July 28, 2009

The straightforward, “unflinching defender,” George F. Will

Where there’s a Will...

By Jason Maoz, Senior Editor
The Jewish Press, July 24, 2009

If George F. Will comes across to some as a starchy combination of ministerial and professorial, he can blame it on his genes: The longtime columnist is, after all, the grandson of a Lutheran minister and the son of a philosophy professor. He is also as unflinching a defender of Israel as they come in the American media.

Will first came to public attention in the 1970s as an articulate, polished representative of the emerging backlash against political and cultural liberalism. He always evinced a strong sympathy for Israel. Writing in 1977 when the Carter administration was blaming Israel for its alleged intransigence, Will framed the issue in terms that resonate 32 years later, “The contagious crossness between Washington and Jerusalem that originated in Washington is a compound of Washington impatience and Israeli anxiety. The anxiety is more reasonable than the impatience... - The secure are always exhorting Israel to be daring.”

In a 1987 Newsweek column titled “A Just War Remembered,” Will cut through the muck of leftists who were using the 20th anniversary of the Six-Day War to lament Israel’s lopsided victory. It has been 20 years since those six days that shook the world,” he wrote. “Because of what happened then, a united Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and Israel never again will be 12 miles wide at the waist...- And, because of the echoing thunderclap from Israel 20 Junes ago, the security of Israel and hence the spiritual well-being of world Jewry have been enhanced.

The Holocaust ended in 1945, but the Holocaust as aspiration was not destroyed until June 1967, when Israel smashed encircling armies that had the inescapably genocidal mission of obliterating the national gathering of Jews.”

Last month Will was the featured speaker at a dinner celebrating the Claremont Review of Books. According to Jewish Current Issues blogger and occasional Jewish Press op-ed contributor, Rick Richman, Will “gave a masterful speech that included a mixture of political insight, conservative philosophy, humor and baseball stories.” Responding to a post-speech question from the floor, Will delivered a musing discourse on Israel, President Obama and recent Middle East history, which included the following highlights as recorded by Richman:

“In the 61 years since Israel was founded on one-sixth of one percent of land in that area described as land of the Arab world, there has not been a moment of peace for Israel, not as peace is properly understood. How many Americans understand that when Israel was founded in 1948, no Palestinian state was invaded, no Palestinian state was destroyed? There had not been a Palestinian geographic entity since between the departure of the Romans and the arrival of British rule.

How many know that the West Bank, referred to by the president as “occupied territory,” by inference occupied Palestinian territory, is under international law an unallocated portion of the Palestine Mandate rightfully occupied by Israel, because it occupied it in repelling aggression that came from that territory in 1967? [Applause]

How the president believes that if we return to the 1967 borders, the antipathy to Israel, which predated the 1967 borders, will disappear, I do not know.... I remember if I could go back to an autobiographical moment — in 1979, I was invited to talk to the B’nai B’rith of Beverly Hills — not a nest of conservatives. And they said, ‘Who should be the Republican nominee?’ And, I said, pick Howard Baker. George Bush. Ronald Reagan. And they said “Well, who would be best for Israel?’ And I responded, “Of course it would be Ronald Reagan,” They said why?

I said — “Two reasons: he believes in aircraft carriers. He believes in the projection of American power. Second, he is a romantic. He’s got the story of Israel, plucky little Israel. You need both. You need aircraft carriers and you need to appreciate the fact that Israel is an embattled salient of our values in a bad neighborhood [Applause]. It is unworthy of the United States to aspire to be even handed between those who would destroy and those who would preserve the only democracy in that region. [Applause].

“Will,” Richman notes, “was speaking extemporaneously, without notes, to an unanticipated question.”

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:27 AM | Comments (0)

July 26, 2009

What really happened in Viet Nam

Ride the Thunder

By Richard Botkin

Redacted from a review by Rear Admiral Jeremiah Denton

The Washington Times, July 20, 2009

Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

Thirty-six years ago this month, after the North Vietnamese suffered utter destruction of their military complex from Linebacker II air operations and the blockade of all North Vietnam ports, the Democratic Congress passed a bill prohibiting any further U.S. aid to South Vietnam. The bill’s passage was the death sentence to the nation we had vowed to protect from communism.

President Nixon knew his veto of the bill would be overridden, making any veto effort futile. Even though the North was ready to sign a treaty to free South Viet Nam, Congress’ demands to pass the bill nullified the Linebacker II offensive and provided the communists with a free ticket to walk into South Vietnam.

This exercise of off-battlefield politics resulted not only in the loss of a near conquest by American armed threes but in a dreadful loss of American credibility No history pundit has since given account to Vietnam’s true victory — until now. Richard Botkin, author of “Ride the Thunder,” provides indispensable, historic details of the Vietnam War, dispelling the notion that all was lost.

The aftershock of Vietnam resulted in the tragic realization among veterans and citizenry alike that the gallant, sacrificial effort of American, South Vietnamese and allied forces to preserve a free South Vietnam had been futile and flagrantly unappreciated by America. Following Vietnam, no American promise of prolonged commitment to any cause would be of concern to antagonists or trusted by allies.

The precedent is being applied tragically by the current administration in its signals to our antagonists that we will withdraw our troops from Iraq and other Middle East trouble spots before we achieve our objectives. Unless we can dismiss the applicability of the precedent, we are destined to repeat our failures, thus ensuring our ultimate demise as a nation. However, we will not dismiss it until the truth about our Vietnam experience is revealed in its totality.

Now at last, “Ride the Thunder” provides this indispensable revelation. Anyone who reads it will finally have the facts to perceive the answers to long-held questions: Was the cause in Vietnam worth our waging a war? Did the media’s reporting and false anti-war influences cause us to surrender? Was military victory.’ indeed forfeited by Congress’ unilateral political act? Was the bill prohibiting any further commitment there the coup de grace in efforts to free South Viet Nam?

The book delivers the truth comprehensively and authoritatively. Evidence is presented in the true stories of persons engaged over the entire time frame of the war. Incontrovertible facts and details are presented on Viet Nam. “Ride the Thunder” painstakingly sketches the history of Vietnam, revealing its remarkable ethnic characteristics: its peerless work ethic, an unequaled awareness of the importance of family, compassion for the elderly and an awareness of the importance of rearing wholesome children.

It relates how Vietnam in early ages became a powerful nation in military, political and economic terms. However, Mr. Botkin also relates Vietnam’s history of often being overtaken and ruled by more powerful nations and whose soldiers and officials mistreated innocent Vietnamese with unbelievable savagery. From China, Japan and other powerful oppressors to devastating natural disasters, Vietnam’s people have been tempered by sufferings for centuries.

“Ride the Thunder” traces its historical origins in relationship with the United States. The book exemplifies how the Korean War predisposed the United States to regard Ho Chi Minh’s invasion as directly related to US containment of communist expansion. The Korean War ended with the United States settling on a stalemate for the first time in our history. This created a pattern of quitting and foretold the possibility we would settle for even less in a future war — as we did in Vietnam and show signs of doing in the Middle East.

Naturally, Vietnam’s history takes the sharpest focus as it deals with the American involvement in the Vietnam War. In this light, “Ride the Thunder” chronicles the individual personal experiences of the Vietnamese and US military and political personages, the sum of which presents a comprehensive tapestry depicting all the complex facets, revelations and implications of the war and its aftermath.

As I reviewed “Ride the Thunder:’ though, I have come to be regarded as one of the more authentic writers on what is significant about that war, I learned much I had not known. However, more than any author can convey in words, one thing that land other fbrmer prisoners of war witnessed with our own eyes was the absolute total destruction of the enemy’s military during Linebacker II and the full realization by the North Vietnamese that they no longer had the means to continue the war.

A few days before my release from prison, I was subjected to an interview and briefing by the top military and political leadership of North Vietnam. The leaders told me they accepted defeat and were eager to sign an agreement to keep South Vietnam free. Their earnest plea to me upon return was to prevent the POWs from exaggerating the brutality of the treatment inflicted on us, which would incite U.S. public opinion to the degree that Mr. Nixon would find it inadvisable to sign the agreement.

Rear Adrn. Jeremiah Denton, U.S. Navy (retired), is a former / U.S. senator front Alabama

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:12 AM | Comments (0)

July 23, 2009

Economic Demoralization in the United States

By Lawrence Kudlow, TV economy expert and nation-wide columnist

The Washington Times, July 20, 2009

There’s no question that current government policies for taxes, spending and regulation are causing the United States to lose competitiveness in the global race for capital, prosperity and growth. Of course, China has been moving in the direction of free-market capitalism for years. To some extent, this shows the positive benefits of Americas free-trade policies and its open-mindedness in helping nurture not only Chinese growth, but also middle-class prosperity worldwide.

But, what’s particularly galling about Obamanomics is that we may well be losing our competitive edge with Europe. While Europe is ever so slightly moving toward Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, the United States is shifting toward an overtaxed and over-regulated model that smacks of Francois Mitterrand. That’s something no one should want to tolerate, Heavy government controls at home, along with an income-leveling social policy couched in economic-recovery terms, is no way to run a railroad.

At the simple stroke of a computer key, world investment flows to its most hospitable destination. That includes a reliable currency. But, in President Bush’s last year and President Obama’s first, the United States has become a less hospitable destination for global capital. That should worry everybody. But, let’s first look to the China story. We know that China is already our principal banker, to the tune of nearly $1 trillion. As President Obama’s record spending and borrowing continues — he’ll be the greatest bond salesman in American history — our financial reliance on China grows daily. But, that’s not all.
Fortune magazine recently reported that the number of U.S. companies in the world’s top 500 fell to the lowest level ever, while more Chinese firms than ever made the list. Thirty-seven Chinese companies now rank in the top 500, including nine new entries. Meanwhile, the number of U.S. firms has fallen to 140, the lowest total since Fortune began the list in 1995. This is not good. China also surpassed the United States as the world’s biggest automaker in the first half of 2009, with June sales soaring 36.5 percent from a year earlier. The Chinese registered 6.1 million car sales for the first half of the year. That way outpaced American sales, which were only 4.8 million.

And. China has no capital-gains tax. It only has a 15 to 20 percent corporate tax. The United States, on the other hand, is raising its cap-gains tax rate to 20 percent. It’s also increasing its top personal tax rates. In fact, the scheduled income-tax hike along with a much-discussed 4 percent health-care surtax will balloon the top U.S. tax rate all the way to 51 percent. And, there’s more. In order to finance so-called health-care reform, congressional Democrats are now talking about raising the tax rate on capital gains and dividends by another 1.5 percent, while installing a value-added tax (VAT) that would begin at 1.5 percent.

So top tax rates in the United States may edge into the mid 50 percent range. Compare that to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average of only 42 percent. And, when those tax hikes kick in, the top U.S. tax rate will rank above that of France, Germany and Italy. That can’t be good. Incidentally, our 40 percent corporate tax rate is already almost 15 percentage points higher than the corporate rates in most of Europe.

Washington’s enormous expansion of the state, local and federal-government spending share of gross domestic product to over 40 percent — including Bailout Nation, TARP and takeovers in numerous industries — is eerily reminiscent of Old Europe’s old policies. In addition, in an ironic twist, Europe seems to be moving toward a lower tax-spend-and-regulate, Reagan-type approach, while the United States is regressing to the failed socialist model of Old Europe. This makes no sense.

Higher tax rates undermine the incentive model of growth. At the margin, investment risk and work effort become less rewarding. On top of this, Mr. Obama’s regulatory moves toward greater government control of the economy will further drown animal spirits in a sea of red tape born of bureaucratic officialdom. Think about this in terms of the threat to nationalize heath care, which is over 15 percent of the economy. Additionally, Washington’s cap-and-trade proposals will essentially nationalize the entire energy sector — another 15 percent of the economy — sending long tentacles into every nook of the economy that’s impacted by energy, which is virtually everything. Moreover, all this comes on top of the US government’s takeover of auto companies, banks, AIG, Fannie and Freddie. Instead of Schumpeterian gales of creative destruction, we’re on the road to economic demoralization.

(Schumpeter - Austrian American 1883-1950 economist who argued that capitalism will collapse from within as democratic majorities vote for the creation of a welfare state and place restrictions upon entrepreneurship that will burden and destroy the capitalist structure.)

Here’s the clincher: Year-to-date, Dow Jones stocks are off 8 percent, while China, stocks are up 71 percent. The world index is up 4 percent. Emerging markets are up 25 percent. They’re all beating us. None of this is good. We’re going the wrong way. That’s why stock markets are not voting for the United States any more.

By Lawrence Kudlow

(By coincidence, below is the opening paragraph in an article by MICHAEL BARONE, just below the one above. The paragraph is a reminder of the origin of this awful purposeful, relentlessly destructive philosophy.) Jsk

Michael Barone’s opening paragraph:

“Never let a crisis go to waste,” Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said last November. The crisis he referred to was economic - the financial collapse and the rapidly deepening recession. The opportunity it presented, for Messrs. Obama and Emanuel, was to vastly expand the size and scope of the federal government through cap-and-trade and health-care legislation.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:37 PM | Comments (0)

July 22, 2009

Thomas Paine, American Revolution statesman, addresses Pres. B. Obama

Letter to the Editor Washington Times
July 9, 2009

Thomas Paine, the “pamphleteer” of the American Revolution, writing in his book “Rights of Man” was describing our present administration. Paine wrote, “the person of the King (Obama), divides and subdivides itself into a thousand shapes and forms till at last the whole of it is acted by deputation (czars). Thus... proceeding on through an endless labyrinth of office till the source of it is scarcely perceptible, there is no mode of redress. It strengthens itself by assuming the appearance of duty and tyrannies under the pretence of obeying?’

If we look past the charm and charisma of President Obama, we see a man who is creating an executive branch of government which answers to no Congress, no citizens, and is protected by a broadcast media which, except for FOX News, is no more than Pravda was during the old USSR oppression. America should not tolerate such abuse of power as is potentially presented by the use of czars and bureaucracies which answer to no one but the president.

President Obama is a socialist elitist who understands nothing about the freedom of the individual as related to free enterprise, personal property, and the practicality of living free. He is an Ivy League theorist who has never truly experienced America and what makes it work - the America of business, manual labor or entrepreneurial achievement.

Freedom is the stream which carries mankind forward while meddling government is the rocks which only slows or stops him. Still water only stagnates.

Leo Kuschnereit
Midwest City, Oklahoma

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:54 PM | Comments (0)

July 20, 2009

Bibi Netanyahu vs. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, George Mitchell, Tony Blair,

the UN General Assembly and the immediate, uninformed anti-Semitic world

At the weekly Israeli Cabinet meeting July 19, 2009:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referred to this morning's newspaper
headlines regarding Jerusalem:

"I would like to re-emphasize that the united Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people and of the State of Israel. Our sovereignty over it cannot be challenged; this means - inter alia - that residents of Jerusalem may purchase apartments in all parts of the city.

This has been the policy of all Israeli governments and I would like to say that it is indeed being implemented because in recent years hundreds of apartments in Jewish neighborhoods and in the western part of the city have been purchased by - or rented to - Arab residents and we did not interfere. This says that there is no ban on Arabs buying apartments in the western part of the city and there is no ban on Jews buying or building apartments in the eastern part of the city.

This is the policy of an open city - an undivided city that has no separation according to religion or national affiliation. We cannot accept the idea that Jews will not have the right to live and purchase in all parts of Jerusalem. I can only describe to myself what would happen if someone would propose that Jews could not live in certain neighborhoods in New York, London, Paris or Rome. There would certainly be a major international outcry. Accordingly, we cannot agree to such a decree in Jerusalem. This has been the policy of Israeli governments over the years and it is also the policy of our Government."

IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:56 PM | Comments (0)

July 18, 2009

A decision that could haunt us for generations.

Please take another look, Mr. Senator

Do Qualifications Matter?

By Thomas Sowell

The Washington Times, July 6, 2009

For the fourth time in six cases, the Supreme Court of the United States has reversed a decision for which Judge Sonia Sotomayor voted on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. If this nominee were a white male, would this not raise questions about whether he should be elevated to a court that has found his previous decisions wrong two-thirds of the times when those decisions have been reviewed?

Is no one supposed to ask questions about qualifications, simply because this nominee is Hispanic and a woman? Have we become that mindless? Qualifications are not simply a question of how long you have been doing something, but how well you have done it. Judge Sotomayor has certainly been on the federal bench long enough, but is being reversed four out of six times a sign of a job well done?

Would longevity be equated with qualifications anywhere else? Some sergeants have been in the army longer than some generals but nobody thinks that is a reason to make those sergeants generals.

Performance matters. In addition, Judge Sotomayor’s performance provides no reason for putting her on the Supreme Court. Although the case of the Connecticut firefighters is the latest and best-known of Judge Sotomayor’s reversals by the Supreme Court, an even more revealing case was Didden Vs. Village of Port Chester, where the Supreme Court openly rebuked the unanimous three judge panel that included Judge Sotomayor for “an evident denial of the most elementary forms of procedural due process.”

Longevity is not the only false argument for putting Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court. Another is the argument that “elections have consequences;’ so that the fact that Barack Obama won last year’s elections means that his choice for the Supreme Court should be confirmed. This is a political talking point rather than a serious argument. Of course, elections have consequences. However, Senators were also elected, and the Constitution of the United States gives them both the right and the duty to say “yes” or “no” to any president’s judicial nominees.

It is painfully appropriate that the case which finally took the Sotomayor nomination beyond the realm of personal biography is one where the key question is how far this country is going to go on the question of racial representation versus individual qualifications.

So much that Sonia Sotomayor has said and done over the years places her squarely in the camp of those supporting a racial spoils system instead of equal treatment for all. The organizations she has belonged to, as well as the statements she has made repeatedly — not just an isolated slip of the tongue taken “out of context” — as well as her dismissing the white firefighters’ case that the Supreme Court heard and heeded, all point in the same direction.

Within living memory, there was a time when someone who was black could not get certain jobs, regardless of how high that individuals' qualifications might be. It outraged the conscience of a nation and aroused people of various races and social backgrounds to rise up against it, sometimes at the risk of their lives. Many, if not most, thought that they were fighting for equal treatment for all. But, today, too many people seem to think it is just a question of whose ox is gored — or for whom one has “empathy,” which amounts to the same thing in practice.

Clever people say that none of this matters because Republican Senators don’t have enough votes to stop this nominee from being confirmed. But that assumes that every Democrats will vote for her, regardless of what the public thinks, it also assumes that alerting the public doesn’t matter, now or for the future.

The standards for judging the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor are not the standards of either the criminal law or the civil law. That is, nothing has to be proven against her “beyond a reasonable doubt” or even by “a preponderance of the evidence. Judge Sotomayor is not in any jeopardy that would entitle her to the benefit of the doubt. It is 300 million Americans and their posterity who are entitled to the benefit of the doubt when the enormous power of determining what their rights are is put into any one’s hands as a Supreme Court justice for life.

Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:45 PM | Comments (0)

July 16, 2009

Obama’s new bill makes it illegal for you to have a private health insurance carrier!

From: Investors.com - Powered by Investors Business Daily

It Is Not An Option!

Posted 07/15/2009 06:46 PM ET

Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must have been misreading it. So, we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of the year the legislation becomes law."

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington's coverage.

The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."

What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law. The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.

With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left's expansion of the welfare state will be removed. The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.

Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives. It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It's scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we'll come across in the final 1,002.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:34 PM | Comments (0)

July 14, 2009

Republicans deliberately avoid questioning Sotomayor re: her

Board membership in La Raza, anti-American, Latino hate-group

By Paul L. Williams, Ph.D.

No one raised the question of the ape in the anteroom. Senate Democrats praised Sonia Sotomayor as a judicial pioneer, and Republican Lindsey Graham predicted a quick confirmation save for a “complete meltdown.” questioned her impartiality and President Barack Obama’s views as well Monday at the start of confirmation hearings for the nation’s first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court. “And I don’t think you will” have a meltdown, Graham added quickly as Senorita Sotomayor sat listening, with a broad and knowing smile. Graham made this egregious remark after Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT. chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, praised Sotomayor in remarks that opened the proceedings in a packed Senate hearing room. “She’s been a judge for all Americans. She’ll be a justice for all Americans,” he said.

All Americans? Really? Leahy likened Sotomayor to other judicial pioneers, citing Thurgood Marshall, the first black justice on the high court, as well as Louis Brandeis, the first Jew, and Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman. “Let no one demean this extraordinary woman,” Leahy said in a warning to committee Republicans. The Republicans took heed and proceeded to tread lightly. Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the senior Republican, vowed to assume a “respectful tone.” And so, the most boring confirmation hearings in U.S. history got underway. Not one Republican possessed the temerity to address the pressing and obvious question?

What is Senorita Sotomayor’s relationship to Latino hate groups and how does she explain the picture showing La Raza’s Founders with Role Model and Mentor Yasir Arafat in Lebanon. Most particularly, what is her own affiliation with La Raza, a group that calls for the Mexican re-conquest of America? Does she really believe – - as La Raza professes – - that the southwestern portion of the United States rightfully belongs to Mexico? Is she in favor of the gringo genocide that her radical Latino associates espouse?

Former Congressman Tom Tancredo, one of the only legislators in recent history with cojones, quipped that La Raza is the Latino equivalent to the KKK. Moreover, Senorita Sotomayor served on the governing board of La Raza for six years. But no one in the House or Senate has raised an eyebrow – - let alone a question – - regarding the candidate’s association with this hate group.

La Raza teaches that Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and parts of Washington State make up an area known as “Aztlan” — a fictional ancestral homeland of the Aztecs before Europeans arrived in North America. These areas belong to the Latinos and Latinas and must be surrendered to “La Raza” once enough immigrants, legal or illegal, come to constitute a majority, as in Los Angeles. Once this is achieved, the current borders of the United States will simply be obliterated.

But, the “reconquista” won’t end with territorial occupation and secession. The final plan for the La Raza movement includes the ethnic cleansing of Americans of European, African, and Asian descent out of “Aztlan.” Miguel Perez, a La Raza spokesman at Cal State-Northridge, has been quoted as saying: “The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Communism would be closest [to it]. Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled — opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power.”

And so, our new Supreme Court appointee and self-professed advocate of La Raza approves of the reformation of the United States, the creation of a separate Chicano country, and widespread ethnic cleansing. In addition, La Raza and other Latino activist groups have expressed widespread anti-Jewish sentiments and support for radical Islam. This finding is supported by articles in “The Voice of Aztlan” with such lurid titles as “That Shitty Little Country Israel,” “Pat Tillman Got What Was coming to Him,” and “Osama bin Laden: the ‘Pancho Villa’ of Islam.”

Intrepid columnist Michelle Malkin maintains that all Americans should be aware of the following fifteen facts regarding La Raza (“The Race”):

15. “The Race” supports the issuance of driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.

14. ”The Race” demands in-state tuition discounts for illegal alien students – – discounts are not available to law-abiding U.S. citizens and law-abiding legal immigrants.

13. “The Race” opposes cooperative immigration enforcement efforts between local, state and federal authorities.

12. “The Race” calls for the immediate removal of fences along the Mexican border.

11. “The Race” joined the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in a failed lawsuit attempt to prevent federal officials from entering immigration information into a key national crime database.

10. “The Race” decried Oklahoma’s tough immigration-enforcement-first laws, which cut off welfare to illegal aliens, put teeth in employer sanctions, and strengthened local-federal cooperation and information sharing.

9. “The Race” initiated a lawsuit to prevent Proposition 227, California’s bilingual education reform ballot initiative, from becoming law.

8. “The Race” condemned common-sense voter ID provisions as an “absolute disgrace.”

7. “The Race” has opposed post-9/11 national security measures at every turn.

6. Former “Race” president Raul Yzaguirre, Hillary Clinton’s Hispanic outreach adviser, said this: “U.S. English is to Hispanics as the Ku Klux Klan is to blacks.” He was referring to U.S. English, the nation’s oldest, largest citizens’ action group dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English language in the United States.

5. “The Race” spawned and supported a poisonous subset of ideological satellites, including Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA). The late GOP Rep. Charlie Norwood rightly characterized MEChA as “the most anti-American groups in the country.”

4. “The Race” has conducted a smear campaign against staunch immigration-enforcement leaders and has called for TV and cable news networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves.

3. “The Race” sponsors and supports militant ethnic nationalist charter schools subsidized by your public tax dollars to the tune of at least $8 million in federal education grants. These schools include Aztlan Academy in Tucson, Ariz., the Mexicayotl Academy in Nogales, Ariz., Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School in St. Paul, Minn., and La Academia Semillas del Pueblo in Los Angeles. Its principal inveighed: “We don’t want to drink from a White water fountain, we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We don’t need a White water fountain . . . ultimately the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction.”

2. “The Race” has honed the practice of the politically correct shakedown at taxpayer expense, pushing relentlessly to lower home-loan standards for Hispanic borrowers, reaping millions in federal “mortgage counseling” grants, seeking special multimillion-dollar earmarks, and partnering with banks that do business with illegal aliens.

1. “The Race” thrives on ethnic supremacy — and the politically correct elite’s unwillingness to call it what it is. Prominent historian Victor Davis Hanson observes: “[The] organization’s very nomenclature ‘The National Council of La Raza’ is hate speech to the core. Despite all the contortions of the group, Raza (as its Latin cognate suggests) reflects the meaning of ‘race’ in Spanish, not ‘the people’ — and that’s precisely why we don’t hear of something like ‘The National Council of the People,’ which would not confer the buzz notion of ethnic, racial and tribal chauvinism.”

Let’s remember that Sonia was not only a member of the movement – but also a member of the governing council. Moreover, she has stated in no uncertain terms that race should be a deciding factor in the nomination of judges. “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion as a judge than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” the nominee once pontificated. Of course, her nomination will meet with little resistance.

The time for red-blooded Americans, such as Mr. Tancredo and Ms. Malkin, has come and gone as our country has been taken from them and us by both political parties.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:37 PM | Comments (0)

July 12, 2009

Sotomayor shot down – at least for the moment.

Justices Rule for White Firefighters in Bias Case Ricci vs. DeStephano

The New Haven case was rooted in tests given in 2003 for promotion to lieutenant and captain. The exams yielded no black firefighters eligible for advancement, prompting the city to throw out the results and promote no one. That move, in turn, triggered a lawsuit by 18 white firefighters, one of them Hispanic, who claimed racial discrimination, or what is often termed “reverse discrimination.”

Redacted from an article written by DAVID STOUT
Published: June 29, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Monday, in a case with enormous implications for workplaces across the country, that white firefighters in New Haven suffered unfair discrimination because of their race when the city scrapped the results of a promotional exam. “The city’s action in discarding the tests violated Title VII,” the court held in a 5-to-4 decision, referring to a section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The majority said the city’s fundamental arguments were “blatantly contradicted by the record.”

Monday’s decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, No. 07-1428, came on the last day of the court’s term and was one of the most closely watched discrimination cases in years. This was not just for its potential to change the landscape of labor and employment law but because President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, had sided with the city and against the firefighters as a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Monday’s ruling is sure to be closely studied by personnel departments and their lawyers for indications of how far employers can go, and under what circumstances, in considering race in decisions on hiring and promotion. And it is sure to be a hot topic when Senate confirmation hearings begin for Judge Sotomayor on July 13.

While the case concerned public employees, the ruling is also likely to affect private employers, since Title VII of the Civil Rights Act covers private employers as well as public ones, according to Prof. Sheila Foster of Fordham Law School and other attorneys who specialize in labor and employment law. “This decision will change the landscape of civil rights law,” said Professor Foster, who teaches anti-discrimination Law and has been involved in litigating cases under the Civil Rights Act.

Daniel P. Westman, a Washington-area lawyer who works extensively in labor and employment law, said: “This is a ruling that every business covered by Title VII will need to take into account. Some companies may have thought this was just a public sector firefighter case that would not apply outside the government employment context, but that is not the case.” Mr. Westman said the decision could affect hiring, firing and discipline in the workplace, as well as promotions.

The ruling reverses a federal district court and the Second Circuit and sends the case back to the lower courts for further action. The high court ruling, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, acknowledged that the city faced a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation, as Justice David H. Souter put it when the case was argued on April 22. That is, if the city had allowed the promotional exam to stand, it would have faced a lawsuit from black firefighters.

But the city’s dilemma did not justify scrapping the exam results, Justice Kennedy wrote in a conclusion also embraced by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. “Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the city’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions,” the majority said.

The white firefighters had contended that the city’s action also violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. But the court said it did not have to address that allegation once it found against the city under the Civil Rights Act.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer and Souter, taking part in his last opinion before he retires from the court. Justice Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench, a clear signal of her deep disagreement with the majority.

“It took decades of persistent effort, advanced by Title VII litigation, to open firefighting posts to members of racial minorities,” she said. Moreover, she said, contrary to the majority’s finding, there was “substantial evidence of multiple flaws in the tests New Haven used.”“Firefighting is a profession in which the legacy of racial discrimination casts an especially long shadow,” Justice Ginsburg observed, alluding to a report by the United States Civil Rights Commission in the early 1970’s finding racial discrimination in municipal employment even “more pervasive than in the private sector.”

The terms “disparate treatment” and “disparate impact” were crucial to the New Haven case. As originally enacted in 1964, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act held employers liable only for disparate treatment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. But in a 1971 case, Griggs v. Duke Power Company, the Supreme Court interpreted Title VII as prohibiting, in some cases, employer practices that were neutral on their face but discriminatory in operation. These “disparate impact” practices are to be prohibited if the employer cannot show that they arise from “business necessity.”

Notwithstanding Justice Souter’s “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” observation when the case was argued, the majority concluded on Monday that the City of New Haven “cannot meet that threshold standard” of showing that it would have been liable to a suit under the “disparate impact” principle.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:00 AM | Comments (0)

July 09, 2009

Are the Israelis out of their minds?

The Americans simply said, “Jump” and, as usual, the Israelis asked, ”How high and where sir, should we dig our own burial trenches (G-d forbid) as we did for the Germans, the Poles, the Ukrainians and the rest of Daniel J. Goldhagen’s, “ Hitler’s Willing Executioners?”

Palestinian Authority (PA) boasts of past terror attacks by security forces currently being trained by US

By Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
Palestinian Media Watch, July 7, 2009

This week Israel approved the transfer of 1,000 AK-47 rifles to the Palestinian Authority security forces that are being trained by American Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton. This comes at the same time as former PA Minister of Prisoners, Ashraf al-Ajrami, is honoring these very same PA security forces for being the backbone of Palestinian terror during the five-year Terror War (Intifada).

Defending these soldiers, whom Hamas mockingly calls "Dayton Forces," the PA minister gloated that they carried out "the greatest and most important operations [terror attacks]" in the war. Moreover, he also taunted Hamas for not immediately joining the Fatah forces in their war in 2000.

The PA takes pride in its "Intifada" in which more than 1,000 Israelis, mostly civilians, were killed by the PA (Fatah) and Hamas from 2000-2005. Depicting murder and suicide terror by the PA security forces as a sign of honor sends a clear signal to Palestinians: These PA forces, currently being trained by the US, are not to be mocked because they could be the backbone of the next war against Israel.

The following are the words of the former PA Minister of Prisoners Ashraf

"Now they [Hamas] are speaking [disparagingly] about the [PA's security forces, calling them] 'Dayton Forces.' These [security] forces paid the heavy price in the second Intifada, both as Shahids [Martyrs] and as prisoners. The greatest number of prisoners is from the security forces sector. They are the ones who bore arms and carried out the greatest and most important operations [terror attacks] against the Israeli occupation - and especially against soldiers, and some of the most famous operations [terror attacks] in the West Bank - Ein-Arik, Wadi Al-Haramiyeh, Sorda, and others. These were carried out by the heroes of the Palestinian security forces, who protected the homeland and the national interest, while Hamas merely looked on for many months before embarking [on terrorist attacks]."

Palestinian Authority TV, June 29, 2009
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:35 PM | Comments (0)

July 07, 2009

Living it up at the public trough


By Dr. Paul L Williams* and the staff of thelastcrusade.org

“In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much,” she said. “See, that’s why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, “ Michelle Obama

No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she doesn’t perform any official duties. But, this hasn’t deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession. Just think Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil War. And, Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary.

How things have changed! If you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages, stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Miz First Lady Michele are the same as members of the national security and defense departments. Furthermore, John Q. Public pays the bill for these assorted lackeys. Here is a list of her personal helpers: Total of salaries listed for personal attendants - $1,564,500!

$172,200 - Sher, Susan (CHIEF OF STAFF)















Bookey, Natalie (STAFF ASSISTANT)

*Paul L. Williams is the author of such best-selling books:
· The Day of Islam: The Annihilation of America and the Western World (Prometheus, 2007),
· The Dunces of Doomsday (Cumberland/WND Books, 2006),
· The Al Qaeda Connection (Prometheus, 2005),
· Osama’s Revenge: The Next 9/11 (Prometheus, 2004),
· The Vatican Exposed (Prometheus, 2003),
· Everything You Always Wanted to Know about the Catholic Church But Were Afraid to Ask for Fear of Excommunication (Doubleday, 1990).

In addition, he has written several Idiot Guides, including The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Lives of the Saints (Alpha/Penguin, 2002) and The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Crusades (Alpha, Penguin 2001) and a scholarly text The Moral Philosophy of Peter Abelard, which garnered a National Book Award. He has been the subject of a PBS documentary and programs on the Discovery and History channels. He is a frequent guest on such national news networks as ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, MSNBC and NPR.

Williams holds a Ph.D. in philosophical theology from Drew University (1976). He has been the recipient of six major academic scholarships and a teaching fellowship from Lehigh University, and, for over a decade, has taught philosophy, religion and the humanities at The University of Scranton and Wilkes University.

As a journalist, Williams served as the editor/publisher of The Metro, the largest weekly newspaper in Northeastern Pennsylvania. The Metro, under his leadership/ownership, was named one of the best newspapers in the state for editorial content by the Pennsylvania Newspaper Publishers’ Association, and, in 1993, he became the only journalist to capture three first-place Keystone Press Awards in three distinct categories in the same year.

In addition, he has served as a correspondent on terrorism and world affairs for World Net Daily and NewsMax, and has penned feature articles for National Review (one of which sparked the longest running print debate in the history of a major periodical), USA Today, and The Wall Street Journal.

For five years, Williams has served as a consultant on organized crime and international terrorism for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. His field work resulted in the arrests and convictions of leading crime figures.

As a minister, Williams served as senior pastor of St. Paul’s UCC in Taylor and as President of the Educational Consortium of Northeast PA, an agency which established Christian outreach sites for migrant workers throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:53 PM | Comments (0)

July 05, 2009

Barack Obama. Al Gore and Global Warming

No climate debate? Yes, there is!

By Jeff Jacoby

The Boston Globe
July 1, 2009

IN HIS weekly address on Saturday, President Obama saluted the House of Representatives for passing Waxman-Markey, the gargantuan energy-rationing bill that would amount to the largest tax increase in the nation's history. It would do so by making virtually everything that depends on energy -- which is virtually everything -- more expensive.

The president didn't describe the legislation in those terms on Saturday, but he made no bones about it last year. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in January 2008, he calmly explained how cap-and-trade -- the carbon-dioxide rationing scheme that is at the heart of Waxman-Markey -- would work: Actually, there hasn't been any for 10 years.

"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket . . . because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural gas, you name it . . .. Whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations. That will cost money, and they will pass that cost on to consumers."

In the same interview, Obama suggested that his energy policy would require the ruin of the coal industry. "If somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant, they can," he told the Chronicle. "It's just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

The justification for inflicting all this financial misery, of course, is the onrushing catastrophe of human-induced global warming -- a catastrophe that can be prevented only if we abandon the carbon-based fuels on which most of the prosperity and productivity of modern life depend. But what if that looming catastrophe isn't real? What if climate change has little or nothing to do with human activity? What if enacting cap-and-trade means incurring excruciating costs in exchange for infinitesimal benefits?

Hush, says Obama. Don't ask such questions. And, don't listen to anyone who does. "There is no longer a debate about whether carbon pollution is placing our planet in jeopardy," he declared in his Saturday remarks. "It's happening."

No debate? The president, like Humphrey Bogart, must have been misinformed. The debate over global warming is more robust than it has been in years, and not only in America. "In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming," Kimberly Strassel noted in The Wall Street Journal the other day. "In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago, Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted . . .. Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the 'new religion.'"

Closer to home, the noted physicist Hal Lewis (emeritus at the University of California, Santa Barbara) e-mails me a copy of a statement he and several fellow scientists, including physicists Will Happer and Robert Austin of Princton, Laurence Gould of the University of Hartford, and climate scientist Richard Lindzen of MIT, have sent to Congress. "The sky is not falling," they write. Far from warming, "the Earth has been cooling for 10 years" -- a trend that "was not predicted by the alarmists' computer models."

Fortune magazine recently profiled veteran climatologist John Christy, a lead author of the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and co-author of the American Geophysical Union's 2003 statement on climate change. With his green credentials, Fortune observed, Christy is the warm-mongers' "worst nightmare -- an accomplished climate scientist with no ties to Big Oil who has produced reams and reams of data that undermine arguments that the earth's atmosphere is warming at an unusual rate and question whether the remedies being talked about in Congress will actually do any good."

No one who cares about the environment or the nation's economic well-being should take it on faith that climate change is a crisis, or that drastic changes to the economy are essential to "save the planet." Hundreds of scientists reject the alarmist narrative. For non-experts, a steadily-widening shelf of excellent books surveys the data in laymen's terms and exposes the weaknesses in the doomsday scenario -- among others, Climate Confusion by Roy W. Spencer, Climate of Fear by Thomas Gale Moore, Taken by Storm, by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick, and Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, by S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery.

If the case for a war on carbon dioxide were unassailable, no one would have to warn against debating it. The 212 House members who voted against Waxman-Markey last week plainly don't believe the matter is settled. They're right.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:51 PM | Comments (0)

July 03, 2009

Article I - The Great Travesty of Fudging United States Census Numbers

Grassroots quarterly, Spring 2009

The Obama Democrats' Plan for the 2010 Census

As we approach 2010, when the constitutionally mandated, once per decade Census of America’s Population will be taken, a new threat is looming from the Obama Administration. The Census, which is historicity the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Commerce, is supposed to be a non-partisan process. The Census determines changes in population and demographics across the country and has an impact on the amount of federal funds, which are allotted to individual states. It determines the number of Representatives each state has in Congress and therefore the make-up of the Electoral College that will determine the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election. (In other words, the importance of an accurate, honest census cannot be in any way overstated – jsk)

It seems the Obama Administration already has plans to not only rig its re-election but also to establish a permanent liberal Democrat majority in Washington for the next decade. Historically the Census Bureau employees and director have reported to the Secretary of Commerce, who then brought the results to the White House. However, with the backing of liberal Democrats in Congress, President Obama has announced his intention to circumvent the Commerce Secretary and have the Census Director report directly to his personal inner circle. (Rahm Emanuel et al, jsk) This will clearly increase the chances of partisan interference to politically benefit Obama and the Democrats in 2010, 2012 and beyond.

Everybody suspects the U.S. population has shifted in the last ten years. A straightforward, constitutionally mandated head-count would verify this or not. However, if the Democrats have their way, the Census will only “estimate” state populations and therefore be subject to political calculations. If Obama and the-Democrats are allowed to succeed, they will have created for themselves an artificial advantage and steal the solemn belief of “one person/one vote” from millions of Americas.

The Obama political machine— Organizing for America (OFA) — has already shown how the Democrats could conduct the Census when they recently triple counted their petition signatures in support of Obama’s budget. The Washington Post’s Dan Eggen reports, “OFA trumpeted the effort as resulting in more than 640,000 pledges. But, that number comes from triple-counting! The group made three copies of pledges, one each for the signer’s House member and two Senators. One can only hope ( Hope? What is this a religious issue? – jsk) the Obama Administration decides to employ a little more transparency when executing their constitutional duty to count every American.


Is Congress going to sit still for destruction of our nation?

By Paul L. Williams, Ph.D.

It’s biased and prejudiced, invasive. corrupt. rigged.unconstitutional. Its purpose is the legislative transformation of the United States of America into a land where conservatives, Christians, and Caucasians will become politically castrated. It serves to channel billions of dollars into bogus political action groups, such as Acorn. It promotes gay rights and same-sex marriages. It is a document that was not something drafted by the Berkley chapter of the Barbra Streisand Fan Club or the Alec Baldwin wing of the American Civil Liberties Union. It is President Barack Obama’s 2010 Census Form.

The form asks if you have a house with running water, if you have a flush toilet, if you go to work by ferryboat or trolleycar, if you are mentally challenged, if you are of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin, and if you are a white, black, negro, African American, American Indian, Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Native Hawaiian, Guamanian or Chamorro, Samoan, Fijian, or Tongan. It asks if you have hot and cold running water, a sink with a faucet, a refrigerator, a bathtub or shower, a stove or range, and a flush toilet.

It asks if you use coal, gas, oil, electricity, or solar energy to heat your home or apartment, if you are deaf or blind, if you are mentally challenged, if you have a physical disability, if you are employed, self-employed, or retired, if you have troubled dressing or bathing, if you have difficulty walking or climbing the stairs, and if you speak a language other than English at home.It asks your income, your educational level, and the time you leave your home in the morning.

But infinitely more telling is what the new census doesn’t ask.

It doesn’t ask if you are a citizen of the U.S.A., if you are an immigrant, or if you are a Muslim. Naturally, the questions are in English and Spanish, lest anyone think that America is an Anglo nation. Many stand in violation of the Constitution which states that a national census should concern itself solely the number of individuals in a household. For this reason, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann is refusing to answer the “very intricate” and “very personal” questions.

Moreover, there are problems with the Obama census beyond the intrusive nature of the comprehensive survey. To assist in the hiring of census takers, the Obama Administration has opted to partner with the following special interest groups (not one of which represents the despised race of whites who settled this country):

· 100 Black Men of America
· African American Women’s House of Imagene (sic) Shelter
· American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
· Arab American Institute
· Asian American Federation
· Asian American Justice Center
· Asian and Pacific Islander Coalition on HIV/AIDS
· Association of Professors and Scholars of Iranian Heritage
· Boat People SOS
· Hispanic Alliance for Prosperity Institute
· Hispanic Federation
· Fundacion Azteca
· Latino Justice PDLDEF
· Mas New Mexico
· Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
· Minority Access
· National Alliance for Hispanic Health
· National Alliance of Black School Educators
· National American Indian Housing Council
· NAACP National Voter Fund
· NAACP (National Association of Colored People)
· National Association for Black Social Workers
· National Association of Colored Women’s Clubs
· National association of Hispanic Federal Executives
· National Association of Hispanic Publications
· National Association of Latino Elected Officials
· National Association of Negro Business and Professional Women’s Clubs
· National Black Chamber of Commerce
· National Black Child Development Institute
· National Black Justice Coalition
· National Black Leadership Forum
· National Coalition on Black Civic Participation
· National Congress of Black Women
· National Federation of Filipino American Associations
· National Hispanic Leadership Institute
· National Hispanic Business Information Clearinghouse
· National Latino Research Center
· National Minority AIDS Council
· National Puerto Rican Coalition
· National Puerto Rican Day Parade
· Rainbow Push Coalition
· U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
· Voto Latino

Get the picture? Notice a racial bias?
These agencies will be paid millions in taxpayers’ dollars to assist the President in conducting the census and to make sure that all minorities are included in the official count. Not one of the groups represents the despised race of white Europeans who settled this country and gave their sweat and blood to make it the most prosperous nation on earth.

Excluded from the list of census partners are such groups, as the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Daughters of the American Revolution, the Elks Clubs, the Rotary Clubs, the Moose Lodge, and, of course, the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick. This racial bias inherent in the census has raised the concern that the results will be rigged - - a concern that has been intensified by Mr. Obama’s selection of Robert M. Groves, a sociology professor at the University of Michigan,

Republican legislators have expressed alarm because Mr. Grove’s specialty is statistical sampling — roughly speaking, the process of extrapolating from the numbers of people actually counted to arrive at estimates of those uncounted and, presumably, arriving at a realistic total. If minorities, immigrants, the poor and the homeless are those most likely to be missed in an actual head count, as Mr. Grove presumably believes, and if political stereotypes hold true, then the statistical sampling of the 2010 census will produce a windfall for the Democrat Party.

This result is certain since the census results as gathered by the above groups coupled with Mr. Grove’s calculation of the missed head count will determine which states gains seats in Congress and which ones lose them, as well as the allocation of federal dollars to states and cities based on population. The Obama budget serves to ensure that the United States will be broke. His foreign policies will serve the cause of the Muslim world to the detriment of Israel. Moreover, his census will make sure that the time of the Judeo-Christian standards and culture in the land of the free and the home of the brave will come to an end.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 01, 2009

What really happened in Honduras & deliberately distorted by Obama and media

Obama Sides With Marxists Over Honduras

Redacted from an AIM Column by Cliff Kincaid

June 29, 2009

Claims of a “military coup” have appeared in the press because, that is the way far-left officials of the Obama Administration have described it. The so called "military coup" in Honduras was a successful effort by Honduran patriots to preserve their constitutional system of government from an international alliance of communists and socialists backed by Iran. Not surprisingly, America's Marxist President has come down on the anti-American side.

If all of this is news to you, consider yourself a victim of the "state-run media," as Rush Limbaugh calls it. We are being bombarded with liberal media propaganda that a "military coup" took place in Honduras, and that the U.S. should therefore oppose it. Fox News, which has been trumpeting news about the "military coup," should be ashamed of itself for following the liberal media line.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee (and an extremely knowledgeable Latino American - jsk) noted that the problem was that the deposed president, Manuel "Mel" Zelaya, was "moving to re-write the Honduran constitution to extend and expand his power, while retaliating against those who stand in his way."

The leftist Zelaya was democratically elected in 2005 in a narrow win (with less than a majority of the vote) but he has been attempting to unconstitutionally and illegally undercut the conservative majorities in the Congress. His main purpose has been to circumvent a prohibition on serving more than one term as president. With his departure, Honduras may have been spared a communist future.

Nevertheless, Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quickly issued statements saying that his removal was somehow a violation of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. This was a clever ruse designed to disguise the fact that all of the major elements of constitutional power in Honduras, except for the increasingly unpopular and power-hungry president, acted on behalf of the people.

The United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has joined with the U.N. General Assembly President, Communist Priest Miguel D'Escoto, to demand that Zelaya be restored to power. The new president, Roberto Micheletti, has made it clear that Zelaya was removed because he had behaved in an unconstitutional manner. "I did not reach this position because of a coup," Micheletti said. "I am here because of an absolutely legal transition process." Micheletti was a member of Zelaya's Liberal Party but opposed his illegal and unconstitutional actions.

What happened is that the Legislative and Judicial branches of the government in Honduras, in conjunction with the armed forces, acted to maintain and defend their constitution from a power-mad president who was a puppet of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. (Who are trumpeted, by the media, as Zelaya’s great friend while Obama and Clinton neglect to mention they are our great enemies – jsk)

... Not only did the Congress and the Supreme Court act against Zelaya, the Catholic Church of Honduras, which is not under the sway of Marxist-oriented Liberation Theology, had opposed his illegal acts. ...

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:03 AM | Comments (0)