Vanguard News Network

IS MALE CHEERLEADER BUSH A QUEER?

LEOLA McCONNELL (LIBERAL CANDIDATE FOR NEVADA GOVERNOR) SPILLS THE BOTTLE of SHERRY ON GEORGE (GEORGETTE) BUSH & VICTOR (VICTORIA) ASHE……….

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20060606McConnell.html

ENTITLED TO 100% OF NOTHING!

The Coming Entitlement Meltdown

March 5, 2007

David Walker, Comptroller General at the Government Accountability Office, appeared on the show “60 Minutes” last evening to discuss the federal budget outlook. If you saw the show, you know that he painted a very sobering picture regarding the federal government’s ability to meet its future obligations.

If you didn’t see the show, Mr. Walker’s theme was simple: government entitlement spending is like a runaway freight train headed straight at American taxpayers. He singled out the Medicare prescription drug bill, passed by Congress at the end of 2003, as “probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.”

When it comes to Social Security and Medicare, the federal government simply won’t be able to keep its promises in the future. That is the reality every American should get used to, despite the grand promises of Washington reformers. Our entitlement system can’t be reformed- it’s too late. And the Medicare prescription drug bill is the final nail in the coffin.

The financial impact of the drug bill cannot be overstated. Government projections that the program would cost $400 billion over the next decade were a joke, as everyone in Congress knew even as they voted for the bill. The real cost will be at least $1 trillion in the first decade alone, and much more in following decades as the American population grows older.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst030507.htm

FUCK FOXMEN

Guess What Foxman? American’s Don’t Give a Damn!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8285/Guess-What-Foxman-Americans-Dont-Give-a-Damn

IS CHINA BLOCKING YOUR WEBSITE?

http://greatfirewallofchina.org/test/

HUSH CRIME OF THE MILLENNIUM

Some time ago I think BeingReal posted the story of these two people. Here is some updates, But first ask yourself who are they? Do you know who James Byrd is? The National media were all over that story, 3 White guys kill a Black man by dragging him from behind a pick up truck. White on Black crime sells. Where was the National media when 4 Black men ( if that is what you want to call them) car-jacked the car Channon & Chris were driving in. But instead of just stealing the car it was fun time in the hood for these subhumans. They took the two to a home and raped and beat booth of them. Now ladies think about this; you are held down by a large Black man and he penetrates you and beats you, but not just 1 Black man 4 Black men over a period of 2 days. You are their sex slave and punching bag. Also they force you to drink household cleaners to help hide their DNA. Now how do you think their DNA got into your belly? They force you watch as your boyfriend is gang raped, prison style. Then they shoot him, some say they cut off his male member then set him on fire. Again where is the National media in all this? They are silent when perpetrators are Black and the victims are White. If 4 White men would have done this to A Black man and his girlfriend, wow the National media would have a field day with this. Jessie and Al would have marches and then everyone would say racism played a role.

Here are some links to local news for updates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_izIyJn84fo

http://www.apfte.net/

http://www.volunteertv.com/news/headlines/5483316.html

http://10025.vflyer.com/2/

http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=5925539&nav=0RYv

http://www.lex18.com/Global/story.asp?S=59…9&nav=menu203_2

http://letters.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/16/aipac/view/?show=all

CORPORATE ATTITUDES

Actually, Glennhar …

… Molly Ivins had a chance to have her own television show and was backed by some very well-funded corporate media types. She couldn’t hack it. I was present for the taping of the first episode and it was a catastrophe, though it was amusing to see Molly Ivins and Paul Begala sitting in a preposterous, fake front porch in a dimly lit Austin auditorium.

Lots of corporate CEOs and chairmen are, in fact, quite liberal. You won’t meet very many Focus on the Family fans on Wall Street — especially when they’re executives of media companies. Corporate executives are wealthy, cosmopolitan, and frequently quite liberal. They don’t want their taxes raised or their businesses regulated, true, but I don’t know many people who want their taxes raised. (I know lots of people who want other people’s taxes raised.) Haven’t you ever wondered why most corporate affirmative action programs go far, far beyond what is required by law, or why GM bosses talk up Canadian-style socialist health-care schemes? Rich = conservative is a false premise.

I’ve worked in media for 15 years and can attest that outside of the people who are professionally conservative — the well-labeled Hannitys and Limbaughs — the overwhelming majority of people in positions of editorial and managerial power are Democrat-voting, center-left, organic fair-trade liberals. Even in very conservative places — West Texas, say, or Utah — the metro desks and managing editors are much, much more likely to be left-Democrats than the general population. There is significant liberal bias in the media, particularly on issues near and dear to the hearts of urban liberals, such as public education and gun control.

— mrgreysuit

Now if you still think the National media is not controlled by greater powers then I do not know what to tell you, but look outside the box.

http://talkback.lancasteronline.com/index.php?showtopic=42809

DID PERCY WRITE FRANKENSTEIN?

I read a fabulous book last week — John Lauritsen’s “The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein,” which will be published in May by the gay-themed Pagan Press, based in Dorchester, Mass. Lauritsen, who is known for his work in gay history and for his heterodox views of the AIDS epidemic, sent me an advance copy, which arrived as I was on my way to midterm exams. Its thesis is that the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, and not his wife, the feminist idol, Mary Shelley, wrote “Frankenstein” and that the hidden theme of that book is male love.

As I sat there reading while proctoring exams, I tried unsuccessfully to stifle my chortles and guffaws of admiring laughter — which were definitely distracting the students in the first rows. Lauritsen’s book is important not only for its audacious theme but for the devastating portrait it draws of the insularity and turgidity of the current academy. As an independent scholar, Lauritsen is beholden to no one. As a consequence, he can fight openly with myopic professors and, without fear of retribution, condemn them for their inability to read and reason.

This book, which is a hybrid of mystery story, polemic and paean to poetic beauty, shows just how boring literary criticism has become over the past 40 years. I haven’t been this exhilarated by a book about literature since I devoured Leslie Fiedler’s iconoclastic essays in college back in the 1960s. All that crappy poststructuralism that poured out of universities for so long pretended to challenge power but was itself just the time-serving piety of a status-conscious new establishment. Lauritsen’s book shows what true sedition and transgression are all about.
Blood Diamond DVD

Lauritsen assembles an overwhelming case that Mary Shelley, as a badly educated teenager, could not possibly have written the soaring prose of “Frankenstein” (which has her husband’s intensity of tone and headlong cadences all over it) and that the so-called manuscript in her hand is simply one example of the clerical work she did for many writers as a copyist. I was stunned to learn about the destruction of records undertaken by Mary for years after Percy’s death in 1822 in a boating accident in Italy. Crucial pages covering the weeks when “Frankenstein” was composed were ripped out of a journal. And Percy Shelley’s identity as the author seems to have been known in British literary circles, as illustrated by a Knights Quarterly review published in 1824 that Lauritsen reprints in the appendix.

The stupidity and invested self-interest of prominent literary scholars are lavishly on display here in exchanges reproduced from a Romanticism listserv or in dueling letters to the editor, which Lauritsen forcefully contradicts in acerbic footnotes. This is a funny, wonderful, revelatory book that I hope will inspire ambitious graduate students and young faculty to strike blows for truth in our mired profession, paralyzed by convention and fear.

PAGLIA ON HILLARY AND GROBAMA

Hillary vs. Obama: It’s a drawl!

Barack Obama commands respect while Hillary Clinton overacts. Plus: John Edwards’ disappearing act, Mary Shelley debunked, and Ann Coulter’s gender weirdness.

By Camille Paglia

March 14, 2007 | Nerves, nerves, nerves: The contenders in both parties for the 2008 presidential nomination have been acting like skittish race-track thoroughbreds rearing and shying as their handlers try to shove them into the gates. Each campaign is super-concerned about its candidate getting distracted, winded or making a crippling misstep.

What in tarnation was the Hillary Clinton camp thinking when it threw a tantrum about Hollywood producer David Geffen making a few critical remarks about her to a fagged-out media scold? Most people in this country have never heard of David Geffen and don’t give a damn about whether or not he defects to Barack Obama.

I loved the way Obama’s campaign handled the dust-up — some nice sharp barbs from an underling followed by the candidate’s lofty assertion of statesmanlike unconcern. It made me take Obama seriously as a candidate for 2008 (rather than 2012) for the first time. Despite the garish pop-ups of gossip about his botched investments and unpaid parking tickets, Obama has been gaining traction as a contender.

Hillary didn’t help herself with her over-the-top sermon at the First Baptist Church in Selma, Alabama, two weeks ago. Her aping of a black Southern accent from the pulpit was so inept and patronizing that it should get a Razzie Award for Worst Performance of the Year. At times, it approached the Southern Gothic burlesque of Bette Davis chewing up the scenery in “Hush … Hush, Sweet Charlotte.” Does Hillary Clinton have a stable or coherent sense of self? Or is everything factitious, mimed and scripted (like her flipping butch and femme masks) for expediency?

Of course, any Salon readers who still follow the mainstream media out of numbed habit will never have heard Hillary’s most extreme flights of faux gemutlichkeit. All that Sunday, network radio news, for example, betrayed its liberal bias by running clips of only her noblest phrases. Heaven help any Republican who had made so lurid a gaffe! Fortunately, alternative media now exist: On his radio show that night, Matt Drudge ran huge, hilarious swatches of prophesyin’ Hillary camping it up.

The blatant manipulations of the mainstream media are betrayed by the way that mercurial polling data has been relentlessly promoted about the candidates of both parties for more than a year. That material simply assesses name recognition in an ephemeral beauty contest. Thus we’ve had endless reports about Hillary and John McCain as front-runners, despite rampant dissatisfactions with them among members of their own parties. Now we’re onto the challenger-with-momentum drama starring Obama and Rudy Giuliani, which may be equally short-lived.

Figures showing John Edwards trailing in the polls merely reflect his lack of publicity in the period leading up to the first big nationally televised debates, when most voters start to pay attention. Many Democrats like me who are leaning toward Edwards have to be dissatisfied with his marginalization by the mainstream media as well as with his recessiveness during the mastodon-on-mastodon tango between Hillary and Obama. At first I thought Edwards was shrewd to hold fire and pace himself to come on strong later, but this delay is starting to look like uncertainty.

Hence my unhappy surprise when Edwards, who has an attractively comprehensive social policy and strong oratorical skills, was the first to pull out of the scheduled August debate moderated by Fox News. What is this morbid obsession that liberals have with Fox? It’s as if Democrats, pampered and spoiled by so many decades of the mainstream media trumpeting the liberal agenda, are so shaky in their convictions that they cannot risk an encounter with opposing views. Democrats have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, Newsweek, Time and 98 percent of American humanities professors to do their bidding. But no, that’s not enough — every spark of dissent has to be extinguished with buckets of bile.

But Fox is certainly disingenuous with its absurd “fair and balanced” motto. Oh, come on, give it up! Why can’t Fox honestly admit its conservative agenda, as do major radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and simply argue that it represents a culturally necessary antidote to the omnipresent liberal line? Yet for Democratic presidential candidates, who will be assessed by voters for their ability to stand up to China, North Korea or al-Qaida, to run squealing from a Fox moderator as if he or she were a boogeyman with blood-dripping fangs makes the whole pack of them look like simpering wusses. Dennis Kucinich was quite right to express his scorn and offer to debate anyone anywhere and under any sponsorship. Nice job of skewering the sacred cow!

Fox TV in my experience tends anyhow more toward the tabloid, a traditionally populist style, which is why Fox was so reliable a destination in the days following Anna Nicole Smith’s shocking death. And when any scandal breaks, I head straight for Greta Van Susteren — how comforted one is that the agile, articulate Greta, with her keen legal mind and rugged, strong-jawed persistence, will be on the scene to unearth every lie!

Fox News has its share of solid political features. For example, a week ago, I saw Sen. Dianne Feinstein being interviewed at length on Fox about foreign policy. Though I’ve never resided in California, I’m a longtime admirer of Feinstein and have sent small sums to her campaigns. Watching her field tough questions about North Korea, I was impressed anew with her analytic mind and her steadiness of character. She has that rarity among women politicians — true gravitas.

Dianne Feinstein is far more presidential than Hillary Clinton, who alternates between smugness and defensiveness before pulling out that tiresome middle-aged mom card. Feinstein, even when maneuvering strategically, always seems genuinely focused on the idea at hand, while Hillary isn’t really there — she’s just riffling mentally through her team’s cue cards. All politicians are actors, but Hillary’s a bad one. No audience wants to see with such crystal clarity how it’s being massaged.

John Edwards got publicity for the wrong reason two weeks ago when Ann Coulter bizarrely called him a “faggot” at the Conservative Political Action Conference. What could have been a good joke at the expense of p.c. Hollywood misfired badly first because that old chestnut of a schoolyard insult makes no sense whatever when applied to Edwards, whose only peccadillo is a dandy’s overinvolvement with his hair (see John Travolta’s romancing his hair on the way out to the disco in “Saturday Night Fever”), and second because Coulter had no business turning an event highlighting Republican presidential candidates into a forum for her one-liners. Doesn’t she have enough personal gigs for that? It was especially embarrassing for Mitt Romney, who cordially introduced her. Third, satirists who play on gender themes need some whiff of self-knowledge, or they look ridiculous. Is Coulter truly oblivious to her gender weirdness? It’s no coincidence that words like “tranny” and “transvestite” clog the anti-Coulter blogs.

Coulter is a smart woman with formidable energy, and whether liberals like it or not, she is a high-profile feminist role model in her appetite for aggressive debate. But Coulter seems to be regressing rather than growing intellectually and sharpening her analytic skills. She evidently leaves no room in her life for study and reflection. I take books seriously (which is why I left the scene for five years to write “Break, Blow, Burn”) and thus hold against Coulter the part she has played in the debasement of that medium. Her books may rake in millions but won’t last because they are shoddily constructed. Coulter should be using her syndicated column for her topical opinions but her books for more considered contributions. “Godless,” for example, which intriguingly postulates the quasi-religiosity of contemporary liberalism, should have stimulated wide discussion but was so thrown together and full of holes that it was easy to dismiss and went unread outside her core audience.

In other political news, when Newt Gingrich announced last week that he had had an adulterous affair during the 1998 investigations of Bill Clinton, I burst out laughing — not simply at Gingrich’s hypocrisy, about which I was never in doubt, but at the comic mental picture of Gingrich in erotic extremis. I have never understood conservatives’ enduring affection for Gingrich, which is constantly expressed by callers to radio shows.

Aside from his command of the Republican recapture of the House of Representatives in 1994, it is difficult to identify Gingrich’s substantive achievements. While he poses as a futurist, he has an unfocused mind that mistakes erratic connections for insight. I literally cannot stand the pattering of that thin, raspy, uninflected, adolescent voice. Why anyone would imagine Gingrich has presidential possibilities is beyond me.

Time’s current cover story, “The Verdict on Dick Cheney,” tries to make hay from top Cheney aide Scooter Libby’s conviction in the wildly overblown Valerie Plame case (which I suspect most people in this country were as uninterested in as I was). It’s always baffled me why the mainstream media can’t seem to get a handle on Cheney and treats him as a stone-faced enigma. Time, for example, oddly avoids psychoanalysis when it quotes Cheney’s daughters as saying that when his mind leaves the room, he becomes the unreachable “Bull Walrus.”

I detest Cheney for having led the country into this disastrous, wasteful war, whose repercussions will be felt for generations here and in the Mideast. I know absolutely nothing about Cheney’s family background, but I would bet on some ambivalent dynamic in his past with masculine authority figures, whom he internalized and carries around as a visibly heavy burden but whose oppression produced his sarcastic sneer, his one facial mannerism. Cheney seems as static, convoluted and self-entombed as Orson Welles’ haunted, aging Citizen Kane.

The relationship between Cheney and George W. Bush is also perplexing. Despite the nearness in their ages, Cheney acts like Bush’s father (no coincidence since Cheney served in George H.W. Bush’s administration). There’s something creepy about how Cheney, after heading the candidate search, insinuated himself into the vice presidency. He locked onto Bush like a limpet, using the more extroverted and physically dynamic president as his proxy. Bush’s independent judgment was paralyzed, as if by snakebite. It’s an unsavory, toxic relationship, a vampiric pseudo-marriage like that of the shadowy, Machiavellian Roger Chillingworth and the impressionable, waffling Arthur Dimmesdale in Hawthorne’s “The Scarlet Letter.”

Hence I’ve always felt that liberals’ hatred of Bush is misplaced. I feel pity for him — he is a genuinely tragic figure who made the wrong choices and destroyed the promise of his presidency. His sense of divine election and destiny, a defense mechanism that allows him to survive that crushing job, is of course positively dangerous for the country. At this point, it seems Bush’s persona will never mature in office. As he blustered with dangling arms and stiff cowboy legs to the podium during last week’s South American junket, I felt embarrassed at his lack of diplomatic courtesy and simple savoir faire. Confident manhood does not need to constantly strike poses.

Onto other subjects: I had a diverting experience last Saturday on the Camden waterfront of the Delaware River across from Philadelphia. While my family was at the Camden Aquarium for a special appearance by a SpongeBob impersonator, I walked around the once ravaged and still patchy and economically struggling neighborhoods, where Hispanic immigrants have settled.

Suddenly, there was a stream of African-American men cutting across the streets and heading toward the Beckett Street Terminal for what was clearly the start of a work shift. I followed from a distance and gawked at the great warehouses of the South Jersey Port Corporation, which were stacked from floor to ceiling with tens of thousands of burlap bags containing a mystery product.

As I approached the main security booth, beyond which only authorized workers could enter the dockyard, flatbed trucks with bright yellow cabs were emerging, one after the other, all laden with fat burlap bags. It was a phenomenally precise and synchronized procession, as each truck swept to a warehouse, was offloaded, and then circled back through the gate to the ship.

I was full of admiration at this demonstration of the beauty and efficiency of the modern distribution system, which I extolled in the first chapter of “Sexual Personae” as a male-created artifact of civilization. It is one of the many gifts of capitalism that are invisible to academic leftists, who nevertheless expect the light switch to work, their cars to start, and the grocery store to be constantly stocked with fresh milk, orange juice and produce.

As I stood there, a truck swept out of the gate with several bags tumbled down, dragging and tearing and leaving a 500-foot streak of mottled brown berries. I asked a guard what they were: “Cocoa beans” — a major import at the Beckett Terminal and possibly a source for the famous chocolate factories in Hershey, Pennsylvania. With great delight, I spent the next 15 minutes dodging the trucks and filling my pockets with the best beans (to send with our son to preschool science class). They have a delicate smell of vinegar, from the acetic acid produced by natural fermentation.

I called the South Jersey Port Corporation this week to learn the freighter’s point of origin: It was West Africa. In a superb article four years ago in Salon, “Bittersweet Chocolate,” Caroline Tiger described the international campaign to stop the practice of child slavery on the cocoa bean farms of the Ivory Coast, which produce the beans for half of the chocolate consumed in the U.S. In addition to labor abuses, there is the issue of the vulnerability of small, scattered farmers, without vehicles even to transport their crop, to exploitation by middlemen and price-fixing companies. Last year, Global Exchange, a San Francisco human rights group, pressured Hershey to disclose the sources of its cocoa beans and to take further steps to ensure proper working conditions.

This kind of outreach to expose and remedy injustice represents the finest spirit of leftism, a practical, compassionate activism — not the pretentious postmodernist jargon and sanctimonious attitudinizing that still pass for leftism among too many college faculty. Capitalism, which spawned modern individualism as well as the emancipated woman who can support herself, is essentially Darwinian. It expands any society’s sum total of wealth and radically raises the standard of living, but it leaves the poor and weak without a safety net. Capitalism needs the ethical counter-voice of leftism to keep it honest. But leftists must be honest in turn about what we owe to capitalism — without which Western women would have no professional jobs to go to but would be stuck doing laundry by hand and stooping over pots on the hearth fire all day long.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2007/03/14/coulter/index3.html

ANTI-NATO IN SPAIN

Anti-NATO protest draws thousands in southwestern Spain

About 4,000 to 5,000 Spaniards demonstrated on Sunday in the southwestern city of Seville in protest of an upcoming meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), police told local media.

The protesters, organized by the Seville Social Forum, marched around the historic center of the city and rallied outside the Andalucia Parliament.

They demanded the removal of U.S. military bases from Spain and the withdrawal of Spanish forces from such countries as Afghanistan, where NATO is engaging in military operations, said Jesus Lara, a spokesman for the Forum.

The slogan of the march was “NATO no, they will not pass,” he said.

A second march with the same aim is scheduled for Feb. 8, the same day of the opening of the NATO meeting which will gather 26 ministers from NATO member states in Seville.

Forum officials said they will conduct a series of protests in the rest of the year to block NATO’s following activities in 2007, describing the alliance as “the military wing of globalization” and “the protector of western powers and multinational companies.”

Spain has about 600 soldiers in Afghanistan as part of NATO’s military deployment in the Asian country.

Source: Xinhua

WALGREENS SUED BY EEOC LOXISTS

3-9-07

Walgreens Being Sued by EEOC[1]

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/03/agency_sues_wal.php

OUR RACE

People see pets through rose-tinted glasses
06 March 2007

We always knew it but now it’s official – pet owners have rose-tinted views of their animals. People even become defensive on behalf of a triangle if told it’s “theirs”.

Pet owners notoriously make excuses for their own animal’s bad behaviour while condemning that of others. They are also more likely to anthropomorphise their own animal’s behaviour, saying “my dog wants to cheer me up”, for instance.

To explore this, a team led by social psychologist Sara Kiesler from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, gave 82 university staff and students a Siamese fighting fish to look after for two weeks. Some were told they temporarily “owned” the fish, while others (“caretakers”) were told it belonged to someone else.

After a fortnight, 95% of owners opted to keep their fish, compared with 75% of caretakers. The owners also gave significantly higher scores reflecting their affection for the fish. Those most fond of their fish were also most likely to say it was smart and liked them too.

“People who own and care about a pet are much more likely than those who just know an animal to anthropomorphise the pet and feel that it has reasons for its choices,” says Kiesler.

In another experiment, Kiesler’s team asked 36 students to watch a film in which two triangles and a circle seem to have a skirmish. Half were told beforehand that they owned the smaller triangle. On average, this group rated the larger triangle as less “likeable” and most forcefully vilified it for being aggressive. Watch the video here.

The experimental results suggest to Kiesler that pet rescue centres might benefit from running bonding projects for abandoned animals and their potential new owners – just like companies send their employees to “team-building” Outward Bound courses, for instance.

“Owning an animal carries with it some effort and often some unpleasant experiences – accidents on the rug, for example,” says Kiesler. “Bonding experiences would help create a feeling for the personality and individuality of the animal, and might reduce failed adoptions.”

Journal reference: Anthrozoös (vol 19, p 335)

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19325935.700&feedId=online-news_rss20

JEW COHEN

3-7-07

“The Talented Mr. Cohen”

As one Jewish official is convicted in a courtroom [i.e., Scooter Libby], another Jewish official [i.e., Cohen] rises to a somewhat powerful position in our government [1] [2] [3]:

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=13786

NEOCONSERVATISM = COMMUNISM = JEWISM

3-7-07

Neoconservatism

This essay contains some very important observations about yet another “-ism” created by The Tribe [there are so many “-isms,” aren’t there? Feminism, leftism, communism, globalism – the world seems to be full-to-the-brim of “-isms” which weaken our White culture]:

http://www.davidduke.com/general/1845_1845.html#more-1845

ISRAEL, OUR ONLY ENEMY

3-8-07

What Did Israel Know?

And when did it know?

http://www.counterpunch.org/ketcham03072007.html

More Israeli fun, this time in New Zealand: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1262362,00.html

DOUBLE STANDARDS IN HAWAII

3-8-07

Race Issues in Hawaii

We found this item interesting, because we once knew a White fellow who lived in Hawaii. That fellow said that in Hawaii, the locals [i.e., natives] are, socially speaking, “allowed” to have racist views about Whites, but Whites aren’t socially “allowed” to have racist views about native Hawaiians. What a double-standard against Whites, as usual. But actually, and perhaps strangely, we must side with the native Hawaiians on that race issue: Whites have no business living in Hawaii. Whites should instead live in White countries, just like Asians should live in Asian countries and Blacks should live in Black countries:

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/03/racial_tensions_3.php

“BOSS MAN” MCGEE, A FILTHY NIGGER EVEN BY EAST ST. LOUIS STANDARDS

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/typhoid_mary/1.html

SHITSKINS “ENRICHING” US WITH THEIR DIVERSIFIED BEHAVIOR

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256938,00.html

SHITSKIN RALLY

3-7-07

Mexican Rallies on May 1st, 2007

We actually think that this rally idea is a good thing. Why? Because hopefully, White people – upon seeing thousands of Mexicans marching in the streets of America – will be jolted into doing something besides watching TV and eating donuts. Maybe after half-a-dozen Mexican immigration rallies, White people will begin to band together to prevent the transformation of America into a multicultural mess:

http://www.march25coalition.org/organize/index.html

GHETTO NAMES

http://brisso99.typepad.com/konichiwabitches/2005/02/ghetto_names_co.html

ARE YOU A SNOB?

http://www.pbs.org/manorhouse/quiz/game.html

PATTON LEARNED THE TRUTH

3-4-07

Patton: Even He Couldn’t Save Europe from Communism

For the moment, forget about the cause of General Patton’s death. Because there are important overall points about World War II made in this essay below, either directly or more subtly. The most important point, we think, is that the “allies” didn’t really liberate Europe, as Patton wanted to do via crushing the Soviets when they were in a weakened state in 1945. Instead of smashing the world’s most evil empire [i.e., the Soviet Union], the allies signed a bogus statement, called the Atlantic Charter, and then later completely abandoned that charter by giving Soviet leader Stalin half of Europe to sodomize. That charter mentioned the promotion of “peace” and “freedom from fear” in Europe. So, we ask, why did the allies give a brutal communist dictator half of an entire region? [1]. That’s “liberation?” No, that’s aiding mass-enslavement, at the very least.

In fact, far from the allies’ “guaranteeing Poland’s borders” [the cheap excuse England used to start WWII in 1939] like they said they would, they instead abandoned Poland. The upshot? Because of the allies’ actions in WWII on behalf of world Jewry, Marxism and its sister, “human equality,” much of Europe came under horrifying communist rule, millions of innocent people died and lost their homes, and large parts of Europe were ruined either physically or culturally. In the end, only Jews, Marxists and leftists won World War II. All decent people should recall WWII with great sadness and profound embarrassment. F.D. Roosevelt and his buddies in Britain could have done the proper thing and signed the Anti-Comintern Pact in 1936 and, therefore, would have been at least semi-friends with Germany, Japan and Italy. But no. That would have been too logical. Besides, powerful Jews like Bernard Baruch and the global bankers wouldn’t “allow” that to happen. They wanted Hitler’s Germany to be crushed:

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Patton&TheJews-Siggy,Gavin&WilliamH.att

[1] the Atlantic Charter: http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/53.htm

DNA DON’T LIE, BABY!

White man unjustly convicted. was real racist a nigger or mexicoon?

http://www.talkradionews.com/blogs/wrongfulconviction/2006/08/david-pope.html

ON FUSSELL’S “CLASS”

http://www.udolpho.com/weblog/?id=01001&title=Category-X

FREE FRUIT FOR FAGS

Woman accused of hate crimes

By Kelly Pakula – STAFF WRITER

PACIFICA – A Pacifica woman was arrested Sunday on suspicion of a hate crime after she allegedly threw some apples and asparagus at a gay couple.

Tiffany Adler, 20, was a passenger in a van in Pacifica when she spotted a gay couple who shopped at a grocery store she worked at, San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said.

As the van passed the two men, Adler yelled the word “faggot” at them, then rolled down a window and threw the fruit and vegetables in their direction, striking them with the asparagus, Wagstaffe said.

Police responded to the area and located the van with Adler still in it. According to Wagstaffe, police searched Adler’s purse and found some asparagus inside.

Adler, who was released from custody, was booked on suspicion of two counts of misdemeanor hate crime and two counts of misdemeanor battery.

She will appear in court on April 13 for her initial arraignment.

TURD WORLD ON YOUR STREET

I live in San Diego. There is truth in the article, but as previous posters have noted, it is a half-truth. What goes unsaid is the extent to which the unceasing influx of illegal aliens and their anchor baby children is making life simply unbearable, forcing so many people out. I personally know people who have moved to the states of Washington, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, Idaho and Arizona. I know others who are planning to leave. All will cite the usual complaints: traffic, housing costs, higher taxes, rising crime, etc. More, however, are becoming bolder and also saying that they don’t want to die in the foreign country that southern California has become.

Appearances are deceptive, especially for the tourist.
There are still many places of natural beauty to admire and monuments of cultural heritage to explore. One can visit many neighborhoods that on the surface seem well-kept and peaceful, but are really cauldrons of barely-concealed tension and resentment. What the visitor doesn’t often experience are the daily manifestations of behavior that destroy the fragile peace and put those who will not or cannot flee on a permanent war footing. Let me use my own situation as an example.

I live in one of the most diverse communities in the metropolis. I often say that my neighborhood is a mix of Saigon, Mogadishu and Mexico City, with a good portion of Detroit thrown in for flavor.

Last year, the mestizo invaders came to my street. It’s not like we needed any more diversity. On one side of me lives an interracial family-white wife and black husband and their two messed up kids. There are at least five households with gay couples, including a lesbian pair who parade around with their new baby. An assortment of older white residents are holding on and trying to keep up appearances, aided by an influx of yuppie newcomers. Then the Mexicans came and moved in on the other side of me.

Within 72 hours of their arrival, I had to call the police. Their housewarming party was like an assault. Expensive trucks were parked in the middle of the street, blaring musica Mexicana into the night. People yelling and shouting at 2:30 A.M. A nice yuppie couple who lived across from me, my anchor of normality on the street, put their house up for sale within days. For me, the nightmare was just beginning.

The Mexicans have no sense of respect for the neighbors. Their parties last all night, always on worknights too. I went a week once without getting a full night of sleep. Finally, I complained. I told them their behavior was unacceptable. Their teenage children looked at me with staring eyes, as if I were talking to cattle. Soon I found used condoms in my vegetable beds. Paper towels full of excrement were left under my fruit trees. They think nothing of assembling furniture and hammering away, always with their doors and windows wide open, as you struggle to sleep for a few hours before rising for work. I once went outside and watched the husband shape blocks and slather concrete as he built a cinder-block wall—fifteen minutes before midnight. Their beer cans and snack food packages litter the yard and street wherever they impulsively drop them. They’re loud, so loud, always loud, their voices grating on the nerves at all hours of the day and night. Of course, the Mexican flag now flies proudly from the porch.

This is happening on every street in all but the most exclusive neighborhoods. It is remarkable how many fellow American citizens can readily share similar ancedotes. Call the police, you suggest? I did. Six times last year. It does no good. Every day is a new day for the mestizo occupiers. The admonishments of law enforcement are forgotten within hours. It all begins anew with the sunrise.

Slowly, perceptibly, you realize that you are always tense. You always feel anxious. You arm yourself. You spend more money on security doors and fencing. It does no good; you’ve lost your peace of mind and it’s destroying your health. If you have children, you decide to move to try and protect them.

This is why millions are leaving California. I wish them well. I’m staying to fight.

Posted by Leonidas at 12:34 PM on March 6

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/03/california_exod.php#comments