Thursday, July 29, 2010

Make way for your replacement population

In The Rape of Europa: How the West is Overrun, Mark Hackard describes the role played by the U.S. government in its ongoing drive to eliminate Russia as a rival and gain access to Central Asia's energy resources. Washington, of course, cares nothing about the consequences of policies that must inevitably result in altered population demographics throughout Europe. Following are excerpts:

• • •

The postmodern assault on traditional culture and Christianity that Poland and other Washington-allied East European nations are beginning to experience is already far advanced on the rest of the Continent, where secular hedonism and pop-democracy are more deeply entrenched. The European Union itself is but a grotesque parody of Charlemagne’s Holy Roman Empire. While EU governing elites and the complacent masses they rule carry ultimate responsibility for apostasy and decline, it is necessary that we recognize another driving force at work: U.S. power.

By its role in the NATO alliance and its network of bases, the United States has for 65 years shaped European strategic and political discourse and retained its dominant position. There is a shared, institutionalized worldview at work fostered by successive generations of transatlantic elites, from politicians and corporate leaders to policy experts and military officers. This may seem a rather obvious point, but it is crucial to acknowledge the ideological aspect of U.S. hegemony -- perpetuation of the liberalism and materialism that so define the “free world”. ...

With Marxism discredited at the end of the bipolar era, only one messianic ideology was left standing. In the two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, America has gloried in the triumph of the liberal revolution and ceaselessly proselytized its globalization. Perhaps the most important target of this effort has been the former Soviet space. To eliminate Moscow as a rival and gain Central Asia’s energy resources would bring Washington to a level of dominion over the world never yet achieved. ...

The comprehensive military presence the United States enjoys in Europe provides it not only unquestioned leadership in the “Euro-Atlantic Community”, but also a platform for expansion into Eurasia’s heartland and the prosecution of wars in the Middle East. The foreign-policy analyst Doug Bandow wonders aloud why the Army’s V Corps remains stationed in Heidelberg rather than stateside:

About 52,000 American troops are in Germany. Obviously the most populous and prosperous country at the center of Europe doesn't need defending. The likelihood of Russian troops marching on Berlin and clambering up the Bundestag building is somewhat akin to that of the Martians landing and conducting a modern War of the Worlds.

The only other reason to have forces in Germany is because that country is closer to other places where Washington wants to send U. S. personnel -- but shouldn't. German bases once devoted to preventing a Red Army conquest are now handling casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan. However, if the U. S. wasn't promiscuously warring on other nations, it wouldn't need a German way-station in Europe. ...

No study of Europe’s subjection to transatlantic elites would be complete without mentioning the use of Muslims to further divide and demoralize its peoples. For the past 30 years, beginning with covert U.S. support to the Afghan mujahideen, Washington has courted Islamic power as a vehicle of influence in Eurasia, and Europe is no exception in this regard. Through the course the 1990s NATO bombarded Serbs and introduced peacekeeping troops into the Balkans to create Muslim states Bosnia and Kosovo on the carcass of Tito’s Yugoslavia. ...

U.S. diplomacy also celebrates Turkey, with a foothold in Thrace and its two million countrymen in Germany, as an up-and-coming European nation. Washington has long advocated Turkey’s entry into the EU, with all its attendant consequences for native European populations. ...

Faced with waxing Turkish power and assertive and growing populations of Muslim migrants, Europeans may yet react and begin to reclaim their lands and heritage. But they must know that in their resistance, it is entirely likely they will receive not U.S. support, but hostility to their cause and possibly armed intervention on behalf of Muslim belligerents. ... The tribes of Europa are told to forget their past, reject their faith and ethnic identity, and their very place in the Cosmos. “Place no hope in the future,” they are commanded, “for your replacements have arrived.”

Read complete article here.
Read more!

Instigating a new war to kill, cripple, disfigure, and dismember more of our soldiers—for nothing

Philip Giraldi, in the American Conservative magazine blog, asks, "Who Voted for War With Iran, Mr. Obama?" Here is his post:

• • •

House of Representatives resolution 1553, introduced by Congressional Republicans, and currently working its way through the system will endorse an Israeli attack on Iran, which would be going to war by proxy as the US would almost immediately be drawn into the conflict when Tehran retaliates.

The resolution provides explicit US backing for Israel to bomb Iran, stating that Congress supports Israel’s use of “all means necessary…including the use of military force”. The resolution is non-binding, but it is dazzling in its disregard for the possible negative consequences that would ensue for the hundreds of thousands of US military and diplomatic personnel currently serving in the Near East region.

Even the Pentagon opposes any Israeli action against Iran, knowing that it would mean instant retaliation against US forces in Iraq and also in Afghanistan. The resolution has appeared, not coincidentally, at the same time as major articles by leading neoconservatives Reuel Marc Gerecht and Bill Kristol calling for military action. AIPAC thinks it is wonderful.

Ironically, the push against Iran comes at a time when the National Intelligence Estimate on the country is being finished. It might come out as soon as August, but it will be secret and its conclusions will either be leaked or released in summary. My sources inside the intelligence community insist that it will support the 2007 NIE that concluded that Iran no longer has a weapons program.

The White House has delayed the process seeking harder language to justify a range of options against Iran, including a military strike, but the analysts are reported to be resisting. So we spend $100 billion on intelligence annually and then ignore the best judgments on what is taking place. Might as well use a Ouija board.

Read more!

Ensuring that ethnic majority

Philip Weiss brings our attention to a CNN report on the eviction of Bedouins from a village in southern Israel. CNN staff writes:

Police evicted 200 Bedouins from their homes in a southern Israeli village on Tuesday and demolished their dwellings, an act decried by residents who said they are on ancestral land. The move occurred five miles north of Beer Sheva in a village called Al-Araqeeb, an enclave not recognized by the state of Israel.

Witnesses told CNN that the Israeli forces arrived at the village accompanied by busloads of civilians who cheered as the dwellings were demolished. They said armed police deployed with tear gas, water cannon, two helicopters and bulldozers. But Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said there were no disturbances and the operation went according to plan.

Weiss also cites a quote by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu at a recent Cabinet meeting. He sounded a warning that this was "a situation in which a demand for national rights will be made from some quarters inside Israel, for example in the Negev, should the area be left without a Jewish majority. Such things happened in the Balkans, and it is a real threat."

We're aware of the great delight that Zionists take in comparing the U.S. dispossession of the Indians to the Israelis' treatment of the Arabs in their region. Supposedly, this removes any right for an American to criticize, even though it's our billions of tax dollars that make the cruelties now being exacted on the Palestinians and others in the territory possible. Let's say Israel stops taking U.S. money, even to the point of paying for those Caterpillar machines, and let's see how effective their human removal will be.

What do you think the chances are that a U.S. official today would be heard to say that gentile whites must secure every region and that no area should be left without a "white gentile majority?" We can bet that 99% of the Jews in this country would go ballistic, yet they praise such an approach in dear, little, persecuted Israel. Gentile whites in the U.S. can, by their actions, secure all-white areas to live in, but they'd better not talk about it openly.

Bedouins, of course, have lived in the Negev region for centuries, and claim, as they do in the story above, to have "original deeds to the land." Did they get their deeds from a Sky God, too? I wonder.
Read more!

How to subvert a law

In The Arizona Lesson: What the state’s experiment with the rule of law has already taught us, Heather Mac Donald offers her observations on why the Los Angeles Times smeared Arizona Law SB 1070. Although her article was written just a couple of days before Judge Susan Bolton blocked from enforcement certain parts of the law, Mac Donald's article is still pertinent for its insights on why the media, most of whose members support open borders, ignore or embellish basic facts about immigration. Following is an excerpt:

As the start date of Arizona’s new immigration law, SB 1070, approaches, the Los Angeles Times has published an article on a nearly three-month-old homicide in Phoenix that no one but the victim’s family claims had anything to do with Arizona’s immigration initiative—not the Hispanic neighbors of the alleged killer and his victim, not the police, not even illegal-alien advocacy groups.

“It’s just weird to hear them say he’s racist,” one of the suspect’s Hispanic acquaintances marvels. The suspect had expressed his opposition to Arizona’s law just days before the May 6 shooting; he had invited his Hispanic neighbors to Thanksgiving last year. As for the victim, he “did not get shot because he was Mexican,” a local civil rights activist maintains.

And yet the Times has put the story on its front page as part of its coverage of SB 1070. Why? The official reason: as “an illustration of how incidents in the state now get interpreted through the prism of the new law.” The real reason: to suggest that the Arizona law—which officially authorizes a police officer, during a lawful police stop, to check the immigration status of people whom he suspects of being in the country illegally—is fueling a wave of possibly homicidal hatred against Hispanics. Evidence for this proposition, which has been embraced by editorialists and activists across the country? Zero.

Read entire article here.
Read more!

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Don't confuse Mark Williams with the facts

See my article, House Slaves: The Tea Party Remains Captive to PC, at Alternative Right


What is so disheartening about people like Mark Williams is that they have imbibed every cliché taught them by the Left, and yet they call themselves "conservative." For instance, his notions about the early NAACP and its origins, and of W.E.B. Du Bois, is boilerplate propaganda. He has obviously consecrated this history, as it was taught to him.
Read more!

Sunday, July 18, 2010

Liberal talking elites and immigration

As liberals wax hysterical over Arizona's proposed immigration law, Michael Lind offers some sobering counsel to his fellow progressives, especially those known as the "commentariat." It appears to him that too many liberals have gone beyond denouncing what they view as "racial profiling" in certain laws, to condemning all immigration enforcement law. In Open borders or high-wage welfare state, Lind reflects on how far removed such thinking is "not only from the American public as a whole, but also from most Democratic and independent voters."

He writes: Since the economy crashed in the fall of 2008, public attitudes toward immigration, both legal and illegal, have been hardening. Between 2008 and the summer of 2009, the number of respondents telling Gallup that immigration should be decreased shot up from 39 percent to 50 percent.

And then there are those Democrats who actually support an increase in immigration. These are the people who worry Lind and he describes them: The mere 15 percent of Democrats who favor increased immigration make up the overwhelming majority of Democratic pundits, think tank operatives and other opinion leaders. Indeed, it appears that many prominent progressives are opposed to any enforcement of U.S. immigration laws at all.

He cites the liberal Nation magazine, whose provocative article, Arizona Burning, shows how clearly the left tends to view immigration policy as a race issue. Lind asks, Do the editors of the Nation want the U.S. to have any laws regulating entry by citizens of other countries into the U.S. or not? If so, then they have an obligation to explain the methods of law enforcement that they support.

He then offers sensible suggestions on how to make enforcement work, that would include reliable identification of foreign nationals and punishment of employers who break immigration laws. Lind cites the conflict so often expressed on the part of liberals, who don't want any forms of identification or government inspections of work places.

So, do they want American workers to be protected? he asks. Do liberals, by opposing workplace raids, really want to be on the side of meat-packing companies and union-busting janitorial firms that violate hard-won labor laws?

And Lind offers a zinger for the left: If progressives really believe that the U.S. should become the only sovereign country in the world that does not assert the right to regulate entry to its territory and participation in its labor markets, they should team up with the only other tiny sect in America that believes in open borders: right-wing libertarians.

Lind chastises those liberals who claim a concern for improving the lot of the foreign poor by keeping our borders open to them: It is surprising that any progressives are naive enough to fall for the insincere claim of conservatives and libertarians that their cheap-labor policies are motivated by altruistic concern for the foreign poor. ... The faux-humanitarian arguments of the open-borders, cheap-labor right come as part of a larger policy package that genuine progressives should reject as a whole.

Lind makes it clear that he is well aware of other pressing agendas among the left:

Much of the left's opposition to immigration law enforcement, of course, is based on a strategic appeal to the Latino vote, not on a rational analysis of what sort of immigration policy best suits U.S. labor market conditions in the 21st century. If most Latinos began voting for Republicans, undoubtedly many Democrats who object to border and workplace enforcement would fall silent pretty quickly.

Read complete article here.
Read more!

Saturday, July 17, 2010

George's new edifice

About ten minutes after hearing the announcement of George Steinbrenner's death, I penned some rough notes that I knew would have to wait before being zapped into upload. It was too early to hit the negative button, what with all the effusive media hype that had only just begun.

For the past half dozen years, at least, I could not bear to hear this man's name mentioned because of its connection to the destruction and final demolition of Yankee Stadium. I didn't think I could put the right words in place and I hoped that some mighty soul would come along, right quick, and waste no time crashing the media's hypocritical love fest. Just who the hell are these people kidding, anyway?

So, I sent out a half-whispered query, as if to the wind: "Matt Taibbi, are you paying attention?" And, sure enough, good, old Matt was, indeed, paying attention to all that phony, sentimental claptrap being focused on "The Boss," that was filling up the airwaves.

In The Steinbrenner Slobituary," Taibbi describes the adulation that has taken over New York City's main sports radio station, WFAN, as it engages in a "round-the-clock Steinbrenner grovel-a-thon." Of course, these sports talk show hosts are always in desperate need to keep some featured story going, so it's understandable that the Steinbrenner death is splendid grist for their mill.

Taibbi calls the "mania for elegiac slobbering" a disgusting aspect of public life in this country. What surprised me were the saccharine calls from what sounded like ordinary guys eagerly repeating the cloying platitudes about Steinbrenner being put into the ether by ingratiating media types. Why on earth would these simple sounding callers identify with this vainglorious man, who never hid his contempt for the likes of them and whose ruthless methods transformed the nature of the game, which consequently led to tripling the costs of the average shlub's ticket and food prices. Taibbi writes:

Steinbrenner was in every conceivable way the prototypical office tyrant and the fact that he's being uninterruptedly worshipped after his death by a nation of cubicle slaves tells you almost everything you need to know about the modern American psyche. In no other country do people genuinely love their bosses the way Americans do. They'll go home after 12 hard hours of capricious superiors peeing in their faces, and the very first thing they'll do is call up some talk radio show and denounce the graduated income tax that gives them a break at their bosses' expense.

Taibbi claims that people's heads are so turned around that the terror of being thought of as poor and subordinate "has people reflexively worshipping their bosses, to the point where George Steinbrenner -- a workplace Caligula so stupid and self-centered that he could not be convinced George Constanza wasn't named after him -- is somehow thought of as cute and lovable."

Perhaps it had been taken for granted that Yankee Stadium was safely and officially land marked, and could no more be razed than the Statue of Liberty or the Empire State Building or the Woolworth Building or City Hall. But it was not land marked and, perhaps, even if it had been, the fear of Steinbrenner's powerful reach might have made even a Jackie Kennedy hesitate to protest.

The reality of the Stadium's disappearance was especially hard on us Bronxites who ride the No. 4 elevated subway on a regular basis. For me, it was an instinctive habit to look up momentarily from whatever I was reading for a glimpse of the Stadium, as the train pulled into the 161st Street station. For the past several years, however, I could not bring myself to look up at the site, since I did not want to see the daily or weekly stages of alteration. The House that Ruth built disappeared level by level, and is now replaced by the House that George built.

One talk show host will not refer to the new structure as "Yankee Stadium," but as "That Place Across the Street." Others refer to George's building as the Yankee Shopping Mall or the Yankee Food Court. I simply call it the New Edifice.

Late last season, I attended my first (and probably only) game in the New Edifice, since I felt I should see the interior of the place. Big deal! I was struck by the fact that you never have to sit in your assigned seat to view the game. Since the whole point of the place seems to be to keep the attendees roaming around, buying and eating, and roaming some more, there are dozens of picknicky type spots, with benches and eating counters, and big-screen TVs blasting the game on the field. The place seems to be designed to keep the wallet carriers engaged in everything except the ball game.

I wonder how those corporate executive suites are faring in the New Edifice, since they are the reason for which Yankee Stadium was destroyed in the first place. Last year, it was gratifying to hear about all those high-priced seats that embarrassingly stayed empty all season long. Hopefully, Taibbi's wish of last year will come true, that the Yankee management will "choke on their own greed."

And as for Steinbrenner? Taibbi suggests that we should have thrown a parade "the minute the guy drew his last breath." He asks, "Whatever happened to Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead?"


The long-dead Brooklyn Dodgers still haunt New York
Read more!

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Calling the race-hustling Reverend

The black blogger Aaron Laramore in If You Have to Call Al Sharpton for Help With Your Own Mayor, You Have No Power, tells of Sharpton's recent visit to Indianapolis, and writes, "He's here at the urgent behest of local ministers, some of whom pastor the largest black churches in Indianapolis, to help them pressure Mayor Ballard to meet with them regarding the police beat down of a teen during an arrest. Sharpton is scheduled to make several appearances around town and give a speech this evening at 7:00 at Eastern Star Church."

What does this signify about black leadership? "I'm not sure I can conceive of a more visible display of political impotence and irrelevance on the part of these ministers," says Laramore. "If you have to call in an out of town race hustler like Al Sharpton, in order to get the attention of the mayor of your own city, you are irrelevant."

Laramore claims that this scene has been played out in the past, when these ministers tried to make demands on the city's previous Mayor and administration. "This is all reaction that will not result in significant change and stands as an example of how faith leadership in Indianapolis fails to expand and develop the strategic value of their connection to thousands of people."

But do these elites really have a connection to "thousands of people?" Or are members of their congregations weary of the familiar pulpit bombast that ensues each time a "race incident" presents an opportunity for exploitation? Such black "leaders" are eager to show their constituents that they, at least, have the power to engage the Almighty Al Sharpton in their cause, as they hope for some of his luster to rub off on them.

Sharpton is a man for all seasons, and willingly answers the calls even of distressed white folks. Thanks to the white Don Imus who, during his radio troubles in 2007, resuscitated Sharpton's career, almost singlehandedly, the black race hustler still earns a comfortable living doing what he does best. And he is now the host of three (three!) radio programs here in the New York area. So, if white folks, like Imus, aren't calling for the good pastor Sharpton to forgive them their "racial sins," black preachers are keeping him busy hounding their political enemies.

Laramore concludes, "When you call Al Sharpton in from out of town just to have a conversation with your own Mayor, you are missing the boat."

See also here for Laramore's take on this recent NAACP Convention: "I wanted to find something to be encouraged about in this speech, I really did, but color me totally unimpressed. Black folk catching hell and she's touting school snack programs? the opening of a few college chapters; so-called curriculum reforms to teach civil rights history? That's it? That's the best you've got to tout as achievements? The speech has a constant focus on the wrongs done to us, not nearly enough of anything about problem solving in our communities. It was heavy on platitudes, way light on substance."
Read more!

Our masters and liars

What is this? Is the staunchly Zionist New York Times suggesting that much of life is a misery for the Palestinians trapped in the prison of Gaza? But, haven't we been led to believe, from Israeli propaganda, that life is coming up roses for Gaza residents, and that those who make claims to the contrary are just whining crybabies?

In Trapped by Gaza Blockade, Locked in Despair, we learn of the negative impact on people's lives through their inability to travel and to trade with other nations, in order to spark Gaza's economy and generate employment:

Israel is never far from people’s minds here. Its ships control the waters, its planes control the skies. Its whims, Gazans feel, control their fate. And while most here view Israel as the enemy, they want trade ties and to work there. In their lives the main source of income has been from and through Israel. Economists here say what is most needed now is not more goods coming in, as the easing of the blockade has permitted, but people and exports getting out. That is not going to happen soon.

And we learn, as well, the views of many Palestinians about their governing authorities:

As if the Palestinian people did not have enough trouble, they have not one government but two, the Fatah-dominated one in the West Bank city of Ramallah and the Hamas one here. The antagonism between them offers a depth of rivalry and rage that shows no sign of abating. ...

In fact, there is a paradox at work in Gaza: while Hamas has no competition for power, it also has a surprisingly small following. Dozens of interviews with all sorts of people found few willing to praise their government or that of its competitor. “They’re both liars,” Waleed Hassouna, a baker in Gaza City, said in a very common comment.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian people pay the price for the ongoing war between their masters, the Israelis, and their political leaders, the "liars."

Read complete article here.

The photo below is interesting, isn't it? In Israel, young Jewish woman harassing Palestinian woman by yanking on her scarf, while Jewish boy applies a kick to her leg. Israeli policemen nearby watch the fun. Everyday life in the Land of the Chosen. But, hey, those Palestinian leaders claim that they would like to see an end to Israel, so anything goes as far as treatment of Palestinians, in general, right? Sort of like that new "Black Panther" party in this country declaring death upon all whites, so this makes it fair game to go out on the streets and torment or mow down average American blacks, right? Is this picture reminiscent of photographs you've viewed of scenes in Europe during the middle of the 20th century?

Read more!

Monday, July 12, 2010

Eminent domain and the Kelo backlash

When, five years ago, the Kelo v. City of New London decision was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court, I thought, Well, that's the end of things for sure. When any government can systematically employ a ruse to legally confiscate citizens' homes, that's a sign that the Republic's days are numbered. I figured the Supreme Court had given a green light to every developer who salivated over some landowner's piece of property. I had followed the case closely since I couldn't think of many rulings that could be more significant than this one.

When a Supreme Court Justice himself claims that a ruling by his very Court is "unconstitutional," where do you go from there? What is one to think when the mighty "interpreters" of the Constitution admit to error by the Court? In Kelo Justice Clarence Thomas vehemently disagreed with the majority decision, as written by Justice John Paul Stevens. In his Dissent, Thomas wrote:

The Constitution’s text, in short, suggests that the Takings Clause authorizes the taking of property only if the public has a right to employ it, not if the public realizes any conceivable benefit from the taking. ... The Takings Clause is a prohibition, not a grant of power: The Constitution does not expressly grant the Federal Government the power to take property for any public purpose whatsoever. Instead, the Government may take property only when necessary and proper to the exercise of an expressly enumerated power. ... Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not. ... When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution’s original meaning.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, another emphatic dissenter, expressed it this way:

To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property – and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. ... The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. ... Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.

Here are excerpts from a view on the case offered by The Economist magazine, The worst decision of Justice Stevens:

[Justice Stevens'] opinion in Kelo v. New London (2005) was simply terrible. The case was about a private developer in New London, Connecticut, who wanted to raze some waterfront homes to build an office block and some posh apartments. The owners didn't want to sell. The city decided to force them to, calculating that the new development would create jobs and yield more taxes.

The city decided to use the power of "eminent domain." Under the Fifth amendment, the government may seize private property only in exceptional circumstances. The land seized must be put to “public use,” and “just compensation” must be paid. “Public use” has traditionally been taken to mean something like a public highway. Roads would obviously be much harder to build if a single homeowner could hold out forever or for excessive compensation. The government's powers of “eminent domain” have also been used to clean up blighted slums.

In this case, however, the area was not blighted, and the land was not going to be put to a public use, so the seizure was plainly unlawful. Amazingly, Justice Stevens – and a slim majority of the court – said it was fine. Rejecting “any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the ...public,” he said it was enough that the seizure should serve some vaguely defined “public purpose” — such as those new taxes. This massively expanded the government's power of eminent domain. ...

The ruling had two effects. First, it told local governments and their developer chums that working-class neighbourhoods were up for grabs. In the year after Kelo, the Institute for Justice, a group that defends property rights, counted 5,783 homes, businesses, churches and other properties condemned or threatened with eminent domain to the benefit of a private party. ...

But second, Kelo provoked a backlash. Most Americans are repelled by the idea that the state might take your house and give it to Donald Trump. (This is not rhetoric: New Jersey once tried, unsuccessfully, to seize someone's home because The Donald needed somewhere to park limousines outside one of his casinos.) Since the Kelo ruling, no fewer than 34 states have passed laws or constitutional amendments aimed at curbing the abuse of eminent domain. At the mid-term elections, voters in ten states approved measures curbing politicians' power to seize private property, all by wide margins.

Public revulsion against such seizures is visceral and nearly uniform: polls find between 85% and 95% of Americans are opposed to them. Political affiliation makes no difference. Republicans hate to see property rights violated and individuals bullied by the state. Democrats hate to see the state's coercive power hired out to big corporations, and worry, correctly, that the chief victims of eminent domain abuse will be the working class and ethnic minorities.

And the discerning writer William Norman Grigg offers his inimitable reflections on the notorious Kelo case:

Prior to the closing of the frontier in 1890, "Manifest Destiny" was the incantation used by the government when it gave itself permission to steal property it coveted. Today, the preferred conjuration is "eminent domain." The phrase "eminent domain" reflects an assumption Karl Marx would find congenial: government is the default owner of everything, and that private ownership, however extensive, is merely a contingent arrangement. ...

In his recent book, Government Pirates, former real estate developer Don Corace offers a concise description of how eminent domain operated prior to the onset of the current depression: "Arrogant and corrupt city and county officials – with near limitless legal budgets ... align themselves with well-heeled developers, political cronies, and major corporations to prey on the politically less powerful and disenfranchised, particularly minority communities." ...

In recent weeks, the Illinois state government has begun the legal process of seizing a huge amount of private property in and around Peotone, a small town in Will County, about forty miles south of Chicago. The land is being taken for the supposed purpose of building a third Chicago-area airport to complement O'Hare and Midway – a project that has been discussed, studied, and debated since 1968.

The proposed "South Suburban Airport" – which would be three times the size of O'Hare International – is impractical, unwanted, and unnecessary. It doesn't enjoy the support of any major airline or the approval of the FAA. ...

Expanding the small international airport in depressed Rockford would provide additional runway space at a fraction of what would be spent on a third Chicago-area airport. But this would deprive the state's patronage pimps of an opportunity to lavish plundered wealth on their favored constituents. ...

Four Peotone-area condemnation cases are already working their way through the court system. Unless the land owners are successful in getting the cases dismissed outright, they will face a lengthy, protracted legal struggle in which their opponent – the criminal junta dominating Springfield and Chicago – will use money extorted from them as taxes to underwrite the effort to drive them from their land. ...

There's every reason to believe that the Peotone Landgrab – if it's successful – would be a template for similar acts of official larceny wherever fertile tracts can be seized by the political class at depressed "fair market value."

Following are conclusions about the Kelo case offered by the Institute for Justice, the public interest law firm that represented the New London residents:

The U.S. Supreme Court should have ruled in favor of the Kelo homeowners and established a federal baseline that would protect home and business owners throughout the nation. Instead, it threw the issue to the states, completely abdicating its role as guardian of Americans’ rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Less than one week after the decision was handed down, the Institute for Justice launched a national campaign called “Hands Off My Home.” IJ was determined to focus the outrage over Kelo and turn it into meaningful reform. In the five years since the decision, there has been an unprecedented backlash against the Kelo ruling in terms of public opinion, citizen activism, legislative changes, state court decisions, and lessons learned from the New London case:

• Citizen activists defeated at least 44 projects that sought to abuse eminent domain for private gain in the five-year period since Kelo.
• Forty-three states improved their laws in response to Kelo, more than half of those providing strong protection against eminent domain abuse.
• Nine state high courts restricted the use of eminent domain for private development since Kelo while only one (New York) has so far refused to do so. ...

Across the country, property owners and activists have testified before crowded public hearings and state legislatures. They have formed groups and started websites. They stood tall on the steps of City Hall and held press conferences demanding officials keep their hands off their property. They have held neighborhood meetings, which have turned into citywide meetings. ...

Following the public outcry about Kelo, constitutional amendments and legislation at the federal, state and local levels were introduced in legislative bodies nationwide. In the five years since the decision, 43 states have passed either constitutional amendments or statutes that have reformed eminent domain law to better protect private property rights. ...

When the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to correctly interpret the U.S. Constitution, the state high courts began to fill that void. Three state supreme courts — Ohio, Oklahoma and South Dakota — explicitly rejected the Kelo decision. Ohio cities had frequently abused eminent domain and Oklahoma cities had occasionally abused the power, but we have heard of no new abuses in either state since their respective court decisions. Moreover, the New Jersey Supreme Court implicitly rejected Kelo while also curtailing the use of redevelopment and blight as an excuse for private development.

The Institute for Justice describes the dismal facts of what ultimately happened to the land in New London that was sought by the developer Pfizer, Inc.:

Part of the package of incentives offered to Pfizer to come to New London was the redevelopment of the neighboring Fort Trumbull area. Fort Trumbull was a working-class neighborhood. It housed approximately 75 homes, as well as a few smaller businesses and an abandoned Navy base.

The plan called for this area to be replaced by an upscale hotel, office buildings and new housing. Now, five years after the Kelo ruling, there has been no new construction on any of the land that was acquired in Fort Trumbull. After the decision, the remaining residents who had fought to save their homes, including Susette Kelo, were forced out. The Fort Trumbull site was completely razed. And it has remained empty ever since — brown, barren fields no longer home to people but rather to feral cats and migratory birds. After much controversy and many extensions of time given to the chosen developer, the city terminated the development agreement.

Now, ten years after its initial plan was approved, the city has commissioned another study to see what might work in the area. Ironically, given that a majority of the area used to be filled with owner-occupied and residential rental property, the city is considering a proposal to build some rental property on a portion of the project area. Ten years lost and more than $80 million in taxpayer money spent to perhaps one day build a lesser version of what used to exist on the peninsula.


Judicial vandalism

Eminent domain: Taking from Peter to give to Paul
Read more!

Sunday, July 11, 2010

Terry Anderson, R.I.P.

"If you ain't mad, you ain't payin' attention!" I can't count the number of times I heard Terry Anderson recite that refrain on his radio show. I was hooked, and had to have my weekly Sunday night Terry fix. Thanks to the Internet, I was able to do so, and rarely missed his broadcast from Los Angeles.

Terry was a staunch opponent of illegal immigration, and had watched first hand as this social poison altered once stable communities in southern California. As a black working man, he and many of his friends had been directly impacted by the cheap labor resulting from the alien invasion. When the opportunity presented itself to host a radio program dedicated to the subject, he took it.

After his show went off the air last year, I would check from time to time to learn if it might return. I had no idea he was seriously ill. This week we all learned that Terry died of pancreatic cancer.

Following are excerpts from appreciative friends and listeners who will miss Terry's wit and determination.

Brenda Walker, on the Vdare BlogFarewell to a Fearless Patriot, Terry Anderson

From his front-row seat in South Central Los Angeles, Terry saw the demographic invasion before other Americans who lived further from the border. He described the racism against blacks which Mexicans brought with them into his own city, but mostly he spoke as an American, for all citizens who care about the country.

Terry started out as a concerned citizen who phoned kindred spirit and talk-show host George Putnam on the radio (another late, great patriot). Those calls led to friendship and eventually to a radio program that was exclusively about immigration, The Terry Anderson Show.

Author Dan Sheehy devoted a chapter of his 2005 book which focused on patriotic activists, Fighting Immigration Anarchy, to Terry Anderson — his life, his immigration awakening and his radio activism.

Terry was a genuine everyman, a blue-collar guy who worked as an auto mechanic, and saw himself as “articulating the popular rage.” The lack of a fancy academic degree never stopped him from being a powerful speaker. And he didn’t just talk forcefully — although he was known for that — he was well versed in all the complex issues of immigration and blended them seamlessly into his thoughts.

Walter Moore, Remembering Terry Anderson

Terry’s articulation of the popular rage was therapeutic. When you heard Terry rant, you knew you weren’t alone. You also knew you were right, because Terry knew right from wrong, and knew how to explain it simply and clearly. Politicians could blow all the smoke they wanted to, but it never clouded Terry’s vision. He had uncommon common sense, and a unique ability to zero in on the truth.

Assembling parts so they work together was apparently second nature to Terry. After he passed away, I read an article about how, from a very early age, he had a knack for taking bits and pieces from wrecked cars, salvaging them, and putting them together to work, good as new.

That’s basically what he was doing with our country. He was salvaging those of us who had given up hope. He found some of us here in L.A., others in Nevada, still others in Illinois -- scattered people, all over America, who thought they were alone.

Terry united and connected people all over America who actually care about America. He was like Radio Free Europe and the French underground rolled into one. He provided important information we couldn’t find anywhere else.

William Gheen, President, Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC)

For those of you who did not know Terry Anderson, he was also called 'The Prisoner of South Central.' His radio show aired on Sunday nights for an hour on KRLA radio out of Los Angeles. The show was carried on 30 stations across America and Terry had a huge online listenership that either tuned in live each week or caught his podcasts.

Terry's show was created to fight against illegal immigration. Terry Anderson warned the nation about what was happening in South Central Los Angeles as the illegal alien invaders displaced poor Americans in the area turning parts of LA into a third world slum barrio with chickens and goats running around in the streets!

Terry Anderson was a very brave black man who educated America about the negative impacts of illegal immigration on the black community and he fearlessly spoke out and stood up in the face of the illegals on their home turf.

Over the past five years, it was my great honor to be on Terry Anderson's show over ten times. I got to work with him in person during Unite To Fight, 1 & 2, conducted by radio show host Mark Edwards in Las Vegas back in 2005 and 2006. I also worked with Terry in Washington, DC during Hold Their Feet To The Fire in 2007.

I hope those who have copies and podcasts of all of Terry Anderson's shows will place them in a prominent place on the web. I hope that another great patriot will step forward to take over Terry Anderson's show immediately, pick up his torch and run forward in his absence. ALIPAC will be happy to donate to help preserve Terry's podcasts and to continue his show.

Terry Anderson, I will miss you my friend and I want your family to know how much real Americans appreciate all that you have done for our nation. You cannot speak anymore Terry, but I will always speak out for you.

[See the ALIPAC site for videos of Terry Anderson's presentations]
Read more!

Friday, July 09, 2010

The media enforcers

Glenn Greenwald reflects on which journalists or pundits get fired for expressing politically incorrect opinions. Although it is the "Liberal Media" that has the power to destroy careers and reputations, punishment comes only at the behest of right wingers, especially the neoconservative media monitors. Here are excerpts from Greenwald's column at

• • •

First, consider which viewpoints cause someone to be fired from The Liberal Media. Last month, Helen Thomas' 60-year career as a journalist ended when she expressed the exact view about Jews which numerous public figures have expressed (with no consequence or even controversy) about Palestinians.

Just weeks ago, The Washington Post accepted the "resignation" of Dave Weigel because of scorn he heaped on right-wing figures such as Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh.

CNN's Chief News Executive, Eason Jordan, was previously forced to resign after he provoked a right-wing fit of fury over comments he made about the numerous -- and obviously disturbing -- incidents where the U.S. military had injured or killed journalists in war zones.

NBC fired Peter Arnett for criticizing the U.S. war plan on Iraqi television, which prompted accusations of Treason from the Right.

MSNBC demoted and then fired its rising star Ashleigh Banfield after she criticized American media war coverage for adhering to the Fox model of glorifying U.S. wars; the same network fired its top-rated host, Phil Donahue, due to its fear of being perceived as anti-war; and its former reporter, Jessica Yellin, confessed that journalists were "under enormous pressure from corporate executives" to present the news in a pro-war and pro-Bush manner.

What each of these firing offenses have in common is that they angered and offended the neocon Right. Isn't that a strange dynamic for the supposedly Liberal Media: the only viewpoint-based firings of journalists are ones where the journalist breaches neoconservative orthodoxy? Have there ever been any viewpoint-based firings of establishment journalists by The Liberal Media because of comments which offended liberals? None that I can recall.

I foolishly thought that when George Bush's own Press Secretary mocked the American media for being "too deferential" to the Bush administration, that would at least put a dent in that most fictitious American myth: The Liberal Media. But it didn't; nothing does, not even the endless spate of journalist firings for deviating from right-wing dogma.

Beyond journalism, speech codes concerning the Middle East are painfully biased and one-sided. Chas Freeman was barred from a government position -- despite a long and accomplished record of public service -- due to AIPAC-led anger over comments deemed insufficiently devoted to Israel.

Juan Cole was denied a tenured position at Yale after a vicious neocon campaign based on his allegedly anti-Israel remarks, and Norman Finklestein suffered the same fate, despite a unanimous committee recommendation for tenure, after an Alan-Dershowitz-led demonization campaign based on his blasphemous scholarship about Israel.

Does anyone ever suffer career-impeding injuries of this type -- the way Nasr and Thomas also just have -- for expressing anti-Muslim or anti-Arab views? No. The speech prohibitions and thought crimes on the Middle East all run in one direction: to enforce "pro-Israel" orthodoxies. Does this long list of examples leave room for doubt about that fact? ...

With the Octavia Nasr firing, here we find yet again exposed the central lie of American establishment journalism: that opinion-free "objectivity" is possible, required, and the governing rule. The exact opposite is true: very strong opinions are not only permitted but required. They just have to be the right opinions: the official, approved ones. ...

The reality is that "pro-Israel" is not considered a viewpoint at all; it's considered "objective." That's why there's no expression of it too extreme to result in the sort of punishment which Nasr just suffered (preceded by so many others before her). ...

It's true that much of the world sees some of Hezbollah's actions as Terrorism; much of the world sees Israel's that way as well. CNN requires the former view while prohibiting the latter. As usual, our brave journalistic outlets not only acquiesce to these suffocating and extremely subjective restrictions on what our political discourse allows; they lead the way in enforcing them.

Read complete article here.
Read more!