle. Thus, a privileged, white, heterosexual male—e.g., Bill Clinton—who embraces the struggle is an ally, while a black—e.g., Clarence Thomas—who opposes it, is an enemy.)

Since inequality is the one sure thing about human (sexual, racial, etc.) groups, and hate studies all insist, the facts be damned, that all human groups are equal, and that only discrimination can explain inequality, multicultural “scholarship” consists of the constant production of lies, hoaxes (nooses, anyone?), and hate, and is imposed through school and college classroom indoctrination, diversity and sensitivity training, and news and entertainment propaganda.

Indeed, while claiming to support equality, tolerance, and compassion, multiculturalists spend all of their energies promoting hatred, intolerance, and inequality. But they play word games, defining things such that promoting hatred and discrimination against “privileged white, heterosexual males” doesn’t count as hatred and discrimination. In practice, actual privileged white, heterosexual males almost all support AA/MC, while the white men whom the multicultural alliance targets are typically working or lower-middle class, though as America becomes less white, the persecution must perforce move up the political food chain.

Just as well-to-do whites who supported AA/MC never thought they would suffer because of it, so too the privileged politicians who supported this reign of hatred never thought they would suffer under its whip. It was supposed to help Democrats demagogue against those “racist” Republicans.

For instance, during the 1993 New York City mayoral campaign pitting black socialist incumbent David Dinkins in a rematch against white liberal Republican challenger Rudolph Giuliani, one leading Democrat condemned white New York City voters, saying many white voters are “still too unwilling to vote for people who are different than we are.”

That leading Democrat was one Bill Clinton, in the first year of his presidency.

Like almost all talk about race in America, especially by socialists/multiculturalists, President Clinton’s statement must be translated out of its racial code. Since over 90 percent of black voters had voted for Dinkins in 1989, while over 30 percent of white voters had crossed racial lines by voting for him rather than Giuliani, in fact it was black voters who were “still too unwilling to vote for people who are different than we are,” and who thus needed to overcome their racism. But in multicultural rhetoric, selfish, racist speech and actions by blacks are virtuous, while any self-interested behavior on the part of whites is “racist.”

Early in President Clinton’s second term in office, he set up a phony, rigged “national dialogue on race.” Like all “dialogues” on race that white leftists and black racists call for, it was to be a monologue. After initially choosing only Democratic shills for his panel, which was chaired by black historian and race hoaxer John Hope Franklin, for one episode Clinton added a token critic of affirmative action, neo-conservative scholar, Abigail Thernstrom, for the purpose of harassing and humiliating her on live, national TV, as a proxy for all white critics of affirmative action.

(Clinton, who as president successfully fought every attempt to limit AA, also thereby got a measure of personal revenge against Thernstrom. who had just co-authored, with husband Stephan, the seminal study, America in Black & White. According to the Thernstroms, Clinton had broken the law, by having his aides, Christopher Edley and George Stephanopolous, violate Supreme Court decisions limiting affirmative action.)

Affirmative action is unconstitutional, in violating the 14th Amendment. It is illegal, in that it violates the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act. And it is a moral outrage. But for most blacks, as for their white patrons, support for affirmative action is a political and moral litmus test. Any white who fails that test is for them a “racist” and irredeemably evil. (I am aware that opinion polls have shown a majority of blacks nationally opposing affirmative action. Other opinion polls, cited by the Thernstroms, show almost all whites saying that they have no problem with a black family moving in next door. The one poll result is as incredible as the other.)

Supporting AA is a package deal. It includes, among other things, never criticizing blacks, excepting those few blacks who oppose affirmative action, and that any and all criticism of non-conservative blacks by whites, or their even hinting at the existence of shortcomings or pathologies of blacks for which they do not fault “white racism,” is racist.

Thus, according to the package deal, which both Clintons long ago signed off on, the only thing for white voters to do who don’t want to be guilty of racism, is to vote for Obama in the coming primaries.

And as the Great Florida Disenfranchisement Hoax of 2000 showed, if whites do not vote as blacks demand, blacks will invent a race hoax, and with their white allies, seek to steal the election.

Hillary’s “Qualifications”

Hillary Clinton has argued that voters should choose her because she is more “experienced” than Obama, but according to multicultural rhetoric, such claims (like the claim to be “more qualified”) are merely racist code phrases. Besides, she doesn’t have more experience! Obama ran in his first election in 1996, when he was elected to the Illinois State Senate. Clinton’s first election was her 2000 U.S. Senate victory, in New York. When she says she is more “experienced,” she is either lying outright, or counting her time as Arkansas’ and America’s First Lady. But that’s nonsense. “First Lady” is not an elected or appointed or any kind of post. Hillary Clinton was simply the wife of a privileged white male.

And what was her experience as First Lady? It was the experience of Travelgate, in which she engineered the malicious prosecution of White House Travel Office director Billy Dale, which ruined him financially, just so she could turn the office into a cash cow for her friend from Arkansas, socialist TV producer Harry Thomason. And Filegate, wherein Hillary Clinton collected and kept FBI files on hundreds of Republican officials and staffers whom she considered political enemies. It was the experience of conspiring to obstruct justice, when she had her chief of staff, Maggie Williams, go into the office of presidential counsel (and her old Arkansas law partner) Vince Foster, who had just committed suicide, to illegally remove files. The experience of seeking illegally, through secret meetings with her health policy guru, Ira Magaziner, to impose on America a nightmarish, socialist health scheme. And it was the experience of leveraging her status as the wife of the world’s most privileged, white, predatory, heterosexual male, into a seat in the United States Senate.

No, the “experience” issue does not favor Hillary Clinton.

Blacks vs. White Feminists

Hillary Clinton has spent her adulthood supporting anti-white racism. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

And yet, there is a separate racial issue involving blacks’ attitude towards well-to-do, assertive white feminists. While the political marriage of white, middle and upper-class feminists (most of whom are heterosexual) and middle and upper-class blacks has paid dividends for both groups, when push comes to shove, it is always the white feminists who have to take one for the team.

White feminists have for over a generation supported blacks’ every racist demand, and yet, when they show their appreciation of “color” by falling in love with a black man, instead of welcoming them into the family, black women stare daggers at them, and wish them dead. In 1999, I caught the standup routine in a Manhattan club of a white comedienne, who recalled when she had had a black boyfriend.

“I love black women. You're all so confident. You know what you think and what you want ... and Lordy, Lordy, do you hate me!”

The typical white feminist lacks such insight.

I first saw such hostility in 1978, at SUNY Stony Brook. While my beautiful, feminist, Jewish history professor was lecturing or aggressively engaging the class in discussions, a group of three black girls who sat near me would mutter hostilely about her amongst themselves.

In April 1989, a majority-black (the other members were Hispanics) gang beat a young investment banker, who came to be known as “the Central Park Jogger,” from head to toe, while sexually fondling her. (One attacker, Matias Reyes, raped her either then or after the rest of the gang had left.) Rather than show compassion for the victim, who had lost 75 percent of her blood, had spent weeks in a coma, and never fully recovered, black New Yorkers embraced her confessed attackers as victim/heroes, and demonized the white victim. Even New York’s white elites eventually came around, in 2002 granting the attackers an AA bonus, “exonerating” them. (The attacker had since of course claimed that their confessions had been coerced. Never mind that police had scrupulously respected all of the suspects’ rights, and that all but one suspect had made a videotaped confession in his parent’s or guardian’s presence.)

As Vincent Bugliosi wrote in Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away With Murder, prior to O.J. Simpson’s 1995 murder trial, in mock juries black women were uniformly hostile towards prosecutor Marcia Clark, a youngish, attractive, aggressive white feminist. But you couldn’t tell Clark that. Like most white feminists, she was convinced that she knew black women, and enjoyed an easy rapport with them.

And when black women across the country exuberantly celebrated Simpson’s acquittal by a racist, black-dominated jury, they were also celebrating the murder of his white estranged wife, Nicole Brown-Simpson. (Poor Ron Goldman. O.J. murdered him, too, but outside of Goldman’s family, no one seemed to care.)

In 2000, when a black-dominated group of young men ran amok in Central Park following the Puerto Rican Day Parade, sexually molesting (and in at least one case, manually raping) largely white women, the media misrepresented the episode, as if the attackers had mostly been Hispanic, and the victims mostly black and Hispanic. Since the majority of the NYPD – which had been explicitly ordered to avoid confrontations with minority males – then consisted of white men, white feminists dutifully attacked it instead of the black assailants. But no blacks expressed sympathy for the white victims.

And of course, in March 2006, when prostitute/stripper Crystal Gail Mangum made transparently ridiculous, mutually contradictory and ever-changing charges against innocent, white Duke lacrosse players, white feminists across the country leapt to her defense, and heaped scorn on the three white men who were the real victims.

The socialist MSM and the feminists even made a point of suppressing the fact that women in Duke’s Durham, NC home had little to fear from white men, but that black men targeted white coeds for rape.

According to a March, 2006 news story from just short of two weeks after Mangum made the fraudulent charges against the white men, at which point Durham was the site of a campaign persecuting all of Duke’s white men lacrosse players,

“The [white men] students need to realize they live in a community, and people are going to talk back if they do something, or potentially [?] do something, that is disrespectful to women,” said Faulkner Fox, a visiting instructor in the English department and one of the organizers of the candlelight vigil.
Organizers at the candlelight vigil and the “wake-up call” at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. [where some of the white lacrosse players lived, Mangum situated her hoax, and white feminists banged pots early in the morning, in order to ruin the players’ sleep], said the demonstrations were acts of support for the black exotic dancer…”

Imagine a white feminist saying anything like that about the black men who actually were raping white Duke coeds. And imagine black women organizing protests on behalf of white women victimized by black men. It seems like the more white feminists support black men, the more black men—with black women’s enthusiastic support—target them.

Hillary Clinton thinks that she is blacks’ friend, but they are not her friends.

Hillary can’t win. If she loses the nomination to Obama, she loses everything she has hoped and planned for, virtually her entire adult life. And yet, if she beats him, her victory may prove to be pyrrhic. Blacks are already insisting that Clinton only beat Obama in New Hampshire due to racism (i.e., that “racist” whites lied to pollsters). Next to come: That Hillary conspired to rig the voting machines (this rumor is already making the rounds among white leftists) to change Obama votes to Clinton votes. Blacks were never going to vote for her in the primaries anyway (they lied to reporters about being “undecided,” and to pollsters about supporting her), and will use the “racism” of the primary campaign to rationalize sitting out the general election, which could well lose it for her.

Poor Hillary. In the words of Alan Jay Lerner, “How simply frightful! How humiliating! How … delightful!”

Knoxville Horror: Trial Dates Set; MSM “Discovers” Case; Bloggers Continue Spreading Rumors

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Mon, 28 May 2007 18:39:00 +0000

By Nicholas Stix The MSM is finally starting, ever so modestly, to report on Tennessee’s Knoxville Horror, even as far from the crime scene as Denver! (A tip o’ the hat to Modern Tribalist.) On May 17, Knox County Criminal Court Judge Richard Baumgartner announced that the four defendants charged with having kidnapped, robbed, gang-raped, murdered, desecrated the corpses of, and stolen from Channon Christian, 21, and Christopher Newsom, 23, will each have a separate trial, each of which Judge Baumgartner foresees – perhaps a tad optimistically – as lasting two weeks. The state indictments can all be read here. Newsom was anally gang-raped, and then murdered several hours after being kidnapped; Christian was vaginally, orally, and anally gang-raped, and murdered approximately 24 hours after the couple was kidnapped. At one point, one or more of the defendants allegedly also poured cleaning fluid down the presumably then still living Christian’s throat, but a false report by Michelle Malkin notwithstanding, none of the defendants has been charged with torture. (Speaking of false reporting, 99 percent of the bloggers and Web sites I have read on the case, even Court TV’s usually reliable Crime Library, have been content to uncritically regurgitate an unsourced rumor that I traced back to neo-Nazi New York State radio host Hal Turner, whereby the killers chopped off the living Christopher Newsom’s penis and at least one of the living Channon Christian’s breasts. The largely neoconservative bloggers in question, who claim to hate neo-Nazis, and who tar as a white supremacist anyone who is not racially correct, do not appreciate being told where they got their “facts” on the case. On May 18, after a four-month-long stonewalling campaign by law enforcement and justice officials, Knox County District Attorney Randy Nichols’ special assistant, John Gill, insisted that the Internet rumors of sexual mutilation are “absolutely not true.” Gill’s statement has so far had no effect on the bloggers, and authorities in Knoxville have still not released the autopsy reports on the victims.) George Geovonni Thomas, 24, is charged with having shot Newsom to death and set his corpse on fire. Christian may have been strangled. According to a February 1 report by Fox News’ Knoxville affiliate, WATE 6 News, at least one of the killers dismembered Christian, placing her body parts in five separate garbage bags and putting the bags in a garbage can in the kitchen of the apartment of defendant-brothers Letalvis Darnell Cobbins, 24, and Lemaricus Devall Davidson, 25, where police found the bags. Between the February 1 report and May 17, the dismemberment of Channon Christian was no longer included in any of the reports this reporter has seen; I only came into possession of the aforementioned report on May 17, thanks to a reader’s help. Coincidentally, that same day, a report on CBS’ Knoxville affiliate, WVLT, spoke vaguely of police “finding Channon Christian stuffed in garbage bags.” It is not known whether the killers first murdered Channon Christian, or began dismembering her while she was still alive, something for which there is ample precedent among black racist torture-killers of whites. (See also the black supremacist Yahweh ben Yahweh mass murder cult.) Ex-con Letalvis Cobbins, alias Letalvis Davidson, is scheduled for trial on May 12, 2008. Cobbins is indicted on 46 Tennessee state felony counts, including aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, aggravated rape, felony murder, premeditated murder and theft. Cobbins was previously convicted of felony third-degree attempted robbery on May 19, 2003, in Queens, NY – he just celebrated his anniversary! Cobbins’ girlfriend, Vanessa Coleman, 18, was indicted on 40 state felony counts, including aggravated rape, felony murder, and premeditated murder. In a touching courtroom moment on May 17, according to WVLT reporter Gordon Boyd, Coleman “mouthed the words, ‘I love you’ as she was led out.” Coleman’s trial is set to begin on June 16, 2008. Coleman was referred to in initial reports in January as a “witness” rather than as a suspect, and was a source of much material that eventually went into the case against her and her fellow defendants. An able defense attorney would try and spin Coleman’s cooperation into a mitigating factor at trial, and if she is convicted, during the sentencing phase. (Although Tennessee is a death-penalty state, Knox County District Attorney Randy Nichols has inexplicably refused to reveal whether he will seek the death penalty.) How loving Cobbins is presently feeling about Coleman’s cooperation with federal agents and local police may be another matter entirely. Cobbins’ ex-con brother, Lemaricus Davidson, was charged with the same 46 counts as Cobbins, and is scheduled to go on trial for them on July 14, 2008. (According to published reports, Eric Dewayne Boyd, 34, told federal agents that Davidson had confessed to him that he had murdered – “choked” – Channon Christian.) Davidson, convicted in Tennessee in 2001 of federal carjacking charges, a death penalty-eligible crime, and in spite of being a problem prisoner – but who among us is perfect? – served but a token sentence of at most five years, and was released only shortly before his alleged crime spree. In addition to the initial 46-count indictment handed down against Davidson on February 1, earlier this month, he was indicted on six additional state felony counts in the January 8 armed robbery of an employee in a local Pizza Hut, the attempted armed robbery of a female customer in the restaurant, and weapons possession charges. (Not noticing that Davidson allegedly had a gun trained on her when he allegedly tried to grab the customer’s purse, she resisted, and the “bewildered” robber was allegedly left holding the ripped strap.) Davidson’s next court date in the Pizza Hut case is September 27. Thus, the allegations so far are that beginning in the wee hours, Davidson spent all of January 7 variously carjacking, kidnapping, robbing, torturing and gang-raping Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian, and murdering Christian, and then headed out the next day, to rob people at the Pizza Hut. Busy fellow, he. Ex-con George Thomas, likewise indicted on the same 46 counts, is scheduled for trial on August 11, 2008. Thomas is charged with having shot Newsom to death. Deputy U.S. Marshal Rich Knighten reportedly said that Davidson wept when he was arrested. Ex-con Eric Boyd has been charged federally, in U.S. District Court in Knoxville, with “being an accessory after the fact to carjacking,” for having allegedly helped Davidson flee apprehension. Boyd’s trial date has yet to be set. Boyd has not been charged with any of the state crimes. (Michelle Malkin also erroneously reported that Boyd was charged in the murders, kidnappings, and rapes of Christian and Newsom.) Cobbins, Davidson, and Thomas were also charged federally with carjacking and two counts of federal weapons felonies, but at the request of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, a federal judge dismissed the federal charges “without prejudice” (meaning that they may later be reinstated), so that the Tennessee state prosecutions could go forward first. Having separate, consecutive trials offers potential advantages to prosecutors. Earlier defendants may seek to impute all guilt for the crimes they are charged with to defendants who have yet to be tried, and may provide a wealth of information that can be used against their alleged accomplices. Or they could simply be fonts of misinformation and lies. For an example of such gamesmanship in the present case, when Letalvis Cobbins and George Thomas were initially apprehended in Lebanon, KY, they reportedly claimed in affidavits to federal agents that Eric Boyd was in fact the rapist-murderer. So much for loyalty or gratitude. It is not known whether Cobbins or Thomas has of late made any public expressions of love to Boyd. Some black supremacist activists have, however, publicly expressed their love for Davidson, Cobbins, and Thomas. On May 18, “Christopher Felon,” one of the contributors to the black supremacist Web site, Svengali Media, which celebrates all black-on-white racist atrocities, and has cheered the rapes, tortures, and murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, left the following comments to my last column on the Christian-Newsom case:

christopherfelon said,

Many blacks are pulling for Knoxville's 'SuperThug' & Carjacker Lemaricus Davidson to win the 2007 Sexiest & Hardest Ghetto Black Male Felon Bragging Rights competition for 2007. Others are still on the sideline as to whether it was appropriate for the competition editor, Kirkland Perkins, to waive the rapist disqualification rule and invoke the 'Emit Till' excuseable rape clause so Davidson and his brother could compete.

I soundly support Savannah's 'Slave Avenger' Michael 'Turtle' Thorpe. The family of Thorpe's victim, Jennifer Ross, owned slaves and never paid their reparations. This is keenly why Thorpe is Perkins *favorite* to win the 2007 Rights.

Voting online's been added. And it is exciting that Knoxville's George 'Detroit' Thomas received enough votes to qualify to compete! There's never been 3 competitors from the same city and for the same crime in the competition ever!

http://www.svengalimedia.com/race/sexiest_black_male_felon_2006.html

May 18, 2007 at 2:18 am · Edit

christopherfelon said,

Knoxville's George 'Detroit' Thomas DID QUALIFY TO COMPETE in this year's Bragging Rights Competition!

http://www.svengalimedia.com/race/sexiest_black_male_felon_2006.html

May 18, 2007 at 11:01 am · Edit

The more one learns about this case, the less justifiable the four-month-long national media blackout becomes. One could devote entire three-hour blocks of cable news time exclusively to this story, without ever having to use the endless loops or even partial repeat passages on which cable news relies for filler with big stories, while enjoying blockbuster ratings. How did the media suddenly develop an allergy to making money?

The Knoxville Horror: White Supremacy, Black Supremacy, and Censorship

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Fri, 25 May 2007 10:16:00 +0000

By Nicholas Stix On May 22, the allegedly conservative New York Sun published a guest op-ed column by John Leo, “The Politics of News,” on the racial censorship imposed by the MSM on the Knoxville Horror story of the carjacking-robbery-kidnapping-torture-gang rape-murder-corpse desecrations of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. But in a move that may yet bite the Sun’s editors in the pants, they apparently forgot to take their irony supplements. Blogger Dave Lucas tried twice to post comments to Leo’s column. Both times – once with links, once without – he was censored. Leo’s column is much better than standard Republican MSM fare.

The mainstream press does not like to carry stories of black mayhem and white victims. First, there is the fear of stirring up more racism among Klansmen and neo-Nazis, as the Knoxville case has started to do. More importantly, the newsroom culture tends to view black-on-white crimes as responses to black oppression, and therefore not worth reporting. Whereas similar white-on-black crime is oppression itself, and thus crucially important to put before readers and viewers.

I think Leo’s first explanation is wrong in giving legitimacy to an MSM cover story. Media apologists may say they fear stirring up white racism by reporting on the Knoxville Horror, but first of all, Klansmen and neo-Nazis are politically impotent figures, as opposed to the black supremacists who have well-paying jobs at taxpayers’ expense, tenured professorships and school teacher sinecures, and positions running schools and even school systems, from which they spew lies and hatred and provoke violence (see the chapter on education in this report), and who have engaged in campaigns of mass murder against whites. Secondly, it was the suppression of the story that inspired the white supremacists and neo-Nazis to organize rallies in Knoxville, the first of which is scheduled to take place on May 26 at 3:00 p.m., on the steps of city’s old courthouse, and the second of which is scheduled to take place at the same location on June 16. Neo-Nazi leader Alex Linder of the Vanguard News Network, who organized the May 26 rally, told me in April that he refuses to apply for a permit, and said in so many words that he is daring the authorities to stop him. “Uh, we’re just going to, simply, uh, we’re going to use our rights.” (Oh, so, in other words, you might do it without a permit.) “[Chuckles] We’re going to do – yeah, we’re going to do it without a permit.” Linder’s explanation for the media suppression? “Well, it’s the Jewish media control. And the fact that any kind of non-white crime doesn’t fit their agenda, so they suppress it…. “The Jews are the ones who produce the policies that ensure that this stuff happens.” Among other things, Linder told me, “I was disappointed to find out you’re a Jew.” Typical for a neo-Nazi, he is more obsessed with Jews, with whom he sees “whites” in a defensive war of extermination, than he is with blacks or even “liberals.” (The scare quotes around whites are because Linder sees “whites” and “Jews” as two distinct races who cannot share the same planet.) The brilliance and courage of John Leo’s second point, however, more than make up for the wrongheadedness of the first.

[T]he newsroom culture tends to view black-on-white crimes as responses to black oppression, and therefore not worth reporting. Whereas similar white-on-black crime is oppression itself, and thus crucially important to put before readers and viewers.

So that the reader does not water down Leo’s meaning, Leo is saying that newsrooms are dominated by people who privately cheer on blacks who commit violent, even gruesome crimes against whites, while censoring those stories, and correspondingly exaggerating stories of white-on-black crime. On the May 22, 2007 O’Reilly Report, socialist columnist Ellis Henican from Long Island Newsday was the guest. Henican not only denied that the gang-rapes, tortures, murders, and corpse desecrations committed against Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom were racially motivated, he even went so far as to contradict guest host Michelle Malkin’s observation of her experience of the role race plays in newsrooms in suppressing stories. Henican acted as though Malkin were delusional. (See, I’ll give the Devil her due!) Such anti-white newsroom prejudices have been exhaustively detailed by Ruth Shalit, in her groundbreaking, 13,000-word 1995 New Republic exposé, “Race in the Newsroom—The Washington Post in Black and White,” and in William McGowan’s 2001 book, Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism. More recently, in 2005 and 2006 (also here, on September 21), building on work by the bloggers “ziel” of Your Lying Eyes and Eric Scheie at Classical Values, I wrote exposés on the campaign of massive journalistic fraud engineered by the New Orleans Times-Picayune. In early September 2005, the “Times-Pic” first reported on the savagery that pervaded post-Katrina New Orleans, and then, chagrined at having portrayed black folks behaving badly, its editors and reporters resolved to unreport the truth. The newspaper then assembled a team to discredit its own stories, but without admitting that it had published them. The newspaper acted as though someone else had published the stories. The irony of all this is that most or all of the original Times-Pic stories were true, while the story “discrediting” them was one of the biggest frauds in American journalism history. In one of the darkest moments in American journalism history (coming two years after the Jayson Blair scandal!), for the Times-Pic’s yeoman efforts at deceiving the public, it was awarded not one but two Pulitzer Prizes. (Regarding Jayson Blair, see here, here, and here.) More apropo, I bestowed on the newspaper a Duranty-Blair Award for Journalistic Infamy. But coming from the smirking Henican, such prevaricating was particularly shameless. Ellis Henican is a veteran staffer at Newsday, which has an over thirty-year tradition of anti-white racism, which until the New York Times caught up under Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger Jr., was by far the most radical leftwing daily newspaper in New York, and which during the mid-1970s, in the middle of a nationwide campaign by black supremacists to systematically assassinate white policemen (see also here), sought through fraudulent reporting to get heroic white policemen murdered. As the friend who alerted me to the late-night re-run of Henican’s appearance quipped, “Of course not -- just some misguided, oppressed ‘yoots.’” Now, Dave Lucas has a sense of fairness and of what will entertain readers. On May 18, when he posted about Michelle Malkin’s Knoxville video, he posted links both to her video and to my column attacking her for stealing credit for the story. When Lucas emailed me Wednesday of his problems with the Sun, I tried posting a brief comment to Leo’s article – “Actually, Michelle Malkin is not leading the charge, though an awful lot of people feel the need to give her credit” — along with links to my original Knoxville story and my Malkin broadside, the paper’s blog censor permitted my comment – but censored the links, without which the comment was just so much unsupported blather. This wasn’t the Sun’s first problem with censorship and reporting on race. (One would be shocked, if it were.) Back in December 2002, when black supremacist kidnapper-murderer-extortionist Sonny Carson died, the Sun’s black columnist, Errol Louis, devoted a thoroughly dishonest column to Carson, whom Louis fondly referred to as a “trickster.” Louis spent not word on Carson’s history as a violent gangster. A reader who was unfamiliar with Carson would learn nothing about his history of murder, of his kidnapping conviction (the kidnapping victim was murdered during the kidnapping, and Carson was convicted of kidnapping, but somehow not convicted of murder), of his years-long violent campaign terrorizing, seeking to extort money from Korean produce store owners, and in one case, murdering them, or of his other campaign to run competent white teachers out of black-dominated schools, and even to violently run out black school principals who were not his allies. The Sun is supposedly a conservative newspaper, and so one would expect that it would hire a conservative to be its token black columnist. However, in the racially sycophantic way Republicans have of dealing with race, the newspapers editors were apparently happy just to have any black New Yorker on its masthead, and so hired Louis. I wrote a letter exposing the true Sonny Carson that Louis had hidden from readers, but the newspaper protected him – and left its readers in the lurch. The politics of news, indeed!

Knoxville Horror: Trial Dates Set; MSM “Discovers” Case; Bloggers Continue Spreading Rumors

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Mon, 21 May 2007 15:15:00 +0000

By Nicholas Stix The MSM is finally starting, ever so modestly, to report on Tennessee’s Knoxville Horror, even as far from the crime scene as Denver! (A tip o’ the hat to Modern Tribalist.) On Thursday, Knox County Criminal Court Judge Richard Baumgartner announced that the four defendants charged with having kidnapped, robbed, gang-raped, murdered, desecrated the corpses of, and stolen from Channon Christian, 21, and Christopher Newsom, 23, will each have a separate trial, each of which Judge Baumgartner foresees – perhaps a tad optimistically – as lasting two weeks. The state indictments can all be read here. Newsom was anally gang-raped, and then murdered several hours after being kidnapped; Christian was vaginally, orally, and anally gang-raped, and murdered approximately 24 hours after the couple was kidnapped. At one point, one or more of the defendants allegedly also poured cleaning fluid down the presumably then still living Christian’s throat, but a false report by Michelle Malkin notwithstanding, none of the defendants has been charged with torture. (Speaking of false reporting, 99 percent of the bloggers and Web sites I have read on the case, even Court TV’s usually reliable Crime Library, have been content to uncritically regurgitate an unsourced rumor that I traced back to neo-Nazi New York State radio host Hal Turner, whereby the killers chopped off the living Christopher Newsom’s penis and at least one of the living Channon Christian’s breasts. The largely neoconservative bloggers in question, who claim to hate neo-Nazis, and who tar as a white supremacist anyone who is not racially correct, do not appreciate being told where they got their “facts” on the case. On May 18, after a four-month-long stonewalling campaign by law enforcement and justice officials, Knox County District Attorney General Randy Nichols’ special assistant, John Gill, insisted that the Internet rumors of sexual mutilation are “absolutely not true.” Gill’s statement has so far had no effect on the bloggers, and authorities in Knoxville have still not released the autopsy reports on the victims.) George Geovonni Thomas, 24, is charged with having shot Newsom to death and set his corpse on fire. Christian may have been strangled. According to a February 1 report by Fox News’ Knoxville affiliate, WATE 6 News, at least one of the killers dismembered Christian, placing her body parts in five separate garbage bags and putting the bags in a garbage can in the kitchen of the apartment of defendant-brothers Letalvis Darnell Cobbins, 24, and Lemaricus Devall Davidson, 25, where police found the bags. Between the February 1 report and May 17, the dismemberment of Channon Christian was no longer included in any of the reports this reporter has seen; I only came into possession of the aforementioned report on May 17, thanks to a reader’s help. Coincidentally, that same day, a report on Knoxville’s WVLT-TV 8 News spoke vaguely of police “finding Channon Christian stuffed in garbage bags.” It is not known whether the killers murdered Christian first, or began dismembering her while she was still alive, something for which there is a precedent among black racist torture-killers of whites. Ex-con Letalvis Cobbins, alias Letalvis Davidson (convicted of felony third-degree attempted robbery on May 19, 2003, in Queens, NY – he just celebrated his anniversary!), is scheduled for trial on May 12, 2008. Cobbins is indicted on 46 Tennessee state felony counts, including aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, aggravated rape, felony murder, premeditated murder and theft. Cobbins’ girlfriend, Vanessa Coleman, 18, was indicted on 40 state felony counts, including aggravated rape, felony murder, and premeditated murder. In a touching courtroom moment on Thursday, according to WVLT-TV 8 reporter Gordon Boyd, Coleman “mouthed the words, ‘I love you’ as she was led out.” Coleman’s trial is set to begin on June 16, 2008. Coleman was referred to in initial reports in January as a “witness” rather than as a suspect, and was a source of much material that eventually went into the case against her and her fellow defendants. An able defense attorney would try and spin Coleman’s cooperation into a mitigating factor at trial, and if she is convicted, during the sentencing phase. (Although Tennessee is a death-penalty state, Knox County District Attorney General Randy Nichols has inexplicably refused to reveal whether he will seek the death penalty.) How loving Cobbins is presently feeling about Coleman’s cooperation with federal agents and local police may be another matter entirely. Cobbins’ ex-con brother, Lemaricus Davidson (convicted of federal carjacking charges in 2001, he served but a token sentence and released only shortly before his alleged crime spree), was charged with the same 46 counts as Cobbins, and is scheduled to go on trial for them on July 14, 2008. (According to published reports, Eric Dewayne Boyd, 34, told federal agents that Davidson had confessed to him that he had murdered – “choked” – Channon Christian.) In addition to the initial 46-count indictment handed down against Davidson on February 1, on May 18 he was indicted on six additional felony counts in the January 8 armed robbery of a local Pizza Hut, the attempted armed robbery of a female customer in the restaurant, and weapons possession charges. (Not noticing that Davidson allegedly had a gun trained on her when he allegedly tried to grab the customer’s purse, she resisted, and the “bewildered” robber was left holding the ripped strap.) Davidson’s next court date in the Pizza Hut case is September 27. Thus, the allegations so far are that beginning in the wee hours, Davidson spent all of January 7 variously carjacking, kidnapping, robbing, torturing and gang-raping Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian, and murdering Christian, and then headed out the next day, and robbed the Pizza Hut. Ex-con George Thomas, likewise indicted on the same 46 counts, is scheduled for trial on August 11, 2008. Thomas is charged with having shot Newsom to death. Deputy U.S. Marshal Rich Knighten said that Davidson wept when he was arrested. Ex-con Eric Boyd has been charged federally, in U.S. District Court in Knoxville, with “being an accessory after the fact to carjacking,” for having allegedly helped Cobbins and Thomas flee apprehension to neighboring Lebanon, KY, where Deputy U.S. Marshal Rich Knighten told me that a local-county-state-federal interagency task force of 25-30 law enforcement officers arrested the fugitives without a struggle. Boyd’s trial date has yet to be set. Boyd has not been charged with any of the state crimes. (Michelle Malkin also erroneously reported that Boyd was charged in the murders, kidnappings, and rapes of Christian and Newsom.) Cobbins, Davidson, and Thomas were also charged federally with carjacking and two counts of federal weapons felonies, but at the request of the U.S. Attorney’s office, a federal judge dismissed the federal charges “without prejudice” (meaning that they may later be reinstated), so that the Tennessee state prosecutions could go forward first. Having separate, consecutive trials offers potential advantages to prosecutors. Earlier defendants may seek to impute all guilt for the crimes they are charged with to defendants who have yet to be tried, and may provide a wealth of information that can be used against their alleged accomplices. Or they could simply be fonts of misinformation and lies. For an example of such gamesmanship in the present case, when Letalvis Cobbins and George Thomas were initially apprehended in Lebanon, KY, they reportedly claimed in affidavits to federal agents that Eric Boyd, the man who had allegedly helped them escape capture in Knoxville, was in fact the rapist-murderer. So much for loyalty or gratitude. It is not known whether Cobbins or Thomas has of late made any public expressions of love to Boyd. Some black supremacist activists have, however, publicly expressed their love for Davidson, Cobbins and Thomas. On May 18, “Christopher Felon,” one of the contributors to the black supremacist Web site, Svengali Media, which celebrates all black-on-white racist atrocities, and has cheered the rapes, tortures, and murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, left the following comments to my last column on the Christian-Newsom case:

christopherfelon said,

Many blacks are pulling for Knoxville's 'SuperThug' & Carjacker Lemaricus Davidson to win the 2007 Sexiest & Hardest Ghetto Black Male Felon Bragging Rights competition for 2007. Others are still on the sideline as to whether it was appropriate for the competition editor, Kirkland Perkins, to waive the rapist disqualification rule and invoke the 'Emit Till' excuseable rape clause so Davidson and his brother could compete.

I soundly support Savannah's 'Slave Avenger' Michael 'Turtle' Thorpe. The family of Thorpe's victim, Jennifer Ross, owned slaves and never paid their reparations. This is keenly why Thorpe is Perkins *favorite* to win the 2007 Rights.

Voting online's been added. And it is exciting that Knoxville's George 'Detroit' Thomas received enough votes to qualify to compete! There's never been 3 competitors from the same city and for the same crime in the competition ever!

http://www.svengalimedia.com/race/sexiest_black_male_felon_2006.html

May 18, 2007 at 2:18 am · Edit

christopherfelon said,

Knoxville's George 'Detroit' Thomas DID QUALIFY TO COMPETE in this year's Bragging Rights Competition!

http://www.svengalimedia.com/race/sexiest_black_male_felon_2006.html

May 18, 2007 at 11:01 am · Edit

John Kass: It's a Wonderful, Liberal Life

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 09:24:00 +0000

by Nicholas Stix The Chicago Tribune’s John Kass was on fire Friday: "At least taxpayers know something about taxes: Every time taxes are raised, a liberal gets his wings." That was in a column on the self-righteous, freshly convicted husband, Robert Creamer, of Illinois Democrat U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky. That would be Robert Creamer, “the noted champion of the poor and the downtrodden,” as Kass, dripping sarcasm, repeatedly reminds us, in “Schakowsky ire phony as kited checks” (free registration required). (I was tipped off to Kass’ column by my Chicago-area journalist/blogger friend Jim Bowman, who not only publishes his observations on the Web, but delivers them to his readers’ virtual doorsteps.) Creamer, a Democrat Party operative, was caught in a multimillion-dollar check kiting and tax evasion scam, but got virtually no jail time (five months, which Kass called “a breath on the wrist”). Meanwhile, to hear the shameless Creamer and the missus tell it, he should be getting no jail time and the Congressional Medal of Freedom, in the bargain.

Kass: If you're yourself, regular old you, a taxpayer who's not married to a highly connected liberal Democrat who shrieks about how the little guy is always getting screwed by those evil Republican money grubbers, you'll go to prison for a very long time. At least taxpayers know something about taxes: Every time taxes are raised, a liberal gets his wings. It's kind of like the bells for angels in "It's a Wonderful Life," only this one comes on April 15 and it doesn't ring. It tolls. It tolls for thee. And since you're not Creamer, you probably won't have scores of prominent Democrats--like U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin and a host of other progressive politicians--writing glowing letters to a federal judge about how wonderful you are. Creamer's judge was U.S. District Court Judge James Moran, the former Democratic state legislator from Evanston. Moran's son-in-law is Democratic political consultant Peter Giangreco, who has worked politics with Creamer and Schakowsky and had a seat on the board of one of Creamer's many organizations. Judge Moran says he thought about recusing himself from the trial, but the defense and the prosecution didn't ask him to leave. So he stayed. A federal judge with a conflict of interest as glaring as that shouldn't wait to be asked. He should have walked away on his own. But he didn't. [I’ll remember Judge Moran, next time I hear a lefty claim that federal judges aren’t mere political hacks … as I remember about a hundred other hacks on the federal bench.] This week, Moran gave Creamer 5 months in prison, which means he'll do about 4 months and change. And another year of home confinement, which in Creamer's case is a five-bedroom home in Evanston, said to be worth seven figures.

Kass, a working-class guy who did jobs like digging ditches when he was young, has been around a while. Like all good ink-stained kvetches from the Windy City (ever the Second City in my heart), he has been influenced by Mike Royko, though Kass, unlike Royko, who was wed to the Democrat Party, leans the opposite way. (If Royko were reinacarnated, he wouldn’t be wed to the Democrats, either.) If memory serves, it was from Kass that I first heard the phrases “the Chicago way” and “The Combine.” “The Chicago way” refers to the way every public project gets done by somebody greasing someone else’s palm, as well as to the way – in reference to the Supreme Court’s disastrous Kelo eminent domain decision last year – “in which business and real estate become dependent on politics and favors,” at the little guy’s expense. (Pat at the blog Chicago Bungalow called Kelo, “Property Rights, Chicago Style.”) It turns out I’d heard “the Chicago way” previously in the movie The Untouchables, but that version was more John Ford – as channeled by Brian de Palma – than what Chicagoans mean by it. “The Combine” refers to the corrupt, bipartisan system by which Illinois Democrats and Republicans divvy up the state at taxpayers’ expense – in every way you can imagine “expense.” Leading members of The Combine include disgraced, Republican former Gov. George Ryan, currently on trial in the licenses-for-bribes scandal, which dates to his days as Illinois secretary of state; pro-abortion state Republican Party treasurer and gubernatorial nominee, Judy Baar Topinka; Democrat Chicago Mayor Rich Daley (son of Da Mayor); Republican Party chief Big Bob Kjellander; and of course, current Democrat Gov. Rod Blagojevich. According to conservative Republican activist David John Diersen, the editor of GOPUSA Illinois, The Combine is made up of the liberal (or perhaps just elite) wings of both parties, and supports abortion, affirmative action, and illegal immigration. Whether anti-abortion conservative Republican Jim Oberweis is a member of The Combine may depend on which day of the week it is, since he has been known in the past to suck up to leading Combine powers. Before federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was called away to handle the Plame/Wilson Affair, he was The Combine’s nemesis; John Kass still is. Four days a week, it’s a wonderful column.

Liberal Media Bias and Republican Eunuchs

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:34:00 +0000

by Nicholas Stix There’s a new blog in town, by Matthew A. Roberts: “The Politics of Prudence.” I hope the title is just for show, since there are already too many “prudent” Republicans writing. Roberts’ first article was originally published at David Horowitz’ Web site, Front Page Mag: “The Decline of Mainstream Media.” Roberts cites a massive, ten-year study by Jeffrey Milyo (University of Missouri, econ) and Tim Groseclose, (UCLA, poli sci). “What common sense has comprehended for decades now finds support by yet another scholarly study: The media has a leftist bias. Jeffrey Milyo, an economist from the University of Missouri, and Tim Groseclose, a political scientist at UCLA, have published their results in the November 2005 issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics. As if to confirm that bias, over the past few months, the media have given this research scant coverage.” Milyo and Groseclose, Roberts reports, compared citations of think tanks by the media with citations by members of Congress, and found the media way to the left of Congress. In other words, a Republican think tank was much more likely to be cited by a member of Congress, than by a mainstream newspaper, TV or radio (NPR) news organization. Roberts closes, “These findings bear bad news for conservatives, who still fight an uphill battle to voice their views. Thanks to alternative media formats (esp. on the internet) conservatives have eked out a friendly forum or two, but are absent in the “mainstream” media. Will the Left’s media monopoly ever end? Or should conservatives focus on cultivating alternative media until it is no longer an alternative?” But things are even worse than Roberts reported, because most alternative "conservative" Web sites and Republican writers do little more than obsessively repeat GOP talking points (as if that'll get 'em any respect!), and like the GOP, are a bunch of pussy-whipped (as my feminist ex would say) eunuchs who obsessively avoid confronting the worst problems besetting America: Black racism and immigration (legal and illegal). Why is it that the toughest men among conservative columnists are named Michelle and Ann?

Liberal Media Bias and Republican Eunuchs

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:21:00 +0000

by Nicholas Stix There’s a new blog in town, Matthew A. Roberts' “The Politics of Prudence.” I hope the title is just for show, since there are already too many “prudent” Republicans writing. Roberts’ first article was originally published at David Horowitz’ Web site, Front Page Mag: “The Decline of Mainstream Media.” Roberts cites a massive, ten-year study by Jeffrey Milyo (University of Missouri, econ) and Tim Groseclose, (UCLA, poli sci). “What common sense has comprehended for decades now finds support by yet another scholarly study: The media has a leftist bias. Jeffrey Milyo, an economist from the University of Missouri, and Tim Groseclose, a political scientist at UCLA, have published their results in the November 2005 issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics. As if to confirm that bias, over the past few months, the media have given this research scant coverage.” Milyo and Groseclose, Roberts reports, compared citations of think tanks by the media with citations by members of Congress, and found the media way to the left of Congress. In other words, a Republican think tank was much more likely to be cited by a member of Congress, than by a mainstream newspaper, TV or radio (NPR) news organization. Roberts closes, “These findings bear bad news for conservatives, who still fight an uphill battle to voice their views. Thanks to alternative media formats (esp. on the internet) conservatives have eked out a friendly forum or two, but are absent in the “mainstream” media. Will the Left’s media monopoly ever end? Or should conservatives focus on cultivating alternative media until it is no longer an alternative?” But things are even worse than Roberts reported, because most alternative "conservative" Web sites and Republican writers do little more than obsessively repeat GOP talking points (as if that'll get 'em any respect!), and like the GOP, are a bunch of pussy-whipped (as my feminist ex would say) eunuchs who obsessively avoid confronting the worst problems besetting America: Black racism and immigration (legal and illegal). Why is it that the toughest men among conservative columnists are named Michelle and Ann?

Liberal Media Bias and Republican Eunuchs

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:21:00 +0000

Bushbots for Dubai

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 02:16:00 +0000

By Nicholas Stix In what may yet prove to be George W. Bush's Waterloo, our fearless leader has succeeded at uniting political enemies from both sides of the aisle in opposition to his plan to let a company owned by the United Arab Emirates take control of America’s largest ports. The UAE, as President Bush has pointed out, is an important ally. On Thursday, he observed sarcastically that he finds it "interesting" that people who had no objection to port security being run by a British firm (as was until now the case), object to an Arab firm. Let me explain it to you, Mr. President: The British are British, and the Arabs are ... ARAB! (Truth be told, I think it is preferable to limit control of American port security to American firms, although I suppose we’ll have to congressionally codify controls by, say, passing a law that American firms may not subcontract port security to foreign firms or foreign subsidiaries, or bring in cheap, foreign H-1B or J-1 or L-1 – or whatever – workers to replace Americans. Don’t you just love those patriotic, American businessmen?) Mr. Bush is trying to race-bait the American people. But there's a little problem with his strategy: Americans who might be intimidated by the same game when it is employed for insignificant maneuvers like hiring incompetent, mendacious blacks as police officers and firemen, won't play it, when it is used on behalf of Arabs who are a threat to our very existence. Recall that two of the 911 terrorists were from the UAE, UAE banks served as conduits to finance the 911 attacks, and the UAE is lousy with bin Laden supporters at the highest reaches of government. Not good. Now, if the American people had, following 911, in a case of contemplation of collective suicide or of Stockholm syndrome said that "Islam is a religion of peace," President Bush might be able to accuse us of hypocrisy. (In which case I’d say, “So sue us.”) But the American people never went along with that nonsense. It was wholly Mr. Bush's idea. Even most people who, like yours truly, supported him for other reasons (because he was our commander-in-chief and we were at war; because we thought, mistakenly, that he supported the U.S. Constitution, etc.), thought his support of Islam was ludicrous, and could only be justified, as I argued at the time, because we needed to avoid a direct confrontation with over one billion Moslems, and needed to get some Moslems to help us beat the other Moslems. But don't try and humiliate the American people into going along with your lunacy, Mr. Bush. Where is that famous "common touch" of yours, when you most need it? But George W. Bush is not utterly alone. He still enjoys the support of the sort of folks whom H.L. Mencken surely was thinking of, when he coined the term "the Stupid Party" to describe the GOP. My inbox has been overflowing the last couple of days with e-mails from a Stupid Party mailing list, whose members are outraged that anyone would criticize the President over the Dubai Deal. The following missive arrived Thursday night. "MSM [mainstream media] and FNC [Fox News Channel] is full of idiots. (Period) "There is NO SALE OF PORTS!!! It's a lease of some shipping terminals and berths. "Over and over the idiots in the media including FNC keep saying 'selling ports'. ????.... "The New Media needs to expose this BS! "Rush has examined and detailed the facts since last Friday, over and over ... "There is NO SALE OF PORTS!!! It's a lease of some shipping terminals and berths. "There is NO SALE OF PORTS!!! It's a lease of some shipping terminals and berths. "There is NO SALE OF PORTS!!! It's a lease of some shipping terminals and berths." At least someone still loves you, Dubya.

The 14 Percent Solution to Globalization

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 06:05:00 +0000

By Nicholas Stix Many Americans are unhappy about globalization, but globalization gurus are unequally unhappy with those Americans, whom the globalizers see as Luddites who are fighting the inevitable. Apparently, there are iron historical laws which decree that Americans (except for globalizers, natch) must spend, say, $200,000 on undergraduate and graduate education, as a requirement to get a job waiting tables. I never knew that waiting tables was such a complex job. Live and learn. I feel both sides’ pain. Really, I do. I feel the pain of a global outsourcing entrepreneur who can’t get a table at The Four Seasons, just as I feel the pain of a guy with a master’s degree in engineering who can’t get a job installing garage door openers. Economic dislocations are hell on everyone. As even public school teachers have for years told us, “We live in a global economy.” That means that folks here in the First World must compete for the same jobs with people in places like India and China. As Peter Bendor-Samuel, the CEO of Everest Group, which specializes in outsourcing has written, he can hire an Indian in India for one-seventh the wages that an American worker gets in the U.S. (Just imagine when Bendor-Samuel starts to tap into the Red Chinese workforce!) And so, if the multicultural educators and tenured libertarian economists both promoting the global economy mean what they say, they’ll be willing to accept an 85.7 percent pay cut, as will all unions, TV news anchors, Congress and the President, heck, all the way up to George Clooney and Howard Stern. If Clooney balks, we can simply replace him with actor-screenwriter-director-agitators from Bollywood; we can replace Stern with a Red Chinese (English fluency not required), and we can outsource George W. Bush’s job to someone -- anyone -- in the United Arab Emirates. I can just see some benighted reader saying, “But I can’t survive on 1/7th of my income!” Fear not. You need merely tell your landlord or mortgage bank, utility company, grocer, doctor, lawyer, union, etc., that from now on, you’ll be paying one-seventh of what you used to pay. After all, globalization cuts both ways, no? Bill Gates, who keeps telling young people to study engineering, surely has our best interests at heart. Gates wants America to have the world’s best-educated waitresses and installers of garage-door openers. And to show his good faith, I’m sure Gates won’t mind cutting the price of his software to First World consumers to one-seventh of its current price, which Michael Dell will surely also wish to do with his computers. And of course, America’s Overpriced, Private Universities will want to jump on the bandwagon, by cutting their tuition and fees by six-sevenths, and pledging to cut their charges each year from now on. Let us all now praise the globally competitive, brave new economy.

Brokeback Mohammed

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 02:54:00 +0000

Thursday, February 09, 2006 Latest Update: 2:32 a.m., Monday, February 13, 2006 In the news: The National Endowment for the Arts has granted $100,000 to artist Andres Serrano to create an art work to be called "Piss Mohammed." * * * The Brooklyn Museum will sponsor an exhibit by British artist Chris Ofili, in which the Prophet Mohammed is covered in dung and magazine cut-outs of male genitalia. * * * Playwright Terence McNally’s new show will soon appear on Broadway. In Brokeback Mohammed, Mohammed and his early followers are depicted as homosexuals whose idea of prayer was to form “daisy chains” facing Mecca. The play could not have been produced without the support of fellow playwright Tony Kushner. McNally and Kushner have both said that they will brave fatwas against them, if necessary, in the fight against religious intolerance and on behalf of freedom of expression. * * * New York Times columnist Frank Rich has celebrated the Brooklyn Museum exhibit and the coming McNally play, and the Times editorial page has published the Danish editorial cartoons mocking the Prophet. Moreover, the newspaper has announced that, for the rest of the year, it will give a gift of a copy of Salman Rushdie’s novel, The Satanic Verses, to every new subscriber. * * * In the ACLU’s newest campaign, it demands that the federal government revoke the tax-exempt status of all mosques that criticize the government or attack America. The organization has also threatened to sue any and all public schools promoting Islam, and demands that any school board and/or administrator guilty of continuing such propagation, be arrested. * * * Members of the Jewish Brotherhood have been firebombing the embassies and consulates of Moslem nations, calling for the death of Moslem editors, in protest against the blaspheming of Judaism and the anti-Semitic cartoons routinely published in Moslem newspapers, and brandishing signs with messages like “Massacre those who insult Judaism.” * * * Jews around the world are demanding that Moslem nations change their laws to respect Judaism, and apologize for blaspheming Judaism. * * * Steven Spielberg has apologized for Munich, and says he will redo the movie to make it more realistic, without the present phony moral equivalence between the Mossad operatives and the terrorists, or the guilt that his fictional operative presently feels about exacting vengeance for the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre. * * * Meanwhile, Spain has announced that it will be dynamiting the new, Great Mosque of Granada, and forcing all Moslems to leave the nation for the second time since 1492. * * * And out of Israel today, came the third videotape this week of Jewish activists beheading a kidnapped Hamas leader. Israel has said that the kidnappings and beheadings will continue, until all Moslems leave Israel, including the West Bank and Gaza. The Jewish state also leveled the Dome of the Rock, and said that all remaining mosques in Israel will be converted for use as latrines. * * * Last, but not least, George W. Bush has announced his Crusade to invade all Moslem nations, and forcibly convert their inhabitants to Christianity. He calls it "The Ann Coulter Plan." Jonah Goldberg wrote a syndicated column praising the plan. * * * None of the above "news flashes" is true. But why should individuals, agencies, propaganda organs and governments not work to make them true? Islam is the world's most intolerant, bellicose religion; for Moslems, “tolerance” is but a euphemism for submission to Islam. And so, why should non-Moslems not give Moslems a dose of their own medicine, or at the very least apply their usual practices to Islam?

Sundariah Ramrakha (1930-2006)

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Sun, 08 Jan 2006 07:12:00 +0000

By Nicholas Stix On Saturday, Sundariah Ramrakha died of renal failure at the age of 75 in Princes Town, Trinidad. Mrs. Ramrakha is survived by her husband of 55 years, Ramrakha Ramrakha, by one son, six daughters, twelve grandchildren, and two great-grandchildren. Although Mrs. Ramrakha’s husband and children traveled halfway around the world in variously seeking work and visiting relatives, she only left the island of Trinidad once, as a young woman, to visit the sister island, Tobago, of the two-island nation. (When three of their daughters moved variously to New York and London in search of fortune and husbands during the early 1990s, Mr. Ramrakha, who is at home in both cities, periodically traveled to them to look after his girls.) During Mrs. Ramrakha’s life, Trinidadian culture and politics utterly changed. At the time of her birth, some East Indians had only recently been freed from indentured servitude by a 1917 British decree. The majority of East Indians (as opposed to black West Indians, who spoke English) still spoke only Hindi; that began to change, thanks to Presbyterian missionaries, who in the 1920s taught East Indians English … and converted more than a few to Christianity. Mrs. Ramrakha and her husband wed in an arranged, Hindu marriage; conversely, only two of her seven daughters was wed by arrangement. When Mr. and Mrs. Ramrakha wed in 1950, Trinidad was still a colony of Great Britain; in 1962, the nation gained its independence from the Crown, and was renamed the Republic of Trinidad & Tobago, which remains its name to this day. (Note that the Ramrakhas were devoted to each other, proof that an arranged marriage can be a most felicitous union.) Amidst such social upheavals, the Ramrakhas managed, through backbreaking work, to rise from poverty to a relatively prosperous life. They had no luxuries, but were able to meet all of their needs, and to purchase and extend one house, and then sell that home and move into a second house that they had had built new. Mr. Ramrakha planted fruit and vegetable trees, bushes, and vines on their property, so that their children grew up with a cornucopia of mangoes, avocados, coconuts, oranges, tangerines ("pottigoll"), chestnuts, sugar cane, bananas ("figs"), cocoa, cherries, corn, peas, cassava, tomatoes and eggplant. In a traditional East Indian household, in addition to having a house built for his family, it was the father’s job to arrange marriages for his daughters. Mr. Ramrakha, however, found himself caught betwixt and between changing customs, and failed to arrange marriages for his girls. (Two of his daughters ended up in arranged marriages, anyway.) Thus, some fifteen years ago, when he referred to one of his daughters as an “old maid,” Mrs. Ramrakha retorted, “And who she should marry -- woman?!” (In today’s Trinidad, that retort would still be understood as a joke, and not as a real possibility.) Princes Town recently gained its first “hospital” (really a clinic). By contrast, when Mrs. Ramrakha gave birth to her first two children in the mid-1950s, she had not so much as a doctor or even a midwife to rely on. All alone, while her husband was off working in oil fields or driving a gravel delivery truck as a subcontractor, she delivered the babies herself. But some things have not changed. In the rural, predominantly East Indian South, running water is still a sometime thing, and Mrs. Ramrakha and her family had to work their water use around the practice of the authorities often having it “locked off” during the day. Thus, she would have to fill (or have one of her children or grandchildren fill) buckets and bottles with cold water from her shower in the morning, for use for bathing and washing hands. And hot running water is still unheard of in Princes Town. But then, Princes Town is a model of progress compared to villages farther south, where there is no running water, and people get their water from government trucks that fill huge plastic water barrels. And yet, apparent backwardness can have its virtues. The land that Trinidadian Nobel Laureate V.S. (or “Vidia,” as he is known to “educated” Trinidadians) Naipaul repudiated, is home to a substantial proportion of self-reliant people who can fix almost anything. (Naipaul is most famous for his Trinidad-set novel, A House for Mr. Biswas, which won him his Nobel Prize.) A proportion of those self-reliant “Trinis” are East Indians such as Mr. Ramrakha who are ardent, self-taught students of history and politics, who snort at the pretensions and misrepresentations of the black nationalist academics who hold court at the Trinidadian campus of the University of the West Indies (pronounced “you-wee”) and on TV. (Unlike pretentious East Indian school teachers, who are in awe of Mr. Naipaul, such “primitive” East Indians are unimpressed with him.) Trinidad, unlike the “progressive,” more socially stratified U.S., is also a land where one might grow up down the road from a future prime minister, as Mr. Ramrakha grew up near, and knew future Prime Minister (and current head of the United National Congress party) Basdeo Panday, and the rest of the Panday family. Although Mrs. Ramrakha received a minimal education, she and her husband encouraged all of their children to gain an education. In a nation where few students went beyond primary school, all but one of the Ramrakhas’ children finished high school (“O” levels, which at the time in Trinidad, where less than ten percent of people attended college, had a status equivalent to at least two years of college in the States), with most of them entering various allied health professions, and one running her own business. The Ramrakhas’ son, Nanram, followed in his father’s footsteps, becoming a subcontractor delivering truckloads of gravel to builders. Mrs. Ramrakha outlived two of her children – a second son who was born the last of her nine children, and who died at six months of age of an undetermined illness; and a daughter, Tauti, who died of a brain tumor in 1998, at the age of 28. Although she only occasionally spoke of them, Mrs. Ramrakha mourned her dead children 'til her dying day. Although Mrs. Ramrakha's mother lived to be 103 years old, and her maternal grandmother reached the age of 106, the 4'11" woman was less hardy than her forebears. Having so many children surely exhausted her body, and may explain why her last child was born so sickly. And yet, aside from the lack of availability of medical procedures such as tubal ligation, which might have extended Mrs. Ramrakha’s life through her having fewer children, she wanted and loved all of her children unconditionally. Having fewer children was never a consideration for her. In recent years, Mrs. Ramrakha suffered from diabetes, heart disease, and arthritis, yet until recently, no matter how painful it was for her to walk, she got up every morning to do her house work.

Israel's Sharon Finished as PM, Gravely Ill

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 23:44:00 +0000

By Nicholas Stix Israeli Prime Mininster Ariel Sharon yesterday suffered a massive stroke and a cerebral hemorrhage (bleeding inside or on the brain). He will no longer be able to function as prime minister, and even if the 77-year-old survives, according to one health professional familiar with such conditions, he may not even be able to speak or otherwise enjoy major brain functions. Deputy prime minister Ehud Ohlmert has been named acting prime minister. Sharon's condition adds uncertainty to Israeli politics’ extent chaos. In November, Sharon had announced that he was leaving the Likud Party, formed his own party, "Kadima," with many of his old Likud loyalists, and called for elections on March 28. Now, the new elections are off, and Kadima is dead in the sand. And the Sharon Era, which began with the retired general's landslide election victory over Labor Prime Minister Ehud Barak on February 6, 2001, is over. Like many early Israeli leaders, Sharon got his start fighting the British, before there was an Israel, let alone an Israeli Defense Force. Unlike all other early Israeli leaders, who were Ashkenazi Jews (from Europe outside of Spain and Portugal, from where King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella expelled all Jews in 1492), Sharon alone was born in what would become Israel. In battles beginning with the British and through four wars fighting against attempts by Israel’s Arab neighbors to destroy her, Sharon, who rose to the rank of general, earned a reputation as a fearless commander. That reputation served him well in putting down Arab terrorism in the territories, and in negotiating with Arab terrorist leaders such as Mahmoud Abbas.

Breaking News: NYC Cop Saved by Civilians

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Sun, 01 Jan 2006 01:31:00 +0000

by Nicholas Stix UPI has just reported that a New York City police officer who was being beaten by a man in the subway was saved by two men who happened to be in the vicinity. There was no word yet on the sex or ethnicity of the officer-victim, or on the ethnicities of the attacker and the heroes, respectively.

AOL's Feminists Strike Again

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 09:20:00 +0000

by Nicholas Stix Who can turn a porn queen into a “ditzy ingenue”? AOL, that’s who! And no, I’m not writing a hackneyed send-up of “Mame.” Anyone who is an AOL customer gets the company's "news" inserts and pop-up ads whenever he tries to read his e-mail. Thus, he lives in a world in which “ditzy ingenue” is a euphemism for “porn star,” as in the following passage about actress Heather Graham and her new, midseason replacement TV show. “How You Know Her: She became a star by playing a ditzy ingenue in the movie 'Boogie Nights,' and guest-starred on 'Scrubs' last season.” Graham played a ditzy porn “actress” in Boogie Nights, which was a touching movie (it really was!) about the 1970s' pornographic movie industry. No ingenues anywhere in the picture. Do any of AOL’s feminists know English? Much of the "content" AOL provides consists of what journalism legend George S. Schuyler would have called "moron fodder" -- worthless instruction by “experts” telling one that one is obliged to over-tip, tips on how to deal with an impossible boss, etc. Of course, the boss is a man, and the beleaguered employee -- or rather, in pc speak, "co-worker" -- is a female. (If the politically correct had any logic skills, they'd see that the violence they do to language solves many of their problems. If the man in question is a "co-worker," then he can't fire you. Only bosses can fire people. But since feminists and the other leftists dominating journalism have banished clear language about hierarchies -- boss/subordinate; employer/employee -- in favor of egalitarian euphemisms like "co-worker," while at the same time obsessing endlessly about problems that are central to hierarchical relationships, their writing is schizophrenic at best. If they've already neutered white male authority, how can they be having all these problems with authoritarian white males?) AOL's moron fodder stories are often written by females who I am sure think they are better than the work they do … but they're not. I don't know what is more important to AOL's Web editors: Showcasing moron fodder written by ditzy female "journalists," or showcasing the photos of female models that invariably accompany the stories. Unless it is a model posing as an evil boss, you won't see many pictures of white males in AOL's features. While white male bosses are portrayed as ogres in AOL's features, a female boss who really is an incompetent ogre will get powder-puff treatment. And so it was, last February when the headline "Shocking Ouster" accompanied some AOL “content” on Carly Fiorina, who had been fired by Hewlett-Packard, after serving almost six years as its Chairman and CEO. Carly Fiorina has the dubious honor of having destroying the collegial corporate culture carefully nurtured by firm co-founders Bill Hewlett and David Packard, in favor of a ruthless, bottom-line orientation that resulted in layoffs to over 10,000 workers; and of having rammed through one of the most misbegotten mergers in American corporate history with computer rival Compaq, costing HP and its stockholders billions of dollars. The only shock was that HP’s board of directors waited so long to can her. But Fiorina was a woman and a feminist, to boot, and so, feminists immediately pulled out their violins, and played, “If she were a man, they’d say she’s hero.” And AOL played the same song. In mid-December, AOL also ran a feature on Irish immigrant success story Lesley Wootton by a Dayana Yochim, “An Extreme Retirement Makeover.” The story has the teaser, “What does it take to go from $83 in savings to having more than $150,000 in the retirement kitty in less than two years? The financial equivalent to stomach-stapling and tag-team liposuction? Nope. It's a retirement regimen we can all follow….” “For more than 20 years, this Irish immigrant, her American husband, and their five kids scrambled to avoid financial disaster. At one point their family income was just $5,200 a year -- that's less than $15,000 in today's dollars. Lesley worked odd jobs, factory night shifts, waitressing -- anything she could do to bring in extra money while avoiding having to pay for day care. “Then, two years ago, it looked like it was game over. Lesley was 53 and recovering from a divorce. She had a negative net worth and just $83 officially earmarked for retirement. “The end? Not so fast. Today she is debt-free and sitting on a nest egg of more than $150,000. If Lesley sticks to her plan, she'll be a millionaire by age 67.” I read on, hoping to find out how Lesley Wootton had beaten the odds. I never did find out. Alleged journalist Dayana Yochim begins with clichéd dieting analogies (“Step on the Scale,” “Lighten Your Load,” “Purge the Hidden Carbs,” “Make sure you're getting all the right nutrients”) before dumping them for generic self-help/money clichés (“Elevate Your Game” and “Become a Lean, Mean Money Machine”). After all the mixed clichés, you still have no idea how Wootton made her money. But the folks at AOL, in connivance with The Motley Fool, are willing to sell you a subscription to their Get-Rich-Quick newsletter. The article links to a long second article, excerpt from the Get-Rich-Quick newsletter, with Lesley Wootten’s ten tips on how to get rich in two years. 1. Improve your job prospects. 2. Read great books about money. 3. Track spending. 4. Wean your kids off the gravy train. 5. Consider selling your house. 6. Telecommute. 7. Max out your savings accounts. 8. Save your marriage. 9. Reward yourself. 10. Slow down, but don't retire. Along the way, we learn that this woman, who had an income of $5,200, was able to improve her job prospects by going to college, where she was a Phi Beta Kappa. Later, she sold her house. Hello? The premise of both articles was that Wootton was broke, with five children to support. If the premise was honest, Wootton could not possibly have gone to college, much less bought a house, even if it was a “farmhouse.” And we don't want to go into the "gravy train." The anonymous writer is insulting the reader’s intelligence, but that’s the m.o. of moron fodder. Similarly, we know that Wootton’s success came only after her divorce, and that she had no savings. (My hunch is that she got the house in the divorce settlement, sold it, and turned it into her present bankroll. Which would mean that she didn’t do it alone, but rather with her ex-husband’s help. In any event, the writer is being dishonest, by setting up a scenario that would preclude the result she depicts.) So much for feminists respecting women’s intelligence. If you believe the sort of, um, stuff that AOL pushes on its customers, I’d like to introduce you to my friend, Miss Ingénue. She goes for $500 an hour.

Support VDARE!

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 02:46:00 +0000

by Nicholas Stix In this holiday season, you are being deluged by scam artists seeking to fleece you for what they claim are "charities." Have you gotten your yearly call, for instance, from the guy who claims to be collecting donations to give to the widows and orphans of policemen murdered in the line of duty? Ha! The guy on the phone is a low-paid flunky; over 90 percent of the money you donate goes to his boss, who is a crook and a creep who should be hunted down by real policemen and put out of business. (Our state and federal legislators are so busy passing pork barrel legislation, that it has not occurred to them to pass laws criminalizing phony charities. And so, crooks like the above-mentioned type continue to fleece the big-hearted.) But one legitimate, truly worthy organization that desperately needs your support is VDARE. This Web site, founded six years ago by the brilliant social critic, Peter Brimelow (author of, among other works, Alien Nation on immigration and The Worm in the Apple on the teachers' unions), is the site par excellence for news, analysis, and commentary on immigration into these United States. And it ain't too shabby on race, either. Why should you support VDARE? Glad you asked. for several years, VDARE was alone among major Web sites in banging the drum for immigration restriction. And it is still the best source for information on the attempt by President Bush and America's elites of the Right and the Left, to smuggle into law a stealth amnesty (aka "guest worker plan"). And it is the best source for information about the immigration bureacracy and the many de facto amnesty programs already in existence. VDARE is also one of the only sites on the Internet whose publisher actually pays his writers. And one of those writers is yours truly. so, if you think that my work is deserving of support, please hit this link to give to VDARE. Thanks in advance. One of the reasons why most of the material you read on the Internet is so godawful is that almost no one pays for material. And so, the typical Web "pundit" sits down in front of his pc and pounds out his "insights" in about ten mintues -- even less, if he's a fast typist. And who needs spell-check? (That begs the question: Why is most of the material one reads in newspapers and magazines that pay writers so bad?) But work that demands to be read takes time to research and write. Hours, days, weeks, even months. It takes Web searches; it requires buying and poring over sometimes expensive, out-of-print books; sometimes it takes costly Lexis-Nexis searches; and it may take calls to lawyers, flacks, politicians and victims. Very few people can afford to devote that sort of time and money to writing, and those who are independently wealthy generally demand, and get payment. (They're the ones writing the drivel published in newspapers and magazines.) And very few "professional writers" are willing to buck the conventional wisdom, Left or Right. Thus are we saddled with the likes of Tamar Jacoby and Jonah Goldberg from the Republican side, and Ellen Goodman and Frank Rich from the socialist side. None of the aforementioned writers will give you the truth about ... anything. Jacoby, in particular, has been lying about immigration and the possibility of immigration enforcement for years, in order to prevent Americans from doing anything to reassert American sovereignty and American law. Her goal in life is apparently to ensure that every upper-middle-class American family's "civil right" to illegal immigrant nannies, gardeners, and cooks; and every American corporation's "right" to low-wage Indian computer programmers remains inviolate. Some formerly orthodox neoconservative writers such as Heather MacDonald have in recent years come around to understand that illegal immigration is destroying America, but they might never have, had it not been for VDARE alone banging the drum for immigration restriction lo these many years. Peter Brimelow has published two of my articles since May, 2004, and they were two of my most important exposes on policing and multiculturalism ("'Disappearing' Crime" and "Diversity is Strength! It's Also ... Police Corruption." In his current fundraising appeal, Brimelow writes, "help feed starving young writers in fiscal 2005!" "It is amazing how little money it takes to get young people to take this risk—not a risk at all, really, but certain professional suicide, unless we can build VDARE.COM up as an alternative institution fast enough." [How nice to be referred to as "young" -- that hasn't happened in years!] "At various times this year, I’ve had to go slow paying writers—and also to turn aside the many new writers who want to appear on VDARE.COM. It’s deeply distressing, because just a little money means so much to them—and to their country. "Tonight, we post Tom Piatak’s summary of the War Against Christmas, Michelle Malkin, plus, of course, the blog. "Scroll down to the end, past Ms. Bevens’ picture—and when you pass the donate link, remember my starving young writers." There are only three business days left, and as Brimelow and the gang at VDARE point out, this year, due to the Katrina Bonus legislation, you get to deduct 100% of all charitable donations from your taxes. I thank you, and your nation will thank you -- sometime down the road.

Happy Holidays!

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Mon, 26 Dec 2005 05:02:00 +0000

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukah to my readers around the world! Nicholas Stix

Transit Strike in New York!

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:20:00 +0000

By Nicholas Stix At 3 a.m., Roger Toussaint, the president of the Transport Workers’ Union (TWU), representing 34,000 New York City subway workers and bus drivers, announced that his union has decided to strike against the Metropolitan Transit Authority, the state agency which administers the city’s subways and public bus lines. All subways and trains presently on routes will go to all stops and discharge passengers, before going out of service and on strike. The city’s last transit strike was in 1980; it lasted 11 days. New York State’s Taylor Law forbids all public service employees from striking. Roger Toussaint and other union officials could be jailed, and the union could be fined millions of dollars, both of which have happened in the past. Toussaint blamed the MTA, New York State Gov. George Pataki, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, both Republicans, for the strike. Toussaint had demanded pay raises ofr eight percent for each of the next three years, and for the pension age to be reduced from 55 to 50. The MTA offered wage hikes of three percent over the same period, with new workers having to contribute two percent of their salaries to their health insurance, and current workers paying higher co-payments for doctor's visits and prescriptions. The city has developed an emergency plan, permitting taxis and livery cabs to pick up riders at bus stops and to pick up multiple riders, practices that are usually forbidden, while imposing price controls on what drivers can charge. However, at the least, hundreds of thousands of the over seven million riders who daily depend on the MTA will be left stranded. At 3:25 a.m., MTA Chairman Peter Kallikow announced that he is filing contempt of court papers with State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, suggesitng that Roger Toussaint may be jailed, and clearly said that workers will be fined two days' pay for every day they remain out on strike.

New York's Grinch and His Reporter

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 05:53:00 +0000

by Nicholas Stix As of 3 a.m. Tuesday morning, New York city's first transit workers strike in 25 years is officially on! * * * What would you call someone who would destroy the Christmas of a city of eight million people, plus a few sundry million suburban commuters and shoppers, if the state authority that pays his members does not roll over for his "negotiation" demands, and sign a contract that would eventually bankrupt the city and state? The Grinch is better known as Roger Toussaint, the president of the Transport Workers Union (TWU), which represents all city subway workers and bus drivers, 34,000 in all. Toussaint, who leads the city's most militant union, had demanded raises of eight percent for each of the next three years, and to permit workers to retire at the age of 50 with a full pension. (Transit workers currently qualify for pensions at age 55.) The Metropolitan Transit Authority, the state agency that pays TWU workers on behalf of the citizens of the State of New York, offered raises of three, three, and three percent , but demanded that union workers stay on the job until they reach the age of 62, that all new employees contribute two percent of their wages towards their health insurance, something they never previously had to do, and that all current employees pay higher co-payments for dcotor's visits and prescriptions. TWU members speak of a supposed $1B MTA "surplus." But another four years down the road, the agency is projected to have at least a $1B deficit. The agency has not maintained infrastructure in recent years, and the current $2 subway and bus fare is in jeopardy of being raised yet again. The TWU is supported by other municipal unions -- the United Federation of Teachers, Patrolman's Benevolent Association, 1199SEIU, and even by a livery drivers' union, United Drivers of America, though the latter group has little control over New York livery drivers. (The livery driver's union head said that his drivers would not pitch in to help stranded riders, but it is unlikely he can enforce his vicious policy.) The MTA's Metro North workers, who serve suburban commuters north of the city in Rockland and Westchester counties, among other destinations, promised to engage in a sympathy strike. The source of the other unions' solidarity is no mystery: If the MTA blinks, they will demand contracts every bit as generous. When John Lindsay gave in to similarly exorbitant union demands 40 years ago -- then speaheaded by the Sanitation Workers' Union -- it eventually bankrupted the city, which ultimately fell under the financial control of the State of New York. Roger Toussaint does not give a hang about bankrupting the city and the state. And he has a special helper. WABC-TV reporter Nina Pineda has exposed herself as a shill for Toussaint. In tonight's delayed 11 p.m. broadcast, following Monday Night Football, at 12:26 a.m., Pineda said, "As [fellow reporter N.J. Burkett] said, this was never about money. This was about dignity and respect. "Rallyers ask the public to choose sides.... ""They want health benefits. They want a raise. And they want to secure these things for future generations.... "[Toussaint] was upset when Gov. Pataki waved his finger at workers like they were children." When people say "It isn't about money," it's always about money. At 1:05 a.m., Pineda was back, as her station, city-dwellers, and suburban commuters, all waited for Toussaint to stop torturing us and tell us if he would call a strike for the morning. Now she spoke not of "Toussaint," but simply of "the President," as if Roger Toussaint were the occupant of the White House. In my 47 years, I have never heard a reporter refer to a union chief simply as "the President." Gov. George Pataki hadn't wagged his fingers at the union; he had simply reminded Roger Toussaint that it is illegal for them to strike. New York's Taylor Law makes it illegal for any public workers to strike. That reminder that Toussaint would be committing a crime, is what "upset" him. Pineda neglected to inform her viewers as to the Governor's concern, or to so much as mention the fact that a strike would be illegal, and would result in millions of dollars of fines being imposed on workers. Pineda spoke of "the President" in statesman-like terms, saying that he is concerned that he not harm unions anywhere else in the country. Roger Toussaint is acting like the sort of communist union head one customarily sees somewhere like France or Italy, and Nina Pineda is acting like his personal flack, the taxpayers and paying riders be damned. (For those whose response is that the workers are also taxpayers, public employees do not contribute to the tax base; they only take from it. The tax base derives entirely from the private sector.) Contrast Pineda's work with that of reporter Dean Meminger at NY1, a usually far-left cable station that one wag dubbed "the All-Sharpton News Network." Meminger talked about the TWU's constant changes of notification, saying now that they would come down to speak in five minutes, and now in 15. "A terrible situation for people who have to get to work early this morning." NY1 also gave vent to angry commuters. It looks like Christmas has been cancelled this year for New York's taxpayers and transit riders. But a certain union head and a certain adoring reporter have much to celebrate.

Illegal Alien Pair Terrorize Midwest

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Sun, 18 Dec 2005 06:50:00 +0000

by Nicholas Stix Have you seen Jorge Ibarra, 34, and Rosa Ramirez, 41? If so, do not call the Illinois State Police or even the federal Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the aforementioned agencies will refuse to enforce the law. And don't contact the pro-illegal immigrant mainstream media. Rather, contact Illinois Republican gubernatorial candidate Jim Oberweis, so he can catch them in the act, whatever the act may be. When Ike was president, it wouldn't much have mattered what the act was, since he understood that whatever an illegal immigrant did on American soil was, by definition, illegal. Today, as long as illegal immigrants don't kill anybody, the authorities generally refuse to arrest and deport them. And so, Dave Gorak, the executive director of the LaValle, WI-based Midwest Coalition to Reduce Immigration, reports in VDARE that Ibarra and Ramirez have been running around Illinois, talking workers at cleaning companies whose owners refuse to hire illegals, into secretly hiring them, and then fraudulently suing the owners, claiming the owners abused and cheated them. Thus did Ibarra and Ramirez, as Gorak reports, illegally work for Patmar Janitorial Services, a subcontractor who cleaned Oberweis Dairy Ice Cream Stores. One night in May, the owner of Patmar was driving by one of Oberweis' stores, and noticed a couple of workers whom he did not recognize, cleaning up. He fired them on the spot, then fired the worker who had secretly hired them, Eduardo Martinez. When Oberweis found out about the incident six months later, he dumped the subcontractor. It is not presently clear whether Martinez was in on the scam. If Gorak is correct, then Ibarra and Ramirez are not just illegal immigrants and the perpetrators of a nuisance suit, but guilty of criminal conspiracy to defraud and of tampering with an election, both felonies, since they are seeking with their fraud to cost Oberweis his chance to become governor. (They pulled the stunt because Oberweis was on the record as supporting the enforcement of our immigration laws.) Ibarra and Ramirez are aided and abetted by one Joshua Hoyt, the pro-illegal immigrant/anti-American head of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR) and the Chicago Workers' Collaborative (CWC). Far from helping immigrants, Hoyt/ICIRR's fraud probably cost some immigrants at Patmar their jobs when the company lost the Oberweis contract, and had less work to spread around. (But those would have been legal immigrants, who don't matter to Hoyt/ICIRR.) Ibarra, Ramirez, and Hoyt/ICIRR were also assisted by the Chicago Workers' Coalition, another pro-illegal group, which as the blog Freedom Folks reports, just happened by a suburban Oberweis store in the wee hours with a videocam, to film the 'exploited immigrant workers' hard at work. Finally, as Dave Gorak reports, Ibarra, Ramirez, and Hoyt were helped by Chicago Tribune editorial page editor, Bruce Dold, who posted an editorial ridiculing Oberweis, rather than the perpetrators. Come to think of it, if you see Hoyt engaging in any behavior of questionable legality (like, say, breathing), you should also contact the Oberweis for Illinois campaign. Ibarra and Ramirez may yet live to regret messing with Jim Oberweis. Dairyman Oberweis has a sense of humor, as evinced by his campaign slogan, "got guv?" (Got it -- "Got milk?") But don't try and make a fool out of him. In his statement on the affair, he says,

I will continue to seek the facts as they relate to Ms. Ramirez and Mr. Ibarra.

I wouldn't be surprised if Ibarra and Ramirez now found themselves dogged by videocams and investigators, as the hunters become the hunted.

Rosa Parks and the New York Times

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 06:48:00 +0000

By Nicholas Stix Two of the most celebrated photographs of the 20th century were staged. The first was the 1950 Robert Doisneau picture of a handsome young French couple "spontaneously” smooching, while the second was a 1956 photograph of Rosa Parks riding in a Montgomery, Alabama bus, a well-dressed, apparently 35-40-year-old white man (actually, he was only 28) sitting behind her. When it came out in 1992 that “The Kiss” (“Le Baiser de l'Hôtel de Ville,” known as “Le Baiser” for short – “The Kiss”), which depicted acting students/lovers Françoise Bornet and Jacques Carteaud, was staged by Doisneau, many people were disappointed. People had always assumed the picture was a spontaneous bus that Doisneau had luckily caught for posterity, an assumption which led to people paying millions of dollars to purveyors of a poster of “The Kiss.” The knowledge that “The Kiss” was staged threw into question yet again the legitimacy of much “spontaneous,” naturalistic photography. The story about the staged Rosa Parks picture, “Photo captured an era, but not a moment,” was written by Peter Applebome, from of all places, the New York Times. “Everyone knows her. No one knows him. “Except for Catherine Chriss, his daughter. And, like his identity, hidden in plain sight, unknown even to the veterans of that era still living, what's most telling about the real story of the black woman and the white man is how much of what we think we know is what we read into the picture, not what's there. “The man on the bus, Nicholas C. Chriss, was not some irritated Alabama segregationist preserved for history, but a reporter working at the time for United Press International out of Atlanta. He died of an aneurysm at age 62 in 1990. Mrs. Parks died at age 92 on Oct. 24, a few weeks short of the 50th anniversary of her refusal to give up her seat on the bus to a white man.” According to Applebome, the Parks picture is plastered all over New York City buses, and according to Catherine Chriss, it is everywhere else, too. “Over the past few years, she's been amazed at how ubiquitous the picture has become. “‘It's everywhere,’ said Ms. Chriss, whose family moved to Ridgewood [NJ] from California in 2004.’ Apple used it in their campaign, “Think Different.” A friend called and said she saw the poster on the bus, the whole bus. It's on the bus my daughter Alison takes to school now. When Alison was in second grade, her classroom had that border with African-American heroes and leaders, and there's the picture. She told her teacher that was her granddad up there. She didn't believe her." What strikes me the most about this story, is that it is a story at all. It had always been clear to me that the picture was staged, for the simple reason that the bus appears to be empty, except for the black woman and the white man. Those Montgomery buses filled up in a hurry. And what would have been the likelihood of someone sitting down, in an otherwise empty bus, next to a member of the opposite race? I find it disturbing that people would fall for such an undisguised photo op. For many years, the mainstream media perpetuated the Rosa Parks Myth, according to which she was a simple, tired seamstress, spontaneously opposing tyranny. They avoided mentioning the reality, whereby she was the longtime secretary of the local NAACP, a civil rights activist who had been trained by the communists at the Highlander Folk School, she was not tired, and her act of defiance had been carefully planned. It took conservatives to tell the true story over the years. Applebome or one of his editors appears to have read at least one of those conservatives. “And rather than a simple seamstress who dared to ‘Think Different,’ Mrs. Parks was a longtime NAACP activist, who went to the famous Highlander Folk School to learn about social change and lunched regularly with Mr. Gray, the civil rights lawyer.” All he left out was the communist part; you can’t have everything. That is not to denigrate Rosa Parks. The fact that her December 1, 1955 sit-down had been carefully planned does not mean that she was not a heroine. But it is odd that civil rights leaders and their “journalist”-flacks felt that they could not tell the truth about the incident. (Previous incidents had occurred, one of which involved a teenager named Claudette Colvin. However, the NAACP expressly rejected Colvin as their poster girl for equal rights, since she was notorious for her gutter mouth, and also happened to be unmarried and pregnant. Those were the good, old days, when the organization actually fought horrible injustices rather than supporting them, and had some basic moral standards. Today, the NAACP routinely embraces violent, racist, criminals such as the convicted murderer of four people, Tookie Williams, who was executed on Tuesday morning.) It was nice to see Peter Applebome honestly report a story on race, for once. It is too soon to conclude from that, however, that he intends to become a full-time reporter. Applebome’s biggest race story was, to my knowledge, his December 20, 1996 article on the Oakland Unified School District’s decision to teach black children in “Ebonics” (black vernacular and street slang). As I wrote in “Ebonics: Bridge to Illiteracy,” in the July, 1997 issue of Liberty magazine,

As it turns out, however, mainstream media accounts had, if anything, gone out of their way to conceal the radical nature of the Oakland scheme. In the New York Times' first report on the Oakland resolution, for example, Peter Applebome reported that "[u]nlike standard bilingual programs, courses would not be taught in black English" -- and this erroneous assertion by our newspaper of record was, inevitably, to have a tremendous influence on the subsequent debate…. The first resolution clearly states that black American kids speak an "African language," rather than English, and that they should be taught in both. In the resolution, the board "officially recognizes the existence ... of West and Niger-Congo African Language Systems ... as the predominantly primary language of African-American students"; Oakland schools are to provide "instruction to African-American students in their primary language." And a spokeswoman for the board, Sherri Willis, recently confirmed to me that Oakland schools will be teaching in ebonics. Willis added that she has received calls from educators across the country, who are interested in developing programs similar to Oakland's.

Thus did Applebome provide cover to the black supremacists on the Oakland school board. Maybe in 2045, he’ll write the truth about the Oakland “Ebonics” resolution. In any event, this time, for once, the Times screwed up and got it right.

Bye, Bye, Tookie: Murderer of Four Gets His Just Desserts

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas) — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:24:00 +0000

By Nicholas Stix Stanley “Tookie” Williams, 51, is dead, executed only minutes ago by the State of California at San Quentin prison. In 1979, Williams, one of the founders of the Crips street gang, murdered four people: Albert Owens, Yen-I Yang, Tsai-Shai Yang and Yee-Chen Lin. Williams murdered the four because they were witnesses to two of his robberies; he did not want any witnesses. At the time of the killings, Williams joked about the gurgling sounds one of his victims made as he died. He was convicted and sentenced to die in 1981. A small army of political activists, celebrities, wannabe celebrities, and one corrupt politician campaigned to persuade California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to grant Williams clemency, but Schwarzenegger refused, asking,

Is Williams' redemption complete and sincere, or is it just a hollow promise? Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings, there can be no redemption.

Williams’ supporters argued that he should be granted clemency and a new sentence of life without parole, instead of being executed. Their main argument was that he had turned his life around, in authoring children’s books that tell kids not to join gangs. Abortion supporter Jesse Jackson maintained that Gov. Schwarzenegger had chosen “death over life.” Williams’ lead attorney, Peter Fleming Jr., was angry at Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, saying, according to Chicago Tribune reporters Vincent J. Schodolski and Rudolph Bush, "If Stanley Williams does not deserve clemency, what meaning does clemency have in this state?" Schodolski and Bush reported that USC law professor, Jody Armour, “said the governor's decision was largely a political one. ‘It would have been an act of great political will to grant clemency.’” Armour, who apparently does not take his irony supplements, was unaware that he had contradicted himself: Even by his own lights, the decision to clemency would have been “largely a political one.” But Armour’s claim is nonsense on stilts, anyway: Schwarzenegger was under no public pressure to execute Williams. Rather he was under tremendous pressure to grant him clemency. Some of the names who came out against execution were, in addition to Jesse Jackson, liberal former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, radical former California state senator, Tom Hayden, actor Jamie Foxx, rapper-ex-con-Crips member Snoop Dogg (Calvin Broadus), singer Joan Baez, alleged actor Mike Farrell, and even Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa. Those who supported the execution included, to my knowledge, no famous names. According to Jody Armour, the daily life of a black American consists of one insult, slight, harassment and injustice after another at the hands of whites. That is reportedly the thesis of his book, Negrophobia and Reasonable Racism: The Hidden Costs of Being Black in America. (I checked out Armour, to see whether I needed to refer to the good professor as he or a she; Armour is a privileged black man.) Armour wants the American legal system to be consciously racial. From that it would follow that he has no use for the 14th Amendment to the Constitution or the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act. Most of Williams’ supporters demanded clemency for him because he was black and guilty as hell. You will not see them rally against the execution of white prisoners, or even prisoners who appear to be innocent. Note too that the idea that Williams would receive “life without parole” is unrealistic. As long as a convict is alive, he may potentially receive parole and be freed. The moment Williams had received clemency, his lawyers and supporters would have begin their “Free Tookie!” campaign. After all, the identical arguments used for clemency on Williams’ behalf are routinely trotted out to seek parole for cold-blooded killers. In the American justice system, a jury must consider a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, before voting to convict. Many Americans mistakenly believe that the standard is “guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt”; however, Tookie Williams was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Indeed, one can only imagine how many other murders and major felonies that he, as a co-founder of the Crips, was also involved in, for which he was never charged. Two possible exceptions to the rule among Williams’ supporters are liberal former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo and Republican former Illinois Gov. George Ryan. Cuomo is opposed to the death penalty on general principle, while then-Gov. Ryan, facing prosecution for alleged earlier corruption on his part as Illinois Secretary of State, in 2003 granted clemency to everyone on Illinois’ Death Row, in order to enhance his image with the public and the media, and hopefully earn himself some clemency from jurors in his own trial. The only legitimate argument I know of against the death penalty, is the danger of executing an innocent man. But in the case of Tookie Williams, that argument is moot. As for clemency, given the heinous nature and quantity of Williams’ crimes, to speak of clemency would be obscene, even if he had confessed to his crimes, and expressed genuine remorse, as opposed to putting on an act. There is a place for such shows of remorse: If there is a God in Heaven, and Tookie Williams should meet his Maker, he can confess his guilt and express his remorse, in hopes of obtaining the ultimate clemency. Among Williams’ supporters outside the prison, one brandished a sign quoting Bob Marley’s “Redemption Son,”

How long shall they kill our prophets while we stand aside and look?

Tookie Williams, a prophet? One Fox News reporter observed that in a crowd of approximately 2,000 outside of San Quentin, only one lonely couple supported the execution. They were roughed up by humanitarian death penalty opponents, while nearby cops did nothing. When Williams was pronounced dead at 12:35 a.m. pst, his supporters reportedly jumped up and yelled that the State of California had killed an innocent man. Most of the reporters who spoke after the execution sought to portray Williams in saintly terms – he didn’t resist, as if men about to be executed typically struggled. Adam Housley broke ranks by noting that Williams stared intently at the media, in an attempt, apparently, to intimidate them. If Stanley “Tookie” Williams did not deserve the death penalty, what meaning does the death penalty have in that state?