Conservative Heritage Times

A Censored Race War

By Thomas Sowell, Syndicated Op-ed, May 15, 2012

When two white newspaper reporters for the Virginian-Pilot were driving through Norfolk, and were set upon and beaten by a mob of young blacks — beaten so badly that they had to take a week off from work — that might sound like news that should have been reported, at least by their own newspaper. But it wasn’t.

The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News Channel was the first major television program to report this incident. Yet this story is not just a Norfolk story, either in what happened or in how the media and the authorities have tried to sweep it under the rug.

Similar episodes of unprovoked violence by young black gangs against white people chosen at random on beaches, in shopping malls, or in other public places have occurred in Philadelphia, New York, Denver, Chicago, Cleveland, Washington, Los Angeles, and other places across the country. Both the authorities and the media tend to try to sweep these episodes under the rug.

In Milwaukee, for example, an attack on whites at a public park a few years ago left many of the victims battered to the ground and bloody. But when the police arrived on the scene, it became clear that the authorities wanted to keep this quiet.

One 22-year-old woman, who had been robbed of her cell phone and debit card, and had blood streaming down her face, said, “About 20 of us stayed to give statements and make sure everyone was accounted for. The police wouldn’t listen to us, they wouldn’t take our names or statements. They told us to leave. It was completely infuriating.”

The police chief seemed determined to head off any suggestion that this was a racially motivated attack by saying that crime is color-blind. Officials elsewhere have said similar things.

A wave of such attacks in Chicago were reported, but not the race of the attackers or victims. Media outlets that do not report the race of people committing crimes nevertheless report racial disparities in imprisonment and write heated editorials blaming the criminal-justice system.

What the authorities and the media seem determined to suppress is that the hoodlum elements in many ghettoes launch coordinated attacks on whites in public places. If there is anything worse than a one-sided race war, it is a two-sided race war, especially when one of the races outnumbers the other several times over.

It may be understandable that some people want to head off such a catastrophe, either by not reporting the attacks in this race war, or by not identifying the race of those attacking, or by insisting that the attacks were not racially motivated — even when the attackers themselves voice anti-white invective as they laugh at their bleeding victims.

[Continue reading....]

3 Comments »

First of all, kudos to American Spectator for allowing a Buchanan sympathetic person to review the book.

The comment section is entertaining as you might expect. Go there and stand up for our man. As Pat would say, “Ride to the sound of the guns.”

No Comments »

Fiji is clearly filled with a bunch of racists. They want their Miss World Fiji to actually look like a Fijian? The audacity!

But after Watters won the title,  she faced heavy backlash because of her mixed European/Fijian descent, and some said she did not look Fijian enough.

Hundreds of derogatory comments had to be deleted from the Miss World Fiji Facebook page, according to reports.

Of course I do not support placing derogatory comments on people’s Facebook page, especially 16 year old girls. That is rude and unchivalrous. (Although what is a 16 year old girl doing competing in a beauty contest anyway?)  I just post this as further proof of the PC double standard, ethnocentrism for me but not for thee.

18 Comments »

Below is an an excerpt from an e-mail I received from my father. I would give credit to the blogger whose work it is (see update) but no link was included in the e-mail. I am pretty sure that the original blogger was primarily making an anti-gun control point and not a national defense point, but the national defense implications are clear to those of us with a non-interventionist bent. My thoughts below.

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin. Allow me to restate that number: Over the last several months, Wisconsin’s hunters became the eighth largest army in the world more men under arms than in Iran, more than France and Germany combined. These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and also Michigan’s 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely.

Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states.

It’s millions more. The point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.

Hunting…it’s not just a way to fill the freezer; it’s a matter of national security.

That’s why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed. This is a lot of food for thought, when we next have to consider gun control.

I FEEL GOOD THAT I HAVE AN ARMY OF MILLIONS WHO WOULD PROTECT OUR LAND AND I CERTAINLY DON’T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TAKING CONTROL OF OUR FIREARMS OUR RIGHT TO POSSE THEM.

For the sake of our freedom, don’t ever allow gun control or the confiscation of our guns.

For the sake of the argument, let’s say that not everyone who purchased a hunting license actually hunted although due to the expense involved I suspect that number is relatively small. Also let’s concede that not everyone of those license holders actually owns their own gun although I would expect that number to be more than balanced out by the number who own more than one gun. At any rate, I suspect that license sales are a fairly accurate rough estimate of gun owning hunters.

So my question to all the interventionist hysterics who babble about us praying to Mecca or our wives and daughters wearing Burqas if we don’t bomb far off Muslim countries is this: which one of those countries is going to invade and subdue us? What country are they so worried about invading us that they think we need to spend roughly half the world’s allotment on national “defense?” The interventionists’ lack of faith in their fellow Americans has always baffled me. Do they really believe all these red-blooded American hunters are just going to lay down their arms and take a knee towards Mecca at the first sign of trouble? What is more likely is that they haven’t even thought about it in these terms. They are just repeating fear mongering boilerplate.

Interventionism has never been about the actual defense of this country. It has always been about maintaining our exagerated military stance in the world. The Chicken Little interventionists can relax. The big bad Muslim boogie man ain’t coming to get you any time soon, and to the degree that Islam in America is a problem, it is an immigration issue, not a national defense issue.

The longer I have been a non-interventionist the more I have come to believe that even the obligatory “strong national defense” stance is counter productive. Strong enough to do what? Defend the homeland from invasion? We’ve got that covered. The whole rhetoric and debate takes for granted the current paradigm of America’s grossly disproportionate military position in the world. To shake this dynamic up I think us non-interventionists need to challenge the paradigm at a fundamental level. We should be having a debate about whether we even need a minimalist standing army at all or if we could get by with just a militia, not whether we need 11 aircraft carriers vs. 10.

Update (even before the first posting): I put “America’s hunters world’s largest army” into Yahoo to see if I could find the original blog post. This post from Liberty News online, attributed to anonymous, seems to be a likely culprit, although the original title was American Hunters.

13 Comments »

By “Feltan”

Recently an old video surfaced of a fellow by the name of Al Armendiariz who is an official of the Government’s Environmental Protection Agency.  He stated that the EPA’s enforcement philosophy was similar to the Roman practice of entering a village and “tak(ing) the first five guys they saw and crucify(ing) them.”  Then the town would be “really easy to manage for the next few years” he continued.  In other words, big Oil companies beware — don’t expect moral, ethical or Constitutional treatment from this bad hombre!  After the video hit YouTube, he reflexively apologized.  Al now has a rare distinction on his resume; he offended both the right and left on the national scale with one statement.  His apology for a “poor choice of words” was meant to placate the right leaning Christians among us who didn’t take kindly to the clumsy metaphor.

As a Christian, and as is my duty, I can forgive Al.  We all make mistakes.  By apologizing he asked for forgiveness, and forgiveness is his.  However, we Christians are softies when it comes to the business of forgiveness.  Al still has to make amends with the left.  You just have to feel sorry for the guy thinking about what he is going to have to endure.

One wonders if the next reflexive act for Al is to enter a rehab facility after his resignation.  The video clip will be on the MSNBC web site showing a shell-shocked Al Armendiariz entering the Betty Ford Clinic flanked by a secularly pious and solemn escort of Bill Maher and Michael Moore.  Barry Linn, of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, will provide the droning audio voice over.  Al’s penance to the left will thus begin.  You see, what Mr. Armendiariz did is simply not allowed by an official of a progressive administration:  He made a public religious reference.  He obliquely brought religion into the public square.  In doing so he violated the most cherished modern-day liberal shibboleth.  True liberals don’t make public references about religion or utter any comment that could positively reflect on the divine, spiritual or people of faith; people who do so are from the unwashed icky conservative tribe.

Continue Reading »

No Comments »

By Timothy Yung

Here is a dilemma that true conservatives face: Do you join a third-party or do you remain in the Republican Party and try to transform it? I have reluctantly decided to re-join the Republican Party. While I was at a TEA Party event I heard a speech from someone who had made the same decision. The man was John McDonald who is running for Congress in California’s 9^th Congressional District. As a principled Ronald Reagan conservative, McDonald left the Republican Party in disgust when George W. Bush abandoned the conservative principles he ran on. McDonald was alarmed when George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act (2001), Medicare Expansion Act (2003), and refused to veto a single spending bill. He became an Independent, but McDonald returned to the Republican Party after seeing the impact the TEA Party could have in transforming and returning the party to its roots. He opposes the unconstitutional Federal Department of Education, Department of Housing, and Department of Energy. He supports domestic drilling. He wants to go beyond the Paul Ryan Plan and make meaningful cuts. John McDonald is also for lowering the income tax and the corporate tax rate. John McDonald is a businessman who I believe will transform Washington, D.C if elected. As a business executive he understands the dangers of excess environmental regulations, eminent domain abuse, and the myth of man-made global warming.

The problem is that the Republican establishment has lined up in support of Ricky Gill. Ricky Gill is a 24-year-old law school student (turns 25 by the election time). He has the backing of the California Republican Party, the California College Republicans, Jeb Bush, Eric Cantor, etc. According to the Washington Post Ricky Gill  “knows he’s not playing to hard-core conservatives,” which many will recognize as code for being a moderate, centrist, and even a liberal on many issues. Ricky Gill claims that he is against federal intervention in education, but he believes the federal government should encourage higher standards. He claims he is against Obamacare, but he wants to preserve the pre-existing condition ban and the government cost controls. He is against unilateral foreign intervention but wants to use the United Nations as the world’s policeman. He is also “personally pro-life” but is for a woman’s right to make that decision. His parents’ used to own an abortion clinic that was protested by Operation Rescue. His parents also received over $200,000 in farming subsidies.

Why mention his parents? His parents have used their connection with the Sikh business community to help their son raise over $ 1 million in campaign contribution including from gambling interests linked to Harry Reid. Thanks to the Republican Establishment and the money, John McDonald is fighting a uphill battle.

John McDonald opposes the U.N. and Agenda 21. John McDonald understands that health care works best when the free-market, not the government, determine costs. John McDonald supports the personhood rights of the unborn. He and his wife have volunteered several hours at a pregnancy crisis center. My friend, a hard-core Catholic social conservative, re-calls marching with him in the San Francisco Walk for Life. (My friend told me this story after I talked to him about John McDonald.)

If John McDonald wins the primary he has a good chance of winning the general election. His Democratic opponent, Jerry McNerney, won the 2010 election against David Harmer 48% to 46.9%. In San Joaquin County, David Harmer won the majority of votes however the district included an extremely liberal county. Due to the census most of the district now consists of San Joaquin County which gives John McDonald a fair shot at winning. Now he just has to overcome the Republican-established backed candidate.

23 Comments »

Here’s Ron Paul, speaking on the House floor:

While I absolutely believe that Israel – and any other nation – should be free to determine for itself what is necessary for its national security, I do not believe that those decisions should be underwritten by US taxpayers and backed up by the US military.

This bill states that it is the policy of the United States to “reaffirm the enduring commitment of the United States to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state.” However, according to our Constitution the policy of the United States government should be to protect the security of the United States, not to guarantee the religious, ethnic, or cultural composition of a foreign country. In fact, our own Constitution prohibits the establishment of any particular religion in the US.

Of course the people of Israel have the right to protect their culture – that’s the soul of their nation; keeping that alive means the country they fought for will live into the future. Every people has that right.

But the cultural preservation of a foreign nation is not any of our business. Worse, the entire debate takes on a bizarre aspect when you recall that the official policy of the US is to depose its own majority culture.

Think I’m exaggerating? Check out this “anti-racist” screed:

What is racism? Racism is more than individual prejudice based on race. Racism is the power of a dominant group, through its systems and institutions, to enforce the dominant culture’s history, values, practices and beliefs. It advantages those in the dominant group and disadvantages those who are not. It results in disparities.

I’ve racked my brain, and can imagine nothing more insane than a government that openly undermines the traditional culture at home while upholding the culture of a foreign nation.

Nothing.

37 Comments »

From our friend Trent Hill at Independent Political Report.

Also, here is a C-SPAN video of Goode’s acceptance speech.

No Comments »

I had to smirk when I read Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann apparently has dual-U.S. and Swiss citizenship.  The Bachmann family does not live too far away from me, neither Michelle in Stillwater, Minnesota or her in laws on the family farm in Waumundee, Wisconsin (I’m sort of in between them). I wasn’t aware they were Swiss and could exercise dual citizenship  (although I wonder if he spent a lot of time traveling to the L’Abri Institute in Huemoz, Switzerland where his evangelicalism was politicized by the late Francis Schaeffer).  Threats to leave the U.S. for want of support of the current conditions in the country are as old as the nation itself I suppose. Actors, authors, draft dodgers, fugitive bankers (and now politicians), anyone with the means can get up and go whenever they wish. I’m posting this comment I wrote to a recent Daily Mail piece written by Chronicles editor Dr.  Thomas Fleming, a piece about finding that patch of paradise near Novi Sad or whatever he wishes to spend the remainder of his days.  While I have no qualms about internal migration, extraternal migration is not exactly a ready option for most….

Continue Reading »

4 Comments »

Yet another study showing that people are probably hardwired to prefer their co-ethnics.  You think?  Inclusive fitness could predict that people would prefer others of their own race.  But let’s not let truth get in the way of spending another trillion dollars to stamp out “racism.”

Babies develop racist traits aged nine months, before coming into contact with other races

Daily Mail, May 4, 2012

White babies aged just nine-months-old show signs of racial bias, according to a study in facial recognition.

Researchers at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst found that by the young age the babies were already discriminating against those of different races in their ability to recognise faces and emotional expressions.

They analysed 48 Caucasian babies with little to no experience of African-American or black individuals.

Split into a group of five-months-olds and another of babies aged nine months, they were tasked with differentiating between faces of their people within own race and then of those belonged to another, unfamiliar, race.
Babies from the five-month-old group were far more adept at distinguishing faces from different races, while the nine-month-olds were able to tell apart two faces within their own race with greater ease.

In a second experiment the babies’ brain activity was detected using sensors.
They were shown images of faces of Caucasian or African-American races expressing emotions that either matched or did not match sounds they heard, such as laughing and crying.

Brain-activity measurements showed the nine-month-olds processed emotional expressions among Caucasian faces differently than those of African-American faces, while the 5-month-olds did not.

The shift in recognition ability was not a cultural thing, rather a result of physical development.

[Continue reading....]

OneSTDV on the study.

4 Comments »

Thanks to Robert Stark for bringing my attention to this interview.

Robert interviews Virgil Goode. Topics include:

• The Constitution Party;
• The need for reduction in immigration both legal and illegal;
• National sovereignty, NAFTA, and the North American Union;
• Foreign policy and the Iraq war;
• Energy independence.

Virgil Goode is the presidential nominee for the Constitution Party.

Listen here.

Cross posted at IPR.

1 Comment »

Brian Doherty of Reason Magazine has a new book coming out about Ron Paul and his Revolution. Reason hasn’t been particularly friendly to Ron Paul despite being an ostensibly libertarian publication, but Jim Antle thinks Doherty gets it about right.

Via AmSpec.

No Comments »

This is a couple of days old, but I just came across it today. Looks like there are some changes in store for AltRight. The article is worth a read. I’ll append my thoughts when I have a little time, but I wanted to get the conversation started if anyone is interested.

32 Comments »

It’s hysterical how liberals use the language of conservatism to push their agenda. Here in North Carolina, liberals are resorting to deceptive slogans in their campaign against Amendment One, which will define marriage as between one man and one woman. Liberals claim they oppose the amendment so they can “keep government out of our lives” and expand the “institution of marriage” to homosexuals. This blatant hypocrisy reveals how desperate liberals are – the latest polls indicate voters will approve the amendment by a comfortable margin.

But to borrow a slogan from the homosexual lobby, “It gets better!” The latest Creative Loafing features what’s supposed to be a tear-jerker about two women who, we’re told, live in fear of Amendment One. They live that life of fear in their posh lakefront home on Lake Norman. One is described as the director of marketing for Wells Fargo and the other is a “stay-at-home mom,” which is normally a term of derision for leftists.

What the article conveniently leaves out is that same-sex “marriage” is ALREADY illegal in North Carolina by statute. The amendment will only protect existing law against judicial activism.

Liberals – you just can’t trust ‘em!

No Comments »

The anti-intellectual/ anti-policy wonk  trends on the Right and within the Republican Party has real consequences. It leaves politicians and voters and citizens vulnerable to charlatans and snake oil salesmen, simply because they speak like they know what they are talking about. I am referring specifically of Newt Gingrich, who finally ended his Presidential campaign last week (officially) but also of the latest GOP smarty pants Rep. Paul Ryan, who become an person of importance within the party simply because he sounds like the smartest fellow in the room.

This is the essence of how Gingrich became Speaker of the House and ultimately why his Presidential campaign was able to last as long as it did with any kind of credibility. In a party bereft of ideas other than saying “no” all the time, the man who has an idea, or something of that nature will automatically get an audience, even if a lot of what he says is bunk. Gingrich’s welfare schemes of free laptops for everyone or government-run orphanages or moon colonies are well known to anyone who pays attention and in Tea Party world should have been automatic grounds for dismissal of candidacy (at least the moon colony idea did him in in Florida). But at various points in the 2011-12 campaign Gingrich was a serious candidate, leading in the polls and winner of South Carolina and Georgia and runner-up in some other states.  And this was some 15 years after he was dumped by his own House colleagues after leading them to their first majority in over 40 years.

There’s still a latent power in ideas in politics, albeit an always overrated one by Gingrich and his kind. After all, ideas and principals have certainly have been a big help to Ron Paul’s campaigns because there’s certain appeal to a candidate who doesn’t sound poll-driven politician, says what’s on his mind instead of repeating the same ideological dogma and comes up with interesting or thought provoking things to say. That doesn’t mean they’ll win, however. Certainly Mitt Romney has made a career out  making his lack of ideals and principals an actual selling point of his. But at least ideas can get one’s foot in the door and establishes credibility before other factors of political viability kick in.

The same is true for Ryan. Because he’s one of the few numbers crunchers on the GOP side, his budget had immediate credibility, not just with his colleagues but with deficit-minded centrists chattering classes looking for such ideas from the Right.  (It says something about the Romney campaign that it’s biggest selling point is someone else’s budget.)  But there’s a reason why even Ron Paul and several other Republican U.S. House members voted against the Ryan Budget when it came to a vote on the House floor. It’s a political document (as most budgets usually area) rather than a serious attempt at fiscal policy. It takes care of all the party factions like the supply-siders (massive tax cut), the Tea Partiers (huge cuts in social spending) the hawks (massive increases in the defense budget), senior citizens (Ryan’s privatization of Medicare for those under 55). How this adds up to a balanced budget is anyone’s guess but in Ryan’s case his bizarre mixture of “Kempism” (he used to work for Jack Kemp’s think tank Empower America) and Ayn Rand ideals, really is overlooked because he’s one of the few Republican whose actually offered something tangible to chew over instead of just ideology.

There’s a joke his House colleagues once told about Gingrich that goes when he first went to work for the House Republican Campaign Committee there were told file cabinets in the office, one for “Newt’s Ideas” which was full and one which said “Newt’s Good Ideas” which was empty. Ideas alone should not be strict selling point in politics and but in the absence of any coming from the politicians themselves not to mention the to think tanks which are there to service them (but who mostly spend their time backing up the ideology), those persons who like to think off the top of their heads are going to get the most serious attention regardless if they out to be no more than political alchemists.

No Comments »

Why the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn’t investigate violence from the Occupy movement.

23 Comments »

It’s a truism of paleo thought that one cannot influence politics without influencing culture. I still believe it to be true I but I can’t help but wonder over the past 40 years when the Right has won many victories at ballot box that outside of a few isolated instances, the culture so tilts to the left that some conservatives of we know well are looking to make their homes abroad regardless who wins in November.

I will say this, even if Romney somehow won it against someone than pro-Romney or any kind of agenda Romney is supporting. Romney is essentially a nothing candidate, more or less a fallback taking advantage of once again of divided loyalties rather than asserting a triumph for a particular agenda. It would be a backlash vote,  just as 1968, 1972, 1988, 1994 and 2010 were backlash votes. There really hasn’t been a positive vote for any kind of conservative agenda since the period 1978-84 and until candidate comes along with a visions to for for something rather against,  then it’s probably a given a negative attitude isn’t really going to resonate throughout the larger culture. Indeed, voters in those backlash campaigns were exactly voting for traditionalism as so much against what they though were its enemies.

But culture continued on oblivious to the election returns. So long was someone was buying tickets or paying millions for the art work or watching what was on the tube, they responded accordingly.

I think Pat Buchanan summed it up well: Conservative Votes, Liberal Victories.

3 Comments »

UPDATE BELOW:

Here’s part of the story, from US News:

Federal agents have arrested five people who were plotting to blow up a bridge near Cleveland, Ohio, an incident not connected to the anniversary of former al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden’s death, officials say.

Douglas L. Wright, 26, Brandon L. Baxter, 20, and Anthony Hayne, 35, were arrested by members of the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force on April 30 on charges of conspiracy and attempted use of explosive materials to damage physical property affecting interstate commerce. Also arrested were Connor C. Stevens, 20, and Joshua S. Stafford, 23.

But what’s a news story without context? Isn’t it significant that at least one of these anarchists was part of the Occupy movement, which has a history of violence? I think so, but hey, that’s me. Instead, the report only identifies the suspects as “anarchists.” Here’s a report on Brandon Baxter’s earlier run-in with the law. And here’s Baxter’s Facebook page.

If a Tea Party or other conservative activist had done anything remotely like this, the left side of the blogosphere would be screaming about it, and the mainstream media would be screaming along with them. Apparently, I’m the only blogger who knows the secret of Google.

UPDATE: It appears the other anarchists arrested with Baxter were also part of the Occupy Cleveland movement.

31 Comments »

Here is an article from our friend Peter Gemma on the link between immigration and free trade. (Editor’s note: This article was previously misleadingly labeled a book review. It has been corrected to more accurately reflect the content of the article.)

In his book, The Open-Borders Network: How a Web of Ethnic Activists, Journalists, Corporations, Politicians, Lawyers, and Clergy Undermine U.S. Border Security and National Sovereignty, author Kevin Lamb —managing editor of this journal — makes this important observation: “The propaganda in favor of uncontrolled immigration from today’s business leaders echoes the arguments California business magnates made in support of bringing in hundreds of thousands of Chinese coolies to work on the railroads and in agriculture in the 1880s. Yet there is an important difference. Until recently, advocates for American business took care to claim that their demands served the interests of the nation and its people. Today, a growing and significant segment of America’s most important business interests is not only striving for, but openly espouses, the opening of America’s borders and the eclipse of its national sovereignty.”¹

The special interests Lamb writes about are what President Dwight Eisenhower dubbed “the military-industrial complex”: a powerful conglomerate consisting of Wall Street moguls, multi-national corporate elites, and naïve politicians, who on this issue, will march under a “free trade” banner in anybody’s parade.

Corporate elites and political globalists are mounting an assault on American immigration restriction laws, job growth policies — and U.S. sovereignty. Their weaponry includes so-called “free trade” treaties, and the establishment of regulatory agencies such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) to facilitate them. The World Economic Forum (WEF) is an example of a formidable battalion in the open borders army. Its membership includes over 800 chief executives, some 200 government leaders, numerous high-ranking officials from regional and international organizations, and some 300 scientists, artists, and representatives of the media. Major firms from all sectors of business and industry are represented. WEF is part of the establishment who, as Lamb says, advocate tearing down America’s borders, stealing jobs from the working class, and neutralizing U.S. national sovereignty.

See more…

1 Comment »

On May 8, North Carolinians will vote on Amendment One, which seeks to affirm traditional marriage in the NC Constitution. Many libertarians argue conservatives should reject it, since same-sex “marriage” is an affirmation of “family values.” Here are my reasons for voting FOR Amendment One.

3 Comments »