by Al Benson Jr.
Since 1968 I have been watching the presidential elections in this country and have kept tabs on how the evangelical Christian community votes as a whole. I must say I have not been encouraged by their track record. They seem to fall for whatever candidate can spout about his "Christianity" the longest and loudest and it never seems to occur to them to ever check as to whether his actions match his words (and usually they don't).
Richard Nixon claimed to be "born again", sat close to Billy Graham at one of Graham's crusades in 1968, the Christians were fooled and we ended up with Watergate, a lot of Nixon's foul language on the Watergate tapes and One World architect Henry Kissinger, who some even said was a Soviet spy, as part of Nixon's cabinet. Jimmy Carter, the would-be peanut farmer from Georgia pulled the same stunt. Talked about his Christian faith and then packed his cabinet with leftists of the Rockefeller tint. We were told Reagan was a Christian, although he seldom ever attended church and his lifestyle didn't really back up the claims, but he was a good enough actor at the game that he is still fooling some conservatives even though he has passed away. But, then, some folks claim that Abraham Lincoln didn't become a Christian until after he was dead for six months.
We had the same deal with Bush the Second. I remember many evangelicals I knew of just falling all over themselves about how wonderful a Christian man Bush the Second was and how he held Bible studies in the White House. Of course the fact that he was part of the Skull and Bones society was never mentioned in Christian circles. But as we went along, Bush the Second eviscerated the Constitution and the Bill of Rights even more than Slick Willie could have dreamed about doing--but that was okay with the Christians because he was, supposedly, one of them. Yeah, right! Some folks believe that purple cows fly too. And the evangelicals never seem to learn. After getting gutted in almost every election in the past forty years, here they are, right back, ready to be sheared in the 2008 election by another "devout Christian" the former governor of Arkansas, one Mike Huckabee. Does the title "former governor of Arkansas" ring a bell? Is this deja vu or what?
The stories are floating by thick and fast about Huckabees "Christianity" but again, no one is bothering to check out Mr. Huckabees actions to see if he walks the walk he talks about. You're just supposed to take his word and the word of his handlers, and of the "news media" about everything--God help us! After having done a little checking on Mr. Huckabee and his positions in several areas, I as a Christian, could not in good conscience, support him, nor will I.
Phyllis Schlafly, President of Eagle Forum, has noted that Huckabee has "destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas and left the Republican Party a shambles. Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee." You have to wonder at who is doing this sales pitch and if there isn't a pattern here of selling evangelicals on New World Order candidates over and over? Yes, Virginia, there is a pattern.
Huckabee has continued to peddle his religious Huckadrivel. He has compared the illegal aliens in this country, for whom he obviously has a soft spot, to the slaves that were brought here from Africa, who were sold to slave traders by other black Africans. Obviously, if that comparison could be sold to the Christians, they should then feel compassion for the illegals. Sorry, Mike, but it won't wash. Slaves were brought here, both North and South, through no choice of their own. The illegal aliens are here by the millions, coming in illegally, breaking the law to get here and to stay here. Yet Huckabee opposed legislation in Arkansas to prevent illegals from voting or getting state benefits. He claims those supporting such legislation are really nothing but racists. Really? Huckabee begins to sound like the el presidente of Mexico. He says the same thing--if we won't let his illegals enter our country and steal American jobs then we're all racists. Viva Senor Huckabee!
To prove his love for illegal aliens, while governor of Arkansas, he arranged for a Mexican consulate to be located in Little Rock, supposedly to help illegals with their problems with the American law, and naturally, the state of Arkansas would pay most of the expenses for all this misplaced "compassion." What that really means is that you folks living in Arkansas will foot the bill through taxes. And that brings us to another point. Mr. Huckabee never saw a tax he didn't love. Maybe he should change his name from Huckabee to Taxabee!
Ernie Dumas of the Arkansas Leader wrote: "Mike Huckabee has raised more taxes in 10 years than Bill Clinton did in his 12 years." And State Representative Randy Minton said: "(Huckabee) says he's pro-family. If your're raising taxes on the families of Arkansas, causing wives to go out and get jobs to make ends meet, that's not pro-family." Can't argue with that logic. Many writers have agreed that Huckabee is no conservative--yet he is being peddled to the evangelicals as one. So who's doing the sales pitch?
According to the website http://www.taxhikemike.com "...the average Arkansas tax burden increased 47% over Huckabee's tenure. Huckabee supported (in chronological order) a sales tax hike, gas and diesel fuel tax hikes; another sales tax hike; a cigarette tax hike; a nursing home bed tax; another sales tax hike income surcharge tax; a tobacco tax hike; taxes on Internet access; higher beer taxes. Huckabee oversaw a 50% increase in spending...opposes private school choice." Some "pro-family" candidate!
He also spoke recently to the National Education Association and he has called the "No child left behind" program "the greatest education reform effort by the federal government in my lifetime." More bovine fertilizer! The best way the federal government could "reform" education would be to get out of it altogether. But, then, remember that Karl Marx was in favor of public, or government schools also.
Mr. Huckabee is also naming Richard Haas, the president of the CFR as his advisor on foreign policy. Conservative Christians should know, (although most don't have a clue) about the CFR, the Council on Foreign Relations. This organization has been labeled as "the shadow government in the United States." Most important positions, regardless of who is in power, are filled from this group. They really are our unelected government.
All this, plus the fact that Huckabee has the support of the liberal wing of his church, should begin to tell you something. You should be able to begin to deduce that Mr. Huckabee in no way represents the interests of the Christian community, or of anyone else except for the One World "tax and spend" crowd that is busily grooming him for possible office.
But I suspect that, as usual, the evangelical community will end up being bamboozled by yet another spiritual charlatan, and they won't realize what has happend, should he get elected, until about halfway through his second term. As usual, they will be disappointed, but with their incredibly short memories they will again be manipulated into voting for the "next Christian" One Worlder to be paraded out after our next president is history.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Friday, December 14, 2007
REPARATIONS--By and for the Black Marxists
by Al Benson Jr.
Earlier this year a legislative committee in Missouri studied the feasibility of issuing an apology from the state of Missouri for slavery. One more state victim of the "apology for slavery" craze that seems to be infecting the country this year, with erstwhile legislators weeping huge crocodile tears for something that happened before their great grandfathers were even born. And, too, the crocodile tears might help with the black vote! At any rate, for whatever reason, Missouri did not act on this apology and thus has not yet had its golden opportunity to sit on the black racists' "stool of everlasting repentance" as other states have done.
But not to worry, the black racists are now back, with their white quislings, again ready to parade their guilt trip for whitey so he will yet have one more chance to grovel in the presence of their rabid ethnocentrism.
A recent article in the St. Louis Post Dispatch noted that: "A formal apology by Missouri for slavery is a necessary step in overcoming social and economic inequities suffered by many of its black citizens, speakers told a special legislative committee Tuesday." They failed to stipulate how an apology for the slavery of 150 years ago would economically benefit blacks in Missouri today, but then, I guess we are not supposed to ask that question are we?
The article continued: "White supremacy has had far-reaching implications on race relations up to this day," said Jamala Rogers, a "veteran civil rights activist" with the Organization for Black Struggle.
Just out of mild curiosity, I did a little digging to see what I could find out about Jamala Rogers. Seems she is the National Organizer for a friendly little group called the Black Radical Congress. This group has what it calls a "freedom agenda" which is quite revelatory. Among their projects are "...laws mandating public ownership of utilities" (in Marxist terms that means the state owns them). And they also seek "...a fair equitable, highly progressive tax system..." And they claim that they will "...struggle to ensure that all people in society receive free public education" and not for their younger years only, but throughout their lifetimes. You see, the indoctrination must continue beyond the high school years to be effective. Anyone who has ever read Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto should go back and look at it again and you will find all these things listed in it as part of Marx's program for communizing a country. This "freedom agenda" is Marxist to the core. Other things they wish to do are to abolish the death penalty and establish "civilian review boards" to monitor the police forces--both projects promoted by the Communists in recent decades. They will also, so they claim, "...fight against homophobia and (they) support anti-homophobic instruction in public schools." That means, in plain English, that they get the right to teach your kids that homosexuality is perfectly okay. Oh, and by the way, they also claim they will fight for black reparations. All of these things have, at one point or another, been part and parcel of the Marxist program for this country and apparently still will be if these people have their way. And since no one seems to be opposing them at this point, it does make you wonder.
The Post Dispatch article also mentioned one Zaki Baruti, "another veteran activist" who voiced his unstinting support for reparations. Not be be outdone my Ms. Rogers, Mr. Baruti is the President/General of the Universal African Peoples Organization. Part of their program is to: "Support African-centered curriculum in the public schools. Control local public school boards with Afrocentric thinking people." Sounds as if, with their mindset, there will be no room nor purpose in schools for anyone except blacks. It would seem that Mr. Baruti is a subscriber to the "all whites are racist" fiction and his solution is to replace white racism with black racism--which is, of course, okay, since black racism is allowed and white racism isn't.
Looking over this Post Dispatch article, you may well be tempted to think that St. Louis is chock full of black Marxist groups. And it does seem as if they are mostly the ones screaming and howling about apologies for slavery and reparations. Too bad the "news" media didn't see fit to give us a little info about these people and the groups they belong to. If I could find out this bit of info on these worthy Left-wing individuals you can bet the news people could have too. Simply calling them "veteran activists" really tells the reading public nothing, and I'm sure that's the intention. You can bet your boots that if someone over on the political Right were proposing some project the media would be out en mass, digging up all the dirt they could find on him and his family all the way back to Henry the Eighth! But with the black Marxists you don't have to worry about that. Their ideologies will never be mentioned by the media people--the public really doesn't need to know--that way they will never realize they should be in opposition to what these people are trying to do and life will go on and on, the Marxists will eventually get what they want and the brainwashed public will never wonder.
Earlier this year a legislative committee in Missouri studied the feasibility of issuing an apology from the state of Missouri for slavery. One more state victim of the "apology for slavery" craze that seems to be infecting the country this year, with erstwhile legislators weeping huge crocodile tears for something that happened before their great grandfathers were even born. And, too, the crocodile tears might help with the black vote! At any rate, for whatever reason, Missouri did not act on this apology and thus has not yet had its golden opportunity to sit on the black racists' "stool of everlasting repentance" as other states have done.
But not to worry, the black racists are now back, with their white quislings, again ready to parade their guilt trip for whitey so he will yet have one more chance to grovel in the presence of their rabid ethnocentrism.
A recent article in the St. Louis Post Dispatch noted that: "A formal apology by Missouri for slavery is a necessary step in overcoming social and economic inequities suffered by many of its black citizens, speakers told a special legislative committee Tuesday." They failed to stipulate how an apology for the slavery of 150 years ago would economically benefit blacks in Missouri today, but then, I guess we are not supposed to ask that question are we?
The article continued: "White supremacy has had far-reaching implications on race relations up to this day," said Jamala Rogers, a "veteran civil rights activist" with the Organization for Black Struggle.
Just out of mild curiosity, I did a little digging to see what I could find out about Jamala Rogers. Seems she is the National Organizer for a friendly little group called the Black Radical Congress. This group has what it calls a "freedom agenda" which is quite revelatory. Among their projects are "...laws mandating public ownership of utilities" (in Marxist terms that means the state owns them). And they also seek "...a fair equitable, highly progressive tax system..." And they claim that they will "...struggle to ensure that all people in society receive free public education" and not for their younger years only, but throughout their lifetimes. You see, the indoctrination must continue beyond the high school years to be effective. Anyone who has ever read Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto should go back and look at it again and you will find all these things listed in it as part of Marx's program for communizing a country. This "freedom agenda" is Marxist to the core. Other things they wish to do are to abolish the death penalty and establish "civilian review boards" to monitor the police forces--both projects promoted by the Communists in recent decades. They will also, so they claim, "...fight against homophobia and (they) support anti-homophobic instruction in public schools." That means, in plain English, that they get the right to teach your kids that homosexuality is perfectly okay. Oh, and by the way, they also claim they will fight for black reparations. All of these things have, at one point or another, been part and parcel of the Marxist program for this country and apparently still will be if these people have their way. And since no one seems to be opposing them at this point, it does make you wonder.
The Post Dispatch article also mentioned one Zaki Baruti, "another veteran activist" who voiced his unstinting support for reparations. Not be be outdone my Ms. Rogers, Mr. Baruti is the President/General of the Universal African Peoples Organization. Part of their program is to: "Support African-centered curriculum in the public schools. Control local public school boards with Afrocentric thinking people." Sounds as if, with their mindset, there will be no room nor purpose in schools for anyone except blacks. It would seem that Mr. Baruti is a subscriber to the "all whites are racist" fiction and his solution is to replace white racism with black racism--which is, of course, okay, since black racism is allowed and white racism isn't.
Looking over this Post Dispatch article, you may well be tempted to think that St. Louis is chock full of black Marxist groups. And it does seem as if they are mostly the ones screaming and howling about apologies for slavery and reparations. Too bad the "news" media didn't see fit to give us a little info about these people and the groups they belong to. If I could find out this bit of info on these worthy Left-wing individuals you can bet the news people could have too. Simply calling them "veteran activists" really tells the reading public nothing, and I'm sure that's the intention. You can bet your boots that if someone over on the political Right were proposing some project the media would be out en mass, digging up all the dirt they could find on him and his family all the way back to Henry the Eighth! But with the black Marxists you don't have to worry about that. Their ideologies will never be mentioned by the media people--the public really doesn't need to know--that way they will never realize they should be in opposition to what these people are trying to do and life will go on and on, the Marxists will eventually get what they want and the brainwashed public will never wonder.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Liberal Preachers and their Left-wing Connections
by Al Benson Jr.
As is probably known to most in the Southern Heritage Movement by now, the Rev. Louis Coleman of the Justice Resource Center in Louisville, Kentucky was one of those who made a big fuss over Confederate symbols at Allen High School in Floyd County, Kentucky, way over in Appalachia, just a bit of a way from his native stomping ground in Louisville. You might wonder why.
Rev. Coleman was supposed to speak to a school board meetig in Floyd County during January of this year (2007). Coleman's talk was an attempt to get the school board to force Allen Central to do away with their school's Confederate symbols. It would have been nice if someone over in Floyd County had just told Rev. Coleman to go back to Louisville and mind his own business, as what they do in Floyd County is their business, not his.
Given Rev. Coleman's background and associations, though, it is not at all surprising that he would be in the forefront of the attempt to obliterate Confederate symbols when and wherever he ran across them. His associations with those on the far political Left bear this out. Just a small example, if you will allow.
Enter Anne Braden, who just passed away this past year. She and Rev. Louis Coleman have had some association with each other. There is, on the Internet, a photo of her and Rev. Coleman, with others, standing side by side at a "Myles Horton 100th Birthday Party in Louisville, Kentucky in July of 2005." Well, so what, you say--but please bear with me--it gets better. Myles Horton was one of the founders of the Highlander Folk School in Monteagle, Tennessee. He said of his school "Here in the mountains, should the economic situation become pressing enough, the people could be made to understand that the socialization of property would give them more personal freedom...Here was an opportunity to direct the American revolutionary tradition towards a cooperative society operated by and for the workers...Many strike songs are as class-conscious as the writings of Karl Marx..." In other words, Horton was using this "folk school" as a vehicle for the promotion of Communist propaganda.
In fact, the Joint Legislative Committee of Un-American Activities for the state of Louisiana has listed Highlander Folk School as a "Communist training school." So Rev. Coleman and Anne Braden were photographed together at this party for one of the founders of a Communist training school--which is not really surprising, for you see, Anne Braden and her husband, the late Carl Braden, were both identified in sworn testimony as Communists. For years the operated the Southern Conference Educational Fund (SCEF) which was a Communist front group. Doesn't Rev. Coleman keep interesting company? The picture of he and Anne Braden is part of an article on the Internet for the Highlander Research and Education Center, in an article dealing with Anne Braden. Check out http://www.highlandercenter.org/n-braden.asp and see for yourself.
Some among the gullible might say that this one association could be coincidental, and well it might be, except that this isn't the only one.
There is another outfit out there, operating among us "great unwashed", the Coalition for the People's Agenda. Interesting name! Folks from this group meet regularly at the Braden Center, 3208 W. Broadway in Louisville, Kentucky. Now who do you suppose the Braden Center has been named for? At any rate, this group has an entire litany of leftist programs going on. Anyone who has read Communist propaganda during the 1950s and 60s has already seen this type of stuff--it's not really new. It has just been repackaged a little so it will sell to the contemporary crowd (they hope). This organization has something going called "The People's Agenda" and guess who two of the authors and planners were for this project--Anne Braden and the Rev. Louis Coleman. Surprise surprise! Birds of a feather and all that!
It would seem that Rev. Coleman's political affiliations place him way, way over at the Left end of the political spetrum--not exactly in the mainstream of American thought. So why, pray tell, should patriotic Americans in Floyd County, Kentucky seek to rid themselves of their Confederate symbols for the sake of him and his Leftist pals?
The theological and political Left has always been in the forefront of the opposition against the Confederacy and her symbols and flags. It was so in the 1860s and it is no different today. Their Leftist propaganda needs to be exposed for what it is--divisive class hatred and an abiding hatred for anything Southern, Confederate, or Christian.
As is probably known to most in the Southern Heritage Movement by now, the Rev. Louis Coleman of the Justice Resource Center in Louisville, Kentucky was one of those who made a big fuss over Confederate symbols at Allen High School in Floyd County, Kentucky, way over in Appalachia, just a bit of a way from his native stomping ground in Louisville. You might wonder why.
Rev. Coleman was supposed to speak to a school board meetig in Floyd County during January of this year (2007). Coleman's talk was an attempt to get the school board to force Allen Central to do away with their school's Confederate symbols. It would have been nice if someone over in Floyd County had just told Rev. Coleman to go back to Louisville and mind his own business, as what they do in Floyd County is their business, not his.
Given Rev. Coleman's background and associations, though, it is not at all surprising that he would be in the forefront of the attempt to obliterate Confederate symbols when and wherever he ran across them. His associations with those on the far political Left bear this out. Just a small example, if you will allow.
Enter Anne Braden, who just passed away this past year. She and Rev. Louis Coleman have had some association with each other. There is, on the Internet, a photo of her and Rev. Coleman, with others, standing side by side at a "Myles Horton 100th Birthday Party in Louisville, Kentucky in July of 2005." Well, so what, you say--but please bear with me--it gets better. Myles Horton was one of the founders of the Highlander Folk School in Monteagle, Tennessee. He said of his school "Here in the mountains, should the economic situation become pressing enough, the people could be made to understand that the socialization of property would give them more personal freedom...Here was an opportunity to direct the American revolutionary tradition towards a cooperative society operated by and for the workers...Many strike songs are as class-conscious as the writings of Karl Marx..." In other words, Horton was using this "folk school" as a vehicle for the promotion of Communist propaganda.
In fact, the Joint Legislative Committee of Un-American Activities for the state of Louisiana has listed Highlander Folk School as a "Communist training school." So Rev. Coleman and Anne Braden were photographed together at this party for one of the founders of a Communist training school--which is not really surprising, for you see, Anne Braden and her husband, the late Carl Braden, were both identified in sworn testimony as Communists. For years the operated the Southern Conference Educational Fund (SCEF) which was a Communist front group. Doesn't Rev. Coleman keep interesting company? The picture of he and Anne Braden is part of an article on the Internet for the Highlander Research and Education Center, in an article dealing with Anne Braden. Check out http://www.highlandercenter.org/n-braden.asp and see for yourself.
Some among the gullible might say that this one association could be coincidental, and well it might be, except that this isn't the only one.
There is another outfit out there, operating among us "great unwashed", the Coalition for the People's Agenda. Interesting name! Folks from this group meet regularly at the Braden Center, 3208 W. Broadway in Louisville, Kentucky. Now who do you suppose the Braden Center has been named for? At any rate, this group has an entire litany of leftist programs going on. Anyone who has read Communist propaganda during the 1950s and 60s has already seen this type of stuff--it's not really new. It has just been repackaged a little so it will sell to the contemporary crowd (they hope). This organization has something going called "The People's Agenda" and guess who two of the authors and planners were for this project--Anne Braden and the Rev. Louis Coleman. Surprise surprise! Birds of a feather and all that!
It would seem that Rev. Coleman's political affiliations place him way, way over at the Left end of the political spetrum--not exactly in the mainstream of American thought. So why, pray tell, should patriotic Americans in Floyd County, Kentucky seek to rid themselves of their Confederate symbols for the sake of him and his Leftist pals?
The theological and political Left has always been in the forefront of the opposition against the Confederacy and her symbols and flags. It was so in the 1860s and it is no different today. Their Leftist propaganda needs to be exposed for what it is--divisive class hatred and an abiding hatred for anything Southern, Confederate, or Christian.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE THE PANTHER INVASION
by Al Benson Jr.
I paraphrase the old poem slightly when I say "What to my wondering eyes should appear but cadres of (Black) Panthers all coming here (to Jena, Louisiana). That was my initial thought after picking up the Monroe, Louisiana newspaper one day recently and reading an article on the first page that stated that the "New Black Panthers" were coming to Jena, Louisiana to "patrol" the streets to keep the infamous Jena 6 and their families safe and secure from alleged Ku Klux Klan threats. My second thought was that the good folks in Jena, both black and white are just going to love this!
I wondered if the local police might possibly try to keep them out as a possible disruptive influence. Then I thought, no, that probably won't happen. It wouldn't be politically correct. Now if they happened to be an outfit called The White Panthers, then you can be sure they would have been denied access to Jena, but the Black Panthers probably won't--"racism" and all that you know.
I can recall when I first got into political activism back in the late 1960s. The original Black Panther Party was alive and well, spreading their black Marxist theology among the masses, and college students ate it up like bread and honey. For all their supposed intelligence they had about as much discernment as a potato chip that has just been stepped on in the parking lot. Of course the "objective" media would never admit the Black Panthers were communists--they finally had to do that themselves--and then the "news" media looked rather pathetic for not having brought that fact out earlier. But then you know how it is with the news media (and I do use that term in the loosest possible sense)--much better to have a communist under every bed than to be forced to admit that he's there. The original Black Panther Party seems to have gone the way of all flesh mostly. Survivors of that original group are now about as old as I am. However, this newest mutation of them has sprouted from the same noxious Marxist weed, and its roots and vines are gradually creeping into the "new civil rights movement."
The New Black Panthers are an interesting group. They claim capitalism is the primary evil in the world ( I always thought that sin was) and naturally they see revolution as the only solution. To say that these people are anti-Christian would be an understatement. However, they claim that they don't draw their inspiration from Karl Marx. Instead, with a clever play on words, they state that Marx drew his ideology from indigenous African cultures, and they, therefore, just eliminate the middle man, so to speak, and hark directly back to those African cultures for what they believe. What they are saying, in effect, is that these African cultures were Marxist before Marx was. Interesting concept.
The present head of the New Black Panthers is one Malik "Zulu" Shabazz. He was born Paris Lewis, but I reckon that didn't sound militantly Muslim enough for him, hence the new moniker. He went to Howard University and got a law degree, was strongly influenced by Louis Farrakhan, and claimed that meeting Farrakhan "changed my life." Oh, I'll just bet it did!
Shabazz has some rather novel views. He thinks all black prisoners in this country should be freed as they could not possibly have gotten fair trials in such a "racist" country. Back in 2002, Shabazz noted his "solidarity" with the former H. Rap Brown (also sporting a new Muslim name). Mr. Brown was eventually convicted of killing a black sheriff's deputy in Georgia. Wonder if they considered that a "hate crime" or just plain murder? Shabazz also falls all over himself to support Mumia Abu Jamal, another convicted cop-killer. He seems to have an odd affinity for people that shoot policemen. Of course we all know that these cop-killers Shabazz so ardently supports are all innocent, pure as the driven snow, because, after all, they were tried in "racist" courts. And this is what's going to be patrolling the steeets in Jena, Louisiana? Folks better hide their daughters and put their pets in the garage!
It would seem that Jena, Louisiana is now to be made the new "civil rights" guinea pig. As such it will be subjected to whatever the Leftist civil rights crowd and our "Justic Department" in Washington can get away with. This will continue until the town's residents are not so subtly "persuaded" to confess their "racism". Then, they can be made to sit on "stools of everlasting repentance" for the rest of their natural lives, while, via sensitivity training and other devices, their hometown is slowly turned into something none of them will even recognize in five years.
As we go along, I as well as many others, begin to wonder about this whole "racist" concept. It rather seems that the people who push it the strongest are among the most ethnocentric people on the face of the planet. Maybe they need to begin to recognize that, whatever supposedly constitutes "racism" they are every bit as guilty as the rest of the human race. However, for them to do that, they would need to admit they are just as sinful and needful of the salvation of Jesus Christ as the rest of us. Wonder what it'll take to make that happen--nothing short of Divine intervention.
Interestingly enough, black author Thomas Sowell labeled the whole Jena scene as "mindless tribalism." Tribalism it was, but at its leadership levels, it was far from mindless. It was Marxism in action!!!
I paraphrase the old poem slightly when I say "What to my wondering eyes should appear but cadres of (Black) Panthers all coming here (to Jena, Louisiana). That was my initial thought after picking up the Monroe, Louisiana newspaper one day recently and reading an article on the first page that stated that the "New Black Panthers" were coming to Jena, Louisiana to "patrol" the streets to keep the infamous Jena 6 and their families safe and secure from alleged Ku Klux Klan threats. My second thought was that the good folks in Jena, both black and white are just going to love this!
I wondered if the local police might possibly try to keep them out as a possible disruptive influence. Then I thought, no, that probably won't happen. It wouldn't be politically correct. Now if they happened to be an outfit called The White Panthers, then you can be sure they would have been denied access to Jena, but the Black Panthers probably won't--"racism" and all that you know.
I can recall when I first got into political activism back in the late 1960s. The original Black Panther Party was alive and well, spreading their black Marxist theology among the masses, and college students ate it up like bread and honey. For all their supposed intelligence they had about as much discernment as a potato chip that has just been stepped on in the parking lot. Of course the "objective" media would never admit the Black Panthers were communists--they finally had to do that themselves--and then the "news" media looked rather pathetic for not having brought that fact out earlier. But then you know how it is with the news media (and I do use that term in the loosest possible sense)--much better to have a communist under every bed than to be forced to admit that he's there. The original Black Panther Party seems to have gone the way of all flesh mostly. Survivors of that original group are now about as old as I am. However, this newest mutation of them has sprouted from the same noxious Marxist weed, and its roots and vines are gradually creeping into the "new civil rights movement."
The New Black Panthers are an interesting group. They claim capitalism is the primary evil in the world ( I always thought that sin was) and naturally they see revolution as the only solution. To say that these people are anti-Christian would be an understatement. However, they claim that they don't draw their inspiration from Karl Marx. Instead, with a clever play on words, they state that Marx drew his ideology from indigenous African cultures, and they, therefore, just eliminate the middle man, so to speak, and hark directly back to those African cultures for what they believe. What they are saying, in effect, is that these African cultures were Marxist before Marx was. Interesting concept.
The present head of the New Black Panthers is one Malik "Zulu" Shabazz. He was born Paris Lewis, but I reckon that didn't sound militantly Muslim enough for him, hence the new moniker. He went to Howard University and got a law degree, was strongly influenced by Louis Farrakhan, and claimed that meeting Farrakhan "changed my life." Oh, I'll just bet it did!
Shabazz has some rather novel views. He thinks all black prisoners in this country should be freed as they could not possibly have gotten fair trials in such a "racist" country. Back in 2002, Shabazz noted his "solidarity" with the former H. Rap Brown (also sporting a new Muslim name). Mr. Brown was eventually convicted of killing a black sheriff's deputy in Georgia. Wonder if they considered that a "hate crime" or just plain murder? Shabazz also falls all over himself to support Mumia Abu Jamal, another convicted cop-killer. He seems to have an odd affinity for people that shoot policemen. Of course we all know that these cop-killers Shabazz so ardently supports are all innocent, pure as the driven snow, because, after all, they were tried in "racist" courts. And this is what's going to be patrolling the steeets in Jena, Louisiana? Folks better hide their daughters and put their pets in the garage!
It would seem that Jena, Louisiana is now to be made the new "civil rights" guinea pig. As such it will be subjected to whatever the Leftist civil rights crowd and our "Justic Department" in Washington can get away with. This will continue until the town's residents are not so subtly "persuaded" to confess their "racism". Then, they can be made to sit on "stools of everlasting repentance" for the rest of their natural lives, while, via sensitivity training and other devices, their hometown is slowly turned into something none of them will even recognize in five years.
As we go along, I as well as many others, begin to wonder about this whole "racist" concept. It rather seems that the people who push it the strongest are among the most ethnocentric people on the face of the planet. Maybe they need to begin to recognize that, whatever supposedly constitutes "racism" they are every bit as guilty as the rest of the human race. However, for them to do that, they would need to admit they are just as sinful and needful of the salvation of Jesus Christ as the rest of us. Wonder what it'll take to make that happen--nothing short of Divine intervention.
Interestingly enough, black author Thomas Sowell labeled the whole Jena scene as "mindless tribalism." Tribalism it was, but at its leadership levels, it was far from mindless. It was Marxism in action!!!
Monday, October 15, 2007
THE RACE CARD IS GETTING SICKENING
by Al Benson Jr.
Literally for decades now, I've been hearing about how bad "white racism" is. To listen to some people you would think it is responsible for everything from constipation to the latest crop failures in India. In fact, to listen to some of these people you would think that white racism is the one unforgivable sin and that no other sins really mattered. You can be an adulterer--several of those that complain the loudest about white racism have been--but that's excusable just as long as you continue to denounce "white racism." The racist (for that's what they really are) shouters remind me of the 19th century abolitionists in this country. To them, slavery was the only sin worth mentioning. You could be a murderer or a terrorist (as was abolitionist John Brown), but that was all right as long as you were murdering people to protest the "sin" of slavery. All was acceptable. Black racists (yes, Virginia, they exist too), Muslim racists, Latin American racists, and all other manner of racists get to rant about the cardinal sin of "white racism" as they struggle to steal the moral high ground, thus climbing out of the racial morass they have been wallowing around in.
Years ago at O. J. Simpson's "trial" for the murder of his wife, his lawyer cleverly play the race card and O. J. got to walk. It seems that, every time some black man gets arrested for some horrible crime that white racism is the cause of it. One black may have murdered or robbed another black, but "white racism" is really the culprit. Let a new property tax levee somewhere for government schools get turned down and its the fault of "white racism." Illiegal aliens from Mexico, one in awhile, do get caught and shipped back to Mexico (not to worry, they'll be back for another try) and that's the fault of white racism.
That's basically the tack that former Mexican president Vicente Fox recently took. Fox recently said that the United States is letting racism dictate its policies in regard to immigration. He said "The xenophobics, the racists, those who feel they are a superior race...they are deciding the future of this nation." Dare I say it, but the future of this nation is none of Fox's business. But, not to be stopped, he continued: "To be so repressive isn't democratic or free...to be putting up fences, chasing Mexicans, that isn't right." Pardon me, Mr. Fox, but if those Mexicans are here illegally, there is not one whit of wrong involved in chasing them back into Mexico, or putting up a border fence to help keep them in Mexico, though I seriously doubt the politicians in this country will ever allow much of the fence to be built.
If the Mexican government would try to work out policies to give Mexicans decent work in their own country, maybe some of them would stay there. That fact that they won't be bothered doing that shows they really have no regard for their own people and they want the U.S. to take care of them. And we realize that, with the innate corruption in Mexico as a way of life, waiting for them to take responsibility for their own people just isn't going to happen. Much easier to accuse us of "white racism" than it is to assume personal responsibility themselves.
And, a question for Mr. Fox and friends,--what about those extreme Left-wingers from Mexico and other points south that comprize such organizations as La Raza (the race)? Any racism in these groups Mr. Fox? Oh no, of course not, none of them are racist because they aren't white and we all know that no other race has any racist problems except whites. Why, if you're white you are automatically a racist, but if you belong to any other race, why everyone just knows that you never had a racist thought in your entire life--all has been sweetness and light! This is the way the game is played by these shameless hypocrites. It's a pile of bovine fertilizer and they all know it. What they hope is that you don't know it. Supposedly, by making white folks feel ashamed of being white they can feel proud of whatever race they belong to. The problem is that if you have to tear someone else down to life yourself up, then maybe you don't have as much to offer as you think you do. They would do well to consider that aspect.
I've had black friends over the years, as well as friends of other races. Often we have sat and talked of the War of Northern Aggression, slavery, and other "touchy" issues. However, it was done in a Christian manner, with Christian charity on both sides, and no one got mad or called names if someone else didn't totally agree with him. If you want someone to respect you, then treat them with respect too--but then, mutual respect is not part of the agenda for these racist hypocrites--seeking to create more racial animosity is part of the agenda.
And, as far as ex-president Fox in Mexico is concerned, allegations have arisen about "illicit wealth." It seems a magazine down there published photos of his newly renovated ranch. Fox claimed that this was nothing but "yellow journalism." So maybe it helps Fox in this instance to attempt to sound "moral" by accusing us Americans of "white racism." It may take a little of the heat off him at home. As I said earlier--shameless hypocrites--and racist hypocrites at that. A classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. Condemn others, elevate yourself--it's a classic Marxist tactic.
Literally for decades now, I've been hearing about how bad "white racism" is. To listen to some people you would think it is responsible for everything from constipation to the latest crop failures in India. In fact, to listen to some of these people you would think that white racism is the one unforgivable sin and that no other sins really mattered. You can be an adulterer--several of those that complain the loudest about white racism have been--but that's excusable just as long as you continue to denounce "white racism." The racist (for that's what they really are) shouters remind me of the 19th century abolitionists in this country. To them, slavery was the only sin worth mentioning. You could be a murderer or a terrorist (as was abolitionist John Brown), but that was all right as long as you were murdering people to protest the "sin" of slavery. All was acceptable. Black racists (yes, Virginia, they exist too), Muslim racists, Latin American racists, and all other manner of racists get to rant about the cardinal sin of "white racism" as they struggle to steal the moral high ground, thus climbing out of the racial morass they have been wallowing around in.
Years ago at O. J. Simpson's "trial" for the murder of his wife, his lawyer cleverly play the race card and O. J. got to walk. It seems that, every time some black man gets arrested for some horrible crime that white racism is the cause of it. One black may have murdered or robbed another black, but "white racism" is really the culprit. Let a new property tax levee somewhere for government schools get turned down and its the fault of "white racism." Illiegal aliens from Mexico, one in awhile, do get caught and shipped back to Mexico (not to worry, they'll be back for another try) and that's the fault of white racism.
That's basically the tack that former Mexican president Vicente Fox recently took. Fox recently said that the United States is letting racism dictate its policies in regard to immigration. He said "The xenophobics, the racists, those who feel they are a superior race...they are deciding the future of this nation." Dare I say it, but the future of this nation is none of Fox's business. But, not to be stopped, he continued: "To be so repressive isn't democratic or free...to be putting up fences, chasing Mexicans, that isn't right." Pardon me, Mr. Fox, but if those Mexicans are here illegally, there is not one whit of wrong involved in chasing them back into Mexico, or putting up a border fence to help keep them in Mexico, though I seriously doubt the politicians in this country will ever allow much of the fence to be built.
If the Mexican government would try to work out policies to give Mexicans decent work in their own country, maybe some of them would stay there. That fact that they won't be bothered doing that shows they really have no regard for their own people and they want the U.S. to take care of them. And we realize that, with the innate corruption in Mexico as a way of life, waiting for them to take responsibility for their own people just isn't going to happen. Much easier to accuse us of "white racism" than it is to assume personal responsibility themselves.
And, a question for Mr. Fox and friends,--what about those extreme Left-wingers from Mexico and other points south that comprize such organizations as La Raza (the race)? Any racism in these groups Mr. Fox? Oh no, of course not, none of them are racist because they aren't white and we all know that no other race has any racist problems except whites. Why, if you're white you are automatically a racist, but if you belong to any other race, why everyone just knows that you never had a racist thought in your entire life--all has been sweetness and light! This is the way the game is played by these shameless hypocrites. It's a pile of bovine fertilizer and they all know it. What they hope is that you don't know it. Supposedly, by making white folks feel ashamed of being white they can feel proud of whatever race they belong to. The problem is that if you have to tear someone else down to life yourself up, then maybe you don't have as much to offer as you think you do. They would do well to consider that aspect.
I've had black friends over the years, as well as friends of other races. Often we have sat and talked of the War of Northern Aggression, slavery, and other "touchy" issues. However, it was done in a Christian manner, with Christian charity on both sides, and no one got mad or called names if someone else didn't totally agree with him. If you want someone to respect you, then treat them with respect too--but then, mutual respect is not part of the agenda for these racist hypocrites--seeking to create more racial animosity is part of the agenda.
And, as far as ex-president Fox in Mexico is concerned, allegations have arisen about "illicit wealth." It seems a magazine down there published photos of his newly renovated ranch. Fox claimed that this was nothing but "yellow journalism." So maybe it helps Fox in this instance to attempt to sound "moral" by accusing us Americans of "white racism." It may take a little of the heat off him at home. As I said earlier--shameless hypocrites--and racist hypocrites at that. A classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. Condemn others, elevate yourself--it's a classic Marxist tactic.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
DO WE REALLY NEED GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS? NOT HARDLY!
by Al Benson Jr.
We have been told for decades now that the public or government school system is a dire necessity so that the country's children can be properly educated, so they may learn to read, write, and all the rest. Although if you look at the failing public school test scores you might conclude that the program is a gigantic bust. But then the teachers' unions will pop us, like a pop-up add on your computer and tell you that "all we need is more money so we can provide a quality education." (And more, and more, and more). Most of us have heard that old saw for years now. Yet, having observed the public education scene for over three decades now, I am forced to admit that the more money we toss down the government school rathole the dumber our kids seem to get. Ask kids in some school districts who George Washington was and they will tell you they think he was a linebacker for the New Orleans Saints. Many of them can't find Texas on a map of the United States, and anything that happened before the advent of the Beatles is a complete mystery to them.
Back in the early 1980s Samuel Blumenfeld wrote an illuminating book called Is Public Education Necessary? Mr. Blumenfeld contended it wasn't, and I agree with him. He checked out the literacy rates back in the country's early days and found out that, without public schools, they were higher than they are now with public schools. In his book , on page 20, he noted: "Prof. Lawrence Cremin, in his study on colonial education, estimated that, based on the evidence of signatures on deeds, wills, militia rolls, and voting rosters, adult male literacy in the American colonies ran from 70 to 100 percent. It was this high literacy rate that, indeed, made the American Revolution possible."
Other sources, even without deliberate intention, undergird this contention. Author Benson Bobrick, in his interesting book on the American War for Independence, Angel in the Whirlwind
noted on pages 46 and 47 that: "The literacy rate in America was extrodinarily high. Although there was no public education system as such, almost every community had a church or parish school..." And on page 49 he observed: "The broad literacy and political involvement of the people in their democratic institutions helped turn the average American into a kind of citizen-lawyer." And I recall hearing a speech years ago by a man that told us the Federalist Papers were written so the farmers in upper New York state would understand what was taking place regarding the debates on ratification of the Constitution. To most folks today, trying to read the Federalist Papers is like trying to read Chinese, yet in those days the farmers in New York could understand what they said quite well. What does that tell us about our "educational" level today? All this points to the fact that this country did very well in regard to education without a government school system. Note Bobrick's comments about each community having a church or parish school. That meant that the Christian church has, at that point, upheld its responsibility to educate and enlighten the population, and this fact of local Christian education was what initially brought the government schools into existence--they were a reaction against Christian education.
The people that initially started government schools in this country were Unitarians like Horace Mann who disbelieved in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and they were encouraged and supported by socialists like Robert Owen. Both the Unitarians and the socialists realized that if they could just get true Christianity out of the educational curriculum without people realizing it, then they could substitute their own theology for it. That's right, I said theology. For, at heart, all education is theological and either promotes a Christian worldview or some other worldview far less desirable.
Dr. Wilson L. Thompson, in his lecture entitled Revolution Through Routinization noted that: "The socialists saw the public school as their tool to reform American character and to establish a socialist society. But religious conservatives were conned into believing public education was a viable means of maintaining Protestant supremacy over a huge influx of Catholic immigrants. But, Catholics established their own parochial schools, leaving Protestants mired in secular schools." But, then, that's exactly where the Unitarians and socialists wanted them. Dr. Thompson also noted: "Harvard's Unitarian elite soon moved to adopt the Prussian model of state-controlled education, and they ultimately included its compulsory school attendance laws." They wanted a captive audience.
Samuel Blumenfeld noted that the Unitarians viewed state-controlled education as the only way to solve the problem of evil. They really thought that compulsory government schools would eventually do away with evil, poverty, and crime and create the perfect man--the new "Soviet man" if you will. So the Unitarians viewed compulsory public education as the world's messiah. After all, who needs Jesus Christ for salvation when you have such a magnificent government school system, capable of curing all the ills of the world? Why just "educate" the kiddies properly and you can dump all those outmoded ideas about man's original sin and his need of salvation only through Jesus Christ and you can create the new perfect man by tinkering with his environment. Sounds just wonderful. The only problem is, it doesn't work--never has, never will. If it was working the way they told us it would and should then why did we have situations like the one in Columbine a few years ago? Oh, the public school system is an excellent vehicle for the promotion of socialist propaganda. It has been that since day one! The government school system is not a system of education it is a system of indoctrination. True education doesn't even begin to enter the picture. Since when have Unitarians, socialists, and today's secular humanists ever been interested in truth? The agenda is the name of the game, not education.
Those people that say "If we could just get the public schools back to where they were when we went to them we'd be okay" don't begin to get the big picture, nor do they begin to understand the real function of public education (if such it can be called). The government school system has been a vehicle for socialist propaganda and anti-Christian theology since its inception. Pray tell, in that case, what do you "reform" it back to? If the tree bears bad fruit it needs to be cut down, not just have a few branches trimmed off.
So if the literacy rate was better before we were "blessed" with a public school system, then why do we need one? Let education be returned to the private sphere. It functioned better there anyway, because, for the most part, it was education and not propaganda.
It is worth remembering that the tenth plank of Marx's Communist Manifesto was "free education for all children in public schools." The alternative to this is to do away with compulsory attendance laws. Then let Christian education flourish--classical Christian schools, homeschooling, regular Christian schools, however you want to do it. But get government at all levels out, completely out of the education business.
We have been told for decades now that the public or government school system is a dire necessity so that the country's children can be properly educated, so they may learn to read, write, and all the rest. Although if you look at the failing public school test scores you might conclude that the program is a gigantic bust. But then the teachers' unions will pop us, like a pop-up add on your computer and tell you that "all we need is more money so we can provide a quality education." (And more, and more, and more). Most of us have heard that old saw for years now. Yet, having observed the public education scene for over three decades now, I am forced to admit that the more money we toss down the government school rathole the dumber our kids seem to get. Ask kids in some school districts who George Washington was and they will tell you they think he was a linebacker for the New Orleans Saints. Many of them can't find Texas on a map of the United States, and anything that happened before the advent of the Beatles is a complete mystery to them.
Back in the early 1980s Samuel Blumenfeld wrote an illuminating book called Is Public Education Necessary? Mr. Blumenfeld contended it wasn't, and I agree with him. He checked out the literacy rates back in the country's early days and found out that, without public schools, they were higher than they are now with public schools. In his book , on page 20, he noted: "Prof. Lawrence Cremin, in his study on colonial education, estimated that, based on the evidence of signatures on deeds, wills, militia rolls, and voting rosters, adult male literacy in the American colonies ran from 70 to 100 percent. It was this high literacy rate that, indeed, made the American Revolution possible."
Other sources, even without deliberate intention, undergird this contention. Author Benson Bobrick, in his interesting book on the American War for Independence, Angel in the Whirlwind
noted on pages 46 and 47 that: "The literacy rate in America was extrodinarily high. Although there was no public education system as such, almost every community had a church or parish school..." And on page 49 he observed: "The broad literacy and political involvement of the people in their democratic institutions helped turn the average American into a kind of citizen-lawyer." And I recall hearing a speech years ago by a man that told us the Federalist Papers were written so the farmers in upper New York state would understand what was taking place regarding the debates on ratification of the Constitution. To most folks today, trying to read the Federalist Papers is like trying to read Chinese, yet in those days the farmers in New York could understand what they said quite well. What does that tell us about our "educational" level today? All this points to the fact that this country did very well in regard to education without a government school system. Note Bobrick's comments about each community having a church or parish school. That meant that the Christian church has, at that point, upheld its responsibility to educate and enlighten the population, and this fact of local Christian education was what initially brought the government schools into existence--they were a reaction against Christian education.
The people that initially started government schools in this country were Unitarians like Horace Mann who disbelieved in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and they were encouraged and supported by socialists like Robert Owen. Both the Unitarians and the socialists realized that if they could just get true Christianity out of the educational curriculum without people realizing it, then they could substitute their own theology for it. That's right, I said theology. For, at heart, all education is theological and either promotes a Christian worldview or some other worldview far less desirable.
Dr. Wilson L. Thompson, in his lecture entitled Revolution Through Routinization noted that: "The socialists saw the public school as their tool to reform American character and to establish a socialist society. But religious conservatives were conned into believing public education was a viable means of maintaining Protestant supremacy over a huge influx of Catholic immigrants. But, Catholics established their own parochial schools, leaving Protestants mired in secular schools." But, then, that's exactly where the Unitarians and socialists wanted them. Dr. Thompson also noted: "Harvard's Unitarian elite soon moved to adopt the Prussian model of state-controlled education, and they ultimately included its compulsory school attendance laws." They wanted a captive audience.
Samuel Blumenfeld noted that the Unitarians viewed state-controlled education as the only way to solve the problem of evil. They really thought that compulsory government schools would eventually do away with evil, poverty, and crime and create the perfect man--the new "Soviet man" if you will. So the Unitarians viewed compulsory public education as the world's messiah. After all, who needs Jesus Christ for salvation when you have such a magnificent government school system, capable of curing all the ills of the world? Why just "educate" the kiddies properly and you can dump all those outmoded ideas about man's original sin and his need of salvation only through Jesus Christ and you can create the new perfect man by tinkering with his environment. Sounds just wonderful. The only problem is, it doesn't work--never has, never will. If it was working the way they told us it would and should then why did we have situations like the one in Columbine a few years ago? Oh, the public school system is an excellent vehicle for the promotion of socialist propaganda. It has been that since day one! The government school system is not a system of education it is a system of indoctrination. True education doesn't even begin to enter the picture. Since when have Unitarians, socialists, and today's secular humanists ever been interested in truth? The agenda is the name of the game, not education.
Those people that say "If we could just get the public schools back to where they were when we went to them we'd be okay" don't begin to get the big picture, nor do they begin to understand the real function of public education (if such it can be called). The government school system has been a vehicle for socialist propaganda and anti-Christian theology since its inception. Pray tell, in that case, what do you "reform" it back to? If the tree bears bad fruit it needs to be cut down, not just have a few branches trimmed off.
So if the literacy rate was better before we were "blessed" with a public school system, then why do we need one? Let education be returned to the private sphere. It functioned better there anyway, because, for the most part, it was education and not propaganda.
It is worth remembering that the tenth plank of Marx's Communist Manifesto was "free education for all children in public schools." The alternative to this is to do away with compulsory attendance laws. Then let Christian education flourish--classical Christian schools, homeschooling, regular Christian schools, however you want to do it. But get government at all levels out, completely out of the education business.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
MEXICO THINKS IT'S THE WORLD
by Al Benson Jr.
If the United States were ruled by sane and moral people instead of the One World crew in Washington, recent comments by the Mexican president Felipe Calderon would have been thoroughly repudiated. But, since sanity, reason, and morality do not exist in Sodom on the Potomac, our so-called "leaders" will say nothing in reply to Calderon's blatant hypocrisy and outright meddling in our national affairs. Our "leadership" has become as "dumb dogs" when it comes to defending our people and our country from illegal immigration. Oh, a few photo op "raids" are made to give the illusion that the federals are really doing something about the problem, but its mostly a dog and pony show. After all, our leaders wouldn't want to really do anything that might offend the illegals--they might vote to give them the vote someday, whether they are legal or not. And if our own citizens who seek justice are offended, well, hey, who really cares anyway? All they're good for is to foot the tax bill so our beneficient government can have money for illegal alien social security payments and other goodies. The only place in the country that seems to have taken any meaningful steps in regard to illegal aliens is Oklahoma.
Felipe Calderon recently gave his state of the union address in Mexico in which he said: "I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican there is Mexico." I suppose the implication there is that, wherever in the world Mexicans happen to find themselves, that place belongs to them and not to the country of their residence. If that is indeed their mindset, would they then only consider themselves bound by the laws of Mexico and not by the laws of wherever they happen to be? There just might be a few countries that would have a problem with that mindset. Obviously the federal government in this country has no problem with it, or if they do they don't dare speak up lest they offend the Mexicans! I wonder now Calderon would feel if an American politician told him that wherever a U. S. citizen is anywhere, that that place becomes the United States. He'd probably howl and scream until the hot place froze over.
Calderon has griped about the U. S. government's "increased raids on illegal employers of illegal alien employees and work site enforcement." In other words he sits down in Mexico City and has the crust to tell us what we should be doing in our own country. Imagine his reaction if we did the same thing regarding illegal U.S. citizens in Mexico!
Lou Dobbs has written: "Calderon, like his predecessors, Carlos Salinas and Vicente Fox, has failed miserably to establish policies that would create jobs for the Mexican people and to eliminate shameful unchecked corruption and incompetence in the Mexican government." After all, establishing responsible policies that might aid your own people is darn hard work. It's a lot easier to just have them enter the United States illegally for work and then scream and rant with righteous indignation if the U.S. tries to defend itself from the illegal onslaught. Just let 'em come sneaking across the border--then they become our problem and Mexico doesn't have to try to deal with them.
I remember, years ago, reading a book by Blair Coan entitled "The Red Web." It was originally written back in the 1920, and in it the author said: "Mexico is today, was yesterday, and will be tomorrow the most fertile incubator of bolshevik revolution on the American continent." From what I have seen, I can't disagree with that assessment. Coan mentioned the "...general condition of petty graft and open robbery in a place where the apostles and disciples of bolshevism and communism hold sway..." Certainly that describes Mexico to a T! The country is famous for "la mordida" (the bite) that many officials at all levels take as part of their due.
I remember the first time I went to Mexico. We crossed the border from Laredo, Texas to Nuevo Laredo. On the American side of the border, the border officials were neat and courteous. Once we hit the Mexican side it was a whole other world. The individual that sauntered out to check us in wore a uniform that looked as if it hadn't been washed since Noah's flood. He had an ivory-handled automatic pistol stuck in his belt (all the better to intimidate you with) and he was not particularly courteous for friendly. He pawed through our possesions, left the mess for us to straighten out, and then tried to charge us for the privilege of having turned all our things upside down. The fellow I was with refused to pay, sensibly, and told the Mexican "My good man, we are not about to pay you for doing something you are already getting paid to do." The Mexican border official shrugged, turned and walked away. At least he had tried to extort a little something from us. If he couldn't get it from us he'd probably try to charge the next Americans he dealt with double. That seems to be a way of life with Mexican officians--extort what you can when you can. Typical for Marxist Mexico!
It seems unlikely if, anytime, soon, we will end up with moral people in Washington. Although the majority of our citizens are fed up with this whole illegal immigration game and how our government is handling it, the politicians, unless threatened with being ousted from office, will pay no attention to us that is meaningful. Many of them really want the illegals to have the vote (illegally) so they can play to that new voting bloc and remain in office. As I said earlier, the rest of us don't matter to them. Were just here to pay for all this insanity and, dare I use the word--treason?
If the United States were ruled by sane and moral people instead of the One World crew in Washington, recent comments by the Mexican president Felipe Calderon would have been thoroughly repudiated. But, since sanity, reason, and morality do not exist in Sodom on the Potomac, our so-called "leaders" will say nothing in reply to Calderon's blatant hypocrisy and outright meddling in our national affairs. Our "leadership" has become as "dumb dogs" when it comes to defending our people and our country from illegal immigration. Oh, a few photo op "raids" are made to give the illusion that the federals are really doing something about the problem, but its mostly a dog and pony show. After all, our leaders wouldn't want to really do anything that might offend the illegals--they might vote to give them the vote someday, whether they are legal or not. And if our own citizens who seek justice are offended, well, hey, who really cares anyway? All they're good for is to foot the tax bill so our beneficient government can have money for illegal alien social security payments and other goodies. The only place in the country that seems to have taken any meaningful steps in regard to illegal aliens is Oklahoma.
Felipe Calderon recently gave his state of the union address in Mexico in which he said: "I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican there is Mexico." I suppose the implication there is that, wherever in the world Mexicans happen to find themselves, that place belongs to them and not to the country of their residence. If that is indeed their mindset, would they then only consider themselves bound by the laws of Mexico and not by the laws of wherever they happen to be? There just might be a few countries that would have a problem with that mindset. Obviously the federal government in this country has no problem with it, or if they do they don't dare speak up lest they offend the Mexicans! I wonder now Calderon would feel if an American politician told him that wherever a U. S. citizen is anywhere, that that place becomes the United States. He'd probably howl and scream until the hot place froze over.
Calderon has griped about the U. S. government's "increased raids on illegal employers of illegal alien employees and work site enforcement." In other words he sits down in Mexico City and has the crust to tell us what we should be doing in our own country. Imagine his reaction if we did the same thing regarding illegal U.S. citizens in Mexico!
Lou Dobbs has written: "Calderon, like his predecessors, Carlos Salinas and Vicente Fox, has failed miserably to establish policies that would create jobs for the Mexican people and to eliminate shameful unchecked corruption and incompetence in the Mexican government." After all, establishing responsible policies that might aid your own people is darn hard work. It's a lot easier to just have them enter the United States illegally for work and then scream and rant with righteous indignation if the U.S. tries to defend itself from the illegal onslaught. Just let 'em come sneaking across the border--then they become our problem and Mexico doesn't have to try to deal with them.
I remember, years ago, reading a book by Blair Coan entitled "The Red Web." It was originally written back in the 1920, and in it the author said: "Mexico is today, was yesterday, and will be tomorrow the most fertile incubator of bolshevik revolution on the American continent." From what I have seen, I can't disagree with that assessment. Coan mentioned the "...general condition of petty graft and open robbery in a place where the apostles and disciples of bolshevism and communism hold sway..." Certainly that describes Mexico to a T! The country is famous for "la mordida" (the bite) that many officials at all levels take as part of their due.
I remember the first time I went to Mexico. We crossed the border from Laredo, Texas to Nuevo Laredo. On the American side of the border, the border officials were neat and courteous. Once we hit the Mexican side it was a whole other world. The individual that sauntered out to check us in wore a uniform that looked as if it hadn't been washed since Noah's flood. He had an ivory-handled automatic pistol stuck in his belt (all the better to intimidate you with) and he was not particularly courteous for friendly. He pawed through our possesions, left the mess for us to straighten out, and then tried to charge us for the privilege of having turned all our things upside down. The fellow I was with refused to pay, sensibly, and told the Mexican "My good man, we are not about to pay you for doing something you are already getting paid to do." The Mexican border official shrugged, turned and walked away. At least he had tried to extort a little something from us. If he couldn't get it from us he'd probably try to charge the next Americans he dealt with double. That seems to be a way of life with Mexican officians--extort what you can when you can. Typical for Marxist Mexico!
It seems unlikely if, anytime, soon, we will end up with moral people in Washington. Although the majority of our citizens are fed up with this whole illegal immigration game and how our government is handling it, the politicians, unless threatened with being ousted from office, will pay no attention to us that is meaningful. Many of them really want the illegals to have the vote (illegally) so they can play to that new voting bloc and remain in office. As I said earlier, the rest of us don't matter to them. Were just here to pay for all this insanity and, dare I use the word--treason?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)