I don't know who put the video together but evidently s/he doesn't know that Lincoln and Grant aren't founding fathers -- make the founders roll over in their graves, what?. It's pretty funny though, and I figured you needed a good three minute laugh about now. Just ignore the founding father video bit.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
This problem with the incompatibility of Islam with Western civilization is, of course, a subject of intense interest to yours truly. Indeed, I created, a couple of years back, a webpage dedicated entirely to this very problem, and I've written about the subject numerous times since this blog has been in existence.
Frequent commenter here and sole proprietor of Irate Tireless Minority Call Me Mom has a new and interesting perspective on this problem, here. Don't neglect Lawrence Auster's Separationism-consistent solution to the Islam problem here, here, and here.
This "Quote of the Day" comes from Dr. Keyes's blog Loyal to Liberty and our own frequent commenter Chiu Chunling:
Chiu Chunling writes:
In war (and you are fighting one now), one must consider tactics and strategy, not just the final objective. The objective should be a nation where abortion is not merely prohibited by Federal law, but unthinkable to the citizen of good standing. [TM: for context, read Dr. Keyes's latest entries.]
Certainly, if you know (as opposed to not knowing) what your final objective is then the means to your end become more clear.
BTW, by 'the war we are fighting now,' Chiu isn't referring to the so-called "war on terror," or whatever we're calling it now.
Friday, September 25, 2009
We'll be leaving shortly, going out of town for the next several days, during which time I'll be away from the computer. We should be back at home around Tuesday of next week, but nothing's written in stone. It all depends on whether we get everything done in the allotted time frame, which depends on other unknown factors. But anyway...
This whole situation with Emma Niederbrock and her parent-figures bothers me intensely. I can't put out of my mind what pitiful excuses for "parents" Emma's mother and father truly were, right up to the point that they got sixteen year old Emma and themselves bludgeoned to death by a twenty year old crazed lunatic killer wannabe that they did not even know yet brought into the fold like he was some kind of trusted member of the family. But I don't rightly know which is more pitiful -- Emma's parents and their idiotic, head-in-the-clouds attitude towards parenting, or their defenders who say that manipulative teenage girls can be completely uncontrollable.
I know a little bit about this myself. Being the father of three daughters, among which are one teenage daughter and another pre-teen daughter. Not to mention that my home is like teen and pre-teen girl grand central station at times, very often in fact. Not to mention further that I work with teen and pre-teen girls on a regular basis in a coaching capacity. I know all about how they manipulate (or attempt to manipulate), not just their parents but other authority figures in their lives, including yours truly. I know all about it, believe me. What they don't know is how I turn that to my and their and society's advantage.
You can't fool a fooler, as they say.
I discuss the parental ineptitude of Emma Niederbrock's parent-figures a bit in the comment section of this post. In point of fact, not only were they inept parents in spite of all their credentials and achievements, they were inept adults. Which isn't by any means uncommon in today's world, but these people were an exceptional case in point. I'm interested in your thoughts.
P.S. My wife had to listen to this stuff half the night last evening. I thought I'd try to spare her some of it today. But somehow I don't think I've quite got it all out just yet.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Auster has posted at VFR a follow-up entry on the quadruple "horrorcore" related murder in VA that I wrote about here the other day. Included in the VFR entry is an AP article which helpfully fills in some of the gaps left in the case by previous reports.
Let me simply say that I sit here, having just read the AP story a few moments ago, and I'm quite literally stunned, STUNNED by what I've just read. I've known of some pretty horrible parents in my day, but Emma Niederbrock's parent-figures take the damn cake. Unbelievable!
Mood: Disgusted, Outraged!
(Note: In the other entry I mistakenly wrote that Emma Niederbrock's father was a Baptist minister. He was, in fact, a Presbyterian minister, which I've changed the entry to reflect.)
Question: When statistics show that eleven percent of students in a given school district in America account for thirty six percent of all suspensions in said district, what is to be done about it? Well, I guess you need to know more.
Okay, blacks account for seven percent of all students in the district in question, while they account for sixteen plus percent of all student suspensions. Native Americans make up only four percent of the student body yet they account for twenty percent of all student suspensions in the district. Still need more information? The majority of teachers in the district are white. And we all know that white people are racists whether we want to be or not. Yes, that includes all you high falutin leftier-than-thou liberal white educators. Also, as with tests and curriculum (not to mention educational methodology) designed to favor whites, so are school rules designed to favor white students over minority students. Therefore it's a reasonable assumption to make that suspendable offenses in this particular district include, but are not necessarily limited to, behaviors that white students generally do not engage in, while certain ethnic minority students have a higher tendency to do. Indeed, it's probably safe to say that these kinds of offenses comprise the bulk of suspendable offenses in this particular school district. You know, minor things like, say, carrying a gun to school, selling drugs on campus, threatening and/or attacking members of the faculty, defacing school property, gang related activities -- stuff like that. Couple that fact with the other factors aforementioned, and, well, you begin to grasp the nature of the problem that's causing this disparity in the numbers of minority suspensions vs. white suspensions -- white racism. Now that you know the nature of the problem, how do you address it?
I have an idea. It's a lot different than the plan our school district has put into place, and a lot simpler too -- school segregation.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
If you're not a regular follower of Dr. Keyes's blog Loyal to Liberty as I am, you may be interested in his entry The USA- A special nation with special responsibilities and the discussion that ensues.
I think Dr. Keyes is more-or-less arguing for the "proposition nation" theory of America (i.e., America is an idea), a theory of America that I personally do not wholly reject, but one which I think can very easily be taken too far as it tends to set aside or dismiss certain aspects of historic Americanism that are unique to America and its founding, namely the original overwhelming WASP majority.
I'm by no means an expert on this, nor do I claim to be (how's that for unnecessary repitition?), but I think that simple common sense will teach us that there has to be a connection between the loss of freedom in America and the dilution of that majority. Perhaps I personally make too much of it, or, perhaps not. You be the judge.
To be clear, Dr. Keyes is one of my favorite, most respected provocateurs of American idealism, but the favoritism and respect I personally afford him has little to do with my larger respect for the American Idea of Nation-making.
As I wrote in a comment to Dr. Keyes's entry:
Dr. Keyes wrote:
Those who talk about the "American" idea of freedom" have already abandoned it.
I don't think that's necessarily true, although it's probably true as a general rule. People sometimes (hesitantly) use descriptives like this in an attempt to make a finer point. But of course "freedom" is expressed and exercised differently in America than it is in other parts of the world where it exists or has existed. Taken as a whole I'm not sure that America represents no-holds-barred Randian libertarianism, although there seems to be that (growing) element.
I certainly agree that any genuine notion of liberty begins with a belief in the Sovereign God of the universe and his will for His moral creatures. But then again, that's what I would personally call the "American idea of liberty" since this nation is unique among nations in that vein. After all,
"...is it not that in the chain of human events the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked to the birthday of the Savior of the World?..."
In any event I think this is an important discussion to have, and I look forward to your next edition in the series.
And the next for that matter. In any event I'll be closely monitoring Dr. Keyes's follow-on entries. I don't particularly give two hoots about black or white Americanism, only about Americanism, black or white. On the other hand, I've opened myself up to all manner of criticism. So be it.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
In a nice article posted at the Tenth Amendment Center, Timothy Baldwin (son of Chuck Baldwin) writes the following,
[T]o suggest that state sovereignty always give way to the national power is to completely do away with the line. It is in fact to destroy even the natural law of self-preservation. If you accept Corwin’s proposition of “getting back to the constitution”, you might as well throw the tenth amendment in the dump, along with the freedom it protects.
which concepts are of intense interest to me, witnessed by the fact that I've written about them numerous times at this blog including at least one entry in which I suggested (tongue in cheek, of course) that we make this false and dangerous doctrine of federal authority always trumping state authority official amending it into the constitution and settling the issue once and for all time. Indeed, we could simply scrap the entirety of the U.S. Constitution and replace it with this simple doctrine, for as I've also said before, to scrap the 9th and 10th amendments is the same thing, for all intents and purposes, as scrapping the entirety of the constitution.
In a comment directed at Mr. Baldwin's above statements, I wrote the following:
To suggest that state sovereignty always give way to the national power is to completely do away with the line.
Precisely correct! It is, in point of fact, a contradiction in terms the suggestion that state sovereignty can in any way exist alongside an all powerful central authority to which the states must always yield. One of the fundamental laws of logic is the law of non-contradiction (A cannot be non-A), which such a concept palpably violates and is therefore of no legitimate authority whatsoever, which is to say that rational people are in no way bound to observe it nor anyone who propagates such blatantly false illogical conceptions.
It is in fact to destroy even the natural law of self-preservation.
Well, the law itself cannot be destroyed. It can, however, be undermined to the extent that for all intents and purposes (governmentally speaking) it is non existent. And that’s what it invariably comes down to, now isn’t it. Indeed, the law of self-preservation applies as well to the national government as it does to the states and to the people. In asserting unlimited arbitrary power over them, the national government, in point of fact, is destroying itself and the reason for its existence. And we all know what the Declaration says about that — “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [the preservation of the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it…”
In the end, and as I think Mr. Baldwin intimates further down the article, it all comes down to a clash of worldviews (doesn't it always?). Worldview A holds that there are certain inviolable principles perpetually at work in the physical universe and, acknowledging that these principles and laws exist, seeks to operate within the boundaries therein prescribed insofar as they can be dileneated, while Worldview B rejects the idea that these principles and laws really exist as anything more than the false conceptions and inventions of [lesser-evolved] minds led astray. Worldview B seeks, therefore, to ignore them, everything being to such people "relative" except, of course, the idea that "everything is relative" which is not relative but a fixed and immutable law of the universe. Setting aside the contradiction here, is this the one and only fixed and immutable law of the universe, this idea that everything is relative? I don't know, it gets a bit confusing given that such people also palpably contradict themselves in dogmatically asserting that "we can't legislate morality" while at the very same moment, and in fact in the very issue itself, pushing intensely for the ... well, ahem ... the legislation of morality.
Anyway, do read the article in full. Baldwin helpfully lists at least twelve instances in which the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution contain the same principles. Not that it really serves our purposes since the constitution establishes an all-powerful central authority designed to eventually suck all other state and local authority into its ever-growing, ever more violently destructive vortex.
Them founding fathers, they was a shifty bunch, wasn't they!
Monday, September 21, 2009
Lawrence Auster covers the quadruple homicide in Virginia of a Presbyterian minister, his ex-wife and daughter and the daughter's best friend here, here, and here.
Very disturbing stuff! Make your way around the MySpace community these young, impressionable elois were heavily participating in starting here, MySpace page of murder victim Melanie Wells, where she wrote on Sept. 13:
SFTW was f***in amazing, back in Virginia now, be back in West Virginia on Wednesday. I MISS EVERYONE!!!Mood: havin a blast
Posted at 7:43 PM Sep 13.
If you're a parent at all concerned about your childrens' mental and physical well being, you'll be shocked.
Nancy-baby (H/T: Tenth Amendment Center):
The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states… or to the people. But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited. (bolded in original).
Translation (as if you needed one):
The Tenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution is inoperable and meaningless, and has been for a long long time. Why this obstructionist, divisive amendment was ever added as part of the Bill of Rights is anyone's guess. Surely the founders didn't expect the states to make the mistake of ratifying it. But whatever. That was then, this is now. And the joke's on them.
Since Congress has successfully used the commerce clause to control various aspects of American life, building line upon line, precept upon precept, the sky is now the limit. Indeed, given that virtually (qualifier added as merely a matter of form) every aspect of everything done in America effects, in some way, shape, form, interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate all aspects of American life is unlimited. Challenge my authority and I'll bury your sorry constructionist, literalist, originalist, traditionalist *ss!
She forgot to mention that Congress only need "occupy the field" and "intend a complete ouster" in order to take absolute control over any subject matter. But she's clear enough methinks. The central government is [essentially] all powerful, and by its good graces alone does it allow the states and the people to retain any portion of their sovereignty and autonomy. Thus, if you care to retain what little you have left, you had better bow down before the U.S. government and its Communist power brokers and beg for its mercy and forgiveness. For has it not been written, "if the People ask bread [their government] will not give them a stone."
Friday, September 18, 2009
Again I ask this fundamentally critical question: What the hell, and by what legitimate authority, is the central government doing nationalizing healthcare?! Secondly, what possible usefulness is the Republican party to the preservation (or restoration, as it were) of limited Constitutional government when everything we hear from it and its acolytes concerning this healthcare business, among other things, amounts to no more than the equivalent of "we're moving too fast in the right direction."?
As I've said numerous times before, if the Republican party is not a viable vehicle for conservatism, then it is useless. Period. After all, it's a poor dog that won't wag its own tail, a poorer dog still that bites the hand that feeds it. But beyond that, and perhaps more importantly, if the Republican party and its acolytes are nothing more than liberal progressives at heart donning the specious mask of conservatism, then it and they are my avowed enemies, more dangerous even than Hussein and the openly Communist Democrats.
Which is the more dangerous enemy to a free people and their constitutional form of government -- an openly Communist Democrat or a covert Communist Republican?
Though regrettable, it's also understandable that the average Joe isn't fully aware until it's too late of how his government is systematically destroying his fundamental liberties, even as he pays obedient, patriotic tribute to it. But Joe Wilson isn't your average Joe. Joe Wilson is a Republican U.S. Congressman supposedly trying to represent the best interests of his constituents, namely South Carolinian citizens in particular and the larger U.S. citizenry in general. He knows what's going on legislatively in the U.S. government, and he knows what's been going on under other administrations. Indeed, before he was vocally against illegal alien healthcare coverage per his "You lie!" outburst last week, Kerry-like Joe Wilson was silently for it, as Ilana Mercer brings out in this WND article.
To be fair to Mr. Wilson and his Republican colleagues, it is possible, I suppose, that he has experienced a genuine change of heart or some kind of epiphany on this illegal alien question. I'll very cautiously give him the benefit of that doubt because it actually does happen, albeit I'm also quite sure that leftier-than-thou Joe Wilson is a strong proponent of the principles of absolute equality and non-discriminationism. At the same time I think it's very safe to say that Joe Wilson and most other Congressional Republicans actually agree with and advocate the principles of nationalized healthcare, they just think, as I said above, that alien-in-chief Hussein and the openly Communist Democrats are going too far too fast, which is the exact definition of the U.E., which we apply exclusively to liberals. If we're right in doing so, then what does this make Joe Wilson?
While Wilson was right to call out the alien/liar-in-chief for his blatant lies and his provocations of the opponents of 'Obamacare,' Joe Wilson and his RINO colleagues ought to be severly reprimanded for passing themselves off as conservatives, which they're clearly not. But then again, Wilson and his RINO colleagues very likely don't have a clue about what conservatism and its fountainhead is in the first place. In the unlikely event that they do understand what conservatism is, they obviously disagree with it. They have, in other words, the form of conservatism but deny the power thereof.
What, then, is the solution to this rampant problem of non-conservative, non-Republican Republicanism, which is epitomized in the former RINO Arlen Specter? To be quite honest I don't rightly know, except to say that a return to Balanced Constitutional Government, whereby destructive liberal progressivism attempting to pass itself off as something else -- conservatism -- would be more easily recognizable and thus manageable, is essential. But any genuine "conservative" position on nationalized healthcare must begin with the premise that centralized healthcare is not only constitutionally inconsistent, it is, in point of fact, self-destructive and unAmerican if the objective is in fact "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" through the creation and maintenance of a "more perfect Union." Of course, many of us know perfectly well by now that this is not the objective of Congressional Democrats OR Republicans, who are all (admitting as always the occasional exception) demagogues well versed in paying an obsequious court to the People. Meanwhile they systematically do everything in their power to destroy the Peoples' lives, their liberties and the means of their wealth.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Unfortunately I wasn't able to attend this year's march-on-Washington TEA rally, nor was I able to attend our local TEA rally held in conjunction due to another pre-scheduled obligation. Indeed, I wasn't even able to watch the historic event on television, but I did get a call from Dad on my cell while en route to our event who said to me "this is big, big!"
Our friend, Rick Darby, files this report from the frontlines. I particularly liked the message on the sign a woman carried filed in Rick's report:
One woman bore a sign that said, "Don't make me come back here next year."
I won't lie to you and say that I ever had more than a passing notion to be in attendance at this year's Washington TEA Rally, but I will say this -- I'm setting aside time right now to be in attendance at the next one. Indeed, I know a lot of people who know a lot of people who know a lot of people, and so on. And while I'm not nearly the 'community organizer' that it seems Hussein was in his prime, I think I can help put together a fairly sizeable bus tour for next year's event should it come to that, which I'm fairly certain it will. And there's no time like the present to get started on it.
Anyway, thanks to Rick for taking the time and effort, and shouldering the expense of traveling to Washington for this historic event. And thanks, Rick, for filing your report. Catch ya on the flipside.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Sorry I couldn't post a shorter version, but, you see, the shorter versions I checked are of lesser video quality. In any event, watch Nancy Pelosi's reaction to Rep. Wilson's outburst at around 2:20 of the video. Is that the feared "look" that we so often hear about? You couldn't have elicited a better expression of outrage had Nancy bore Hussein her insignificant self. But then again, maybe she did, who knows?
Thursday, September 10, 2009
In a short column written for the Washington Post, Ezra Klein explains why the Town Halls during the Congressional break are likely not to effect the final outcome of the health care debate which he considers something of a foregone conclusion. In other words, says he, Congress is most likely going to pass the health care bill, and the alien-in-chief is, of course, going to sign it into law. This in spite of all the opposition fireworks we saw at tht Town Halls last month.
Klein's take on the matter is almost identical to my own, which I've expressed here and elsewhere a number of times over the past months since the health care debate was first initiated in Congress. My perspective on this issue is a pretty simple one -- Democrats, who currently hold a clear super majority in the House, and a not so clear but nontheless large majority in the Senate, have been chomping at the bit since they lost their majorities back in 1992, waiting for the moment they would regain power enough to push their socialist agenda through without serious opposition.
I'm not much of a candy eater myself and never have been, but I'm reminded here of when I was in basic military training. For about the first two and a half to three weeks of basic training, my comrades and I were all deprived of, among other things that before we'd taken for granted, access to any kind of candies and soda pops. When we were finally let out onto the break area for an hour one evening, well, I must have eaten about six candy bars and drank about as many pops. Again, I've never liked candy very much, but the idea that I had been denied access to it for upwards of two and half weeks drove me to injest as much of it as I could while I could for fear I might not get another chance, or that it might be long in coming. I think that's similar to what's happening here. If you give them free reign, or virtual free reign, if but for a couple of hours, so to speak, the Democrats and the RINOs in both houses of Congress are almost sure to take full advantage of it, and damn the consequences, really. Like myself at that youthful age, they're very much immature and display a real lack of self control (not to mention common sense). Indeed, I would say that our word for the 'Gamers' -- "Arrested Adolescents" -- applies in this case as well. On the other hand, Mr. Klein and I could both be completely wrong about this, not about the immaturity and hell-bent attitude on display in the U.S. Congress, but about the ultimate passage of the health care bill. I don't think so (that we're wrong), but there is that remote possibility. We shall see in due time.
Klein's article is posted beneath the fold. (H/T: VFR)
The State of Health-Care Reform
The research seems pretty convincing that impressive speeches don't do much to transform the dynamics of presidential approval. But then, tonight's speech doesn't need to do much. And it doesn't need to do much because health-care reform is in pretty good shape. Bills have now passed four of the five relevant committees. The outlier committee, the Senate Finance Committee, is circulating its outline and seems likely to pass a bill within the next week or so.
At that point, the bills will go to the floor of the House and Senate, where passage isn't certain but seems pretty likely. And once the bills pass the House and the Senate, final passage of the conference report (the merged bill) is a good bet. And the president's signature is then a sure thing.
That's the context for Obama's speech: It's sort of health-care reform's version of the State of the Union. And the State of the Process is strong: The legislative politics of health care are in considerably better shape than August would have suggested or the ongoing coverage has really articulated (in part because the Finance Committee was gummed up until this week).
Obama's job, then, isn't all that difficult: It's bringing public perceptions of the health reform process closer in line with the underlying reality. And that underlying reality is that the bills are fundamentally pretty similar, there's a fairly high level of consensus, and there are some crucial elements that need to be worked out over the next few weeks, and seem like they will be. The town halls made health-care reform seem chaotic and incomprehensible and disorderly, but at the moment, it's really anything but. In fact, it's closer to agreement than it ever has been before.
Monday, September 7, 2009
In connection to our discussion on 'game', I was reminded of an interview I saw several years back on Fox News with the arrested adolescent, militant, foul-mouthed punk Mike Tyson. The name of the female interviewer somehow escapes me, but Tyson's description of women as "hos" (among other inappropriate terms) and his certifiable behavior in that particular interview does not.
Anyway, I want to post the video of the interview. Does anyone recall the name of the female (former) Fox News Reporter, that conducted it?
Sunday, September 6, 2009
In connection with the preceding post, I'm not endorsing everything that Dr. Keyes says on a given subject. Particularly, in this case, his remarks concerning desegregation and school integration. But on this issue of Hussein's eligibility we're definitely on the same page.
I don't like the guy, I don't have to like the guy, I'm not going to like the guy." -Bob Beckel on G.W. Bush
Actually, that's probably not an exact quote, but it's close enough. I did a quickie google search for it, but couldn't find it in the allotted time. Anyway, he said it, trust me.
Allow me to say the same as an expression of my personal opinion of the Alien-in-Chief Hussein Obama. I would say more, but it wouldn't be appropriate for a G-rated blog.
Hey!, it's (somewhat of) a free country still!
I haven't read all of the articles collected under this entry, not to mention the outside articles linked up under certain titles, and I didn't really involve myself in the debate at all, though I thought it was interesting, albeit disturbing in certain respects. I did send Auster a couple of emails on the subject, however, one in which I seconded his description of the 'Gamers' as "these kids", saying that I thought that description pretty well summed it all up and going on to explain how a real dominant male (something these man-children (male adolescents trapped in a man's body) have apparently never actually been exposed to) such as my dad (among certain other dominant males I've had in my life) would have handled me as a young man had I ever expressed to him the low view of women which seems to be the basis of the gamers' approach to, well, "manhood." Which, and as I explained to Auster, after my dad quite literally hit me so hard that I would have had to unzip to spit, he would have gone on to remind me of all the female loved ones in my life.
To refer to women in general in such offensive, degrading, and dare I say unmanly terms as the gamers use is to refer to my grandmothers, my mother, my sisters, my aunts, my female cousins ... my own wife and daughters in such terms. My dad's way of handling it is the way a real man handles that class of ungovernable punks of which we speak. Let them hope they never meet up with one and mistakenly choose to share their view of women with him. In the first place, they wouldn't know how to recognize a real dominant male, because, as I said, they've unfortunately never been exposed to one. Thus, they don't know when to speak and when to shut up; when to 'let their yeas be yea, and their neas be nea.' But in any event I suspect that about 98% of them, give or take, are just full of sh*t to start with. You can make lemonaide out of a lemon, but you can't make a real man out of an arrested (male) adolescent.
Is this what New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin meant when he said that "If he's (Hussein O.) the man we thought he was, he'll now choose to make peace, before the country concludes he's the mistake."?
Oh wait!, Goodwin was speaking of Hussein's (you know, the man who's so far turned out to be the polar opposite of the the man we all thought he was) nationalized health care scheme, that's right. What we're talking about here is the 'resignation' of one radical Black Communist 'Czar' that he (Hussein O.) appointed to a high level position under the USSA.
The full WND article is posted below the fold.
'Green Jobs Czar' Van Jones resigns
WND's 5-month series of exposés leads to White House's 1st casualty
Posted: September 06, 2009
1:18 am Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's "Green Jobs Czar" Van Jones quit late last night after pressure mounted over his extremist history first exposed in WND.
The last straw for Jones was being caught on tape in an expletive-packed rant, directly attacking Republicans in the Senate who he said abused their majority position in the past to push legislation through. He admitted after the statements were released that the comments were "inappropriate" and "offensive."
"They do not reflect the experience I have had since joining the administration," Jones said in the statement.
Jones was also linked late last week to efforts suggesting a government role in the Sept. 11 terror attacks and to derogatory comments about Republicans.
When the White House press corps grilled White House press secretary Robert Gibbs about Jones on Friday, a reporter asked how the administration could reject "conspiracy theories" about his birth certificate while employing someone who previously charged the U.S. government with masterminding Sept. 11.
Get Glenn Beck's 'Common Sense' ... The case against an out-of-control government: Inspired by Thomas Paine
Gibbs said only that Jones "continues to work in the administration," a non-ringing endorsement that set the stage for his ouster. Jones' name appeared on a petition calling for congressional hearings and other investigations into whether high-level government officials had orchestrated the 9/11attacks.
Jones flatly said in his statement that he did not agree with the petition's stand and that "it certainly does not reflect my views, now or ever."
As for his other comments he made before joining Obama's team, Jones said: "If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize."
In April, Aaron Klein, Jerusalem bureau chief for WND.com, broke the first major story on Jones who was identified as a self-described radical communist and "rowdy black nationalist" who said his environmental activism was actually a means to fight for racial and class "justice."
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Joseph Farah writes at WorldNetDaily concerning the sick revelation about Ted Kennedy and his twisted approach to Chappaquiddick. Farah asks the question in the title of the article, "How sick was Ted Kennedy." Let me answer that:
About as sick as the moral ingrates that elected him to the U.S. Senate time after time after time after time.
Someone wrote once years ago something to the effect of "If Teddy Kennedy is a murderer, a moral ingrate, a drunk, and all the other negative things people say about him, then how is it that he keeps being re-elected to the U.S. Senate?" The answer given went like this: "You've just described his constituency." To which I said, and say, Amen.
Farah concludes his article this way:
And that's all Ted Kennedy ever did with regard to Chappaquiddick – pretend that he was sorry. He was only sorry he got caught. He had no way out. So he threw himself on the mercy of the misguided people of Massachusetts, and they had the bad judgment to accept it and foist him upon the rest of us for far too long.
Well, that's all fine and good, but if we refer to the ingrates who elected Kennedy over and over again in nicey-nice terms like "misguided," and attribute to them nicey-nice conditions as merely displaying poor or "bad judgment," then we're simply not being honest about it. And why? Because we fear that being too brutally honest in a matter that requires brutal honesty in order to get to the root of the problem will earn us some ugly descriptive that we haven't been called already a thousand times before? God forbid!
Anyway, R.I.H. (you can figure it out) Ted Kennedy. I have no doubt that the people of Massachusetts will elect someone in your place just as bad or worse than you ever thought of being. For I very highly doubt that there is any shortage of Ted Kennedys in Massachusetts, and I'm quite certain that there exists no shortage of voters there eager to put them in national political office.
Yes, I know about the case and I support the ongoing efforts to protect this young girl from her father who has apparently threatened to murder her, in accordance with Islamic law (and as has been done before in America), because she is an apostate. But protecting Rifqa from her father, noble as the cause is, does nothing to protect the West from the influence of Islam, which is altogether bad. Let us recall that the whole purpose of CAIR is to empower Muslims in America. As I've pointed out any number of times before, empowering Muslims in America equals disempowering non-Muslims. Because, you see, the whole is exactly equal to the sum of its parts. Let Muslims be empowered in their own homelands. There ain't enough room for us and them on the same continent.
Auster writes about the Rifqa Bary case in this VFR entry, from which I extract the following important passage:
While every effort must be made to protect Rifqa, I cannot refrain from pointing out that as long as the main emotional energies of anti-jihad activists such as Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller go to protecting individual Muslims who are threatened by other Muslims, they are scooping water with a thimble while the sea is pouring through the dikes. The main emphasis of the anti-jihad movement must not be on protecting individuals who are threatened by Islam in the West, but on removing Islam from the West, by stopping and reversing the immigration of Muslims into the West. If your main concern is to protect our society from Islam, then your main agenda must be to stop and reverse the growth of Islam in our society. If your main concern is to protect individuals from Islam, then you will ignore that larger picture and allow our society to continue to be Islamized, and the individuals you want to protect will be lost in any case, along with all the rest of us.