Friday, September 30, 2011

A Real War on the Homefront





A successful sanctuary permits insurgents to move freely and operate on whichever side
offers greater security. In a curious twist of irony, the more successful the Mexican military
becomes in confronting the cartels, the greater likelihood that cartels will take the active
fight into Texas as they compete against each other in the battle to control distribution
territories and corridors
Federal authorities are reluctant to admit to the increasing cross-border campaign by narcoterrorists.
Until lately, denial has been facilitated by a dearth of evidence that an organized
and substantial campaign exists inside Texas. Evidence collected for this report, principally
from Texas border counties, reveals a palpable sense of frustration concerning the
effectiveness of U.S. federal border operations.
Accounts of this violence, both data driven and anecdotal, compiled by federal agencies,
Congressional testimony and the Texas Department of Agriculture underscores the daily
activity and constant threat of a larger presence of narco-terrorists than previously thought.
The Federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not attribute many narco-crimes
to the cartels. Many cross-border crimes are routinely not reported by border farmers and
ranchers due to fear of retribution from cartels.

The cartel’s foot soldiers who fight the tactical battle in Texas are "transnational gang"
members many of whom are drawn from prison gangs such as the Mexican Mafia, Texas
Syndicate, Tango Blast, Barrio Azteca and others that formed in U.S. prisons for selfpreservation
and protection from other gangs. These transnational gangs not only have
continued to expand in Texas and the nation but constitute a very tightly knit network of
cooperation and connectivity that has been growing between prison gangs and Mexican
Fear and anxiety levels among Texas farmers and ranchers have grown enormously during
the past two years. Farmers, ranchers and other citizens in border communities are caught
in the crossfire of escalating cross-border violence resulting in large part from conflicts
between cartels, paramilitary enforcement groups and transnational gangs struggling for
control of key drug and illegal alien smuggling routes into the U.S. from El Paso to
Brownsville. Some Texas farmers and ranchers have even abandoned their livelihoods to
move their families to safer ground.
Living and conducting business in a Texas border county is tantamount to living in a war
zone in which civil authorities, law enforcement agencies as well as citizens are under attack
around the clock. The Rio Grande River offers little solace to the echoes of gunshots and
explosions. News of shootings, murders, kidnappings, beheadings, mass graves and other
acts of violence coming across the border go far beyond any definition of “spillover

At the tactical level of war the cartels seek to gain advantage by exploiting the creases
between U.S. federal and state border agencies, and the separation that exists between
Mexican and American crime-fighting agencies. Border law enforcement and political
officials are the tactical focal point. Sadly, the tactical level is poorly resourced and the most
vulnerable to corruption by cartels. To win the tactical fight the counties must have
augmentation, oversight and close support from operational and strategic forces.
History has shown that a common border offers an enemy sanctuary zone and the
opportunity to expand his battlespace in depth and complexity. Our border with Mexico is
no exception. Criminality spawned in Mexico is spilling over into the United States. Texas is
the tactical close combat zone and frontline in this conflict. Texans have been assaulted by
cross-border gangs and narco-terrorist activities. In response, Texas has been the most
aggressive and creative in confronting the threat of what has come to be a narco-terrorist
military-style campaign being waged against them.
In the United States the operational level of the campaign against cartel terrorism is
manifested at the state. Texas has become critical terrain and operational ground zero in
the cartel’s effort to expand into the United States. Texas has an expansive border with
drug cartels controlling multiple shipping lanes into the state. Texas’ location as the
geographic center of the U.S. allows for easier distribution of drugs and people. In effect,
the fight for control of the border counties along the Rio Grande has become the
operational center of gravity for the cartels and federal, state and local forces that oppose
America’s fight against narco-terrorism, when viewed at the strategic level, takes on the
classic trappings of a real war. Crime, gangs and terrorism have converged in such a way
that they form a collective threat to the national security of the United States. America is
being assaulted not just from across our southern border but from across the hemisphere
and beyond. All of Central and South America have become an interconnected source of
violence and terrorism. Drug cartels exploit porous borders using all the traditional
elements of military force, including command and control, logistics, intelligence,
information operations and the application of increasingly deadly firepower. The intention
is to increasingly bring governments at all levels throughout the Americas under the
influence of international cartels.
During the past two years the state of Texas has become increasingly threatened by the
spread of Mexican cartel organized crime. The threat reflects a change in the strategic
intent of the cartels to move their operations into the United States. In effect, the cartels
seek to create a “sanitary zone” inside the Texas border -- one county deep -- that will
provide sanctuary from Mexican law enforcement and, at the same time, enable the cartels
to transform Texas’ border counties into narcotics transshipment points for continued
transport and distribution into the continental United States. To achieve their objectives the
cartels are relying increasingly on organized gangs to provide expendable and
unaccountable manpower to do their dirty work. These gangs are recruited on the streets of
Texas cities and inside Texas prisons by top-tier gangs who work in conjunction with the

Even Ben Franklin knew

"I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves."– Benjamin Franklin, Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Kosovo War Crimes Witness Found Dead In Germany

Kosovar member of parliament Fatmir Limaj is facing war crimes charges.
Kosovar member of parliament Fatmir Limaj is facing war crimes charges.
September 28, 2011
A European Union official said on September 28 that a key witness in a war crimes trial in Kosovo has been found dead in a park in Germany.

EU rule of law mission spokesman Nicholas Hawton said German police are investigating the death of Agim Zogaj, known as "protected witness X" in the war crimes trial against a former ethnic Albanian rebel commander who is now a senior politician -- Fatmir Limaj.

Hawton gave no further details.

Zogaj had been granted protected witness status in return for his testimony in the Limaj trial.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

The Motherland Project

The Motherland Project[Reparations for Slavery]
Mrs. Sharity Ross-Petit has accepted the position of Director of the Center's Motherland Project. She will work hard to find African American pioneers who want to reestablish their roots in Africa. This will hopefully be the beginning of a large project that will reverse the African scattering. The Center will request grant money from various organizations to fund this worthy project. Generous funding will enable the CPD to provide resettlement assistance and benefits to pioneers who desire to relocate in places like South Africa or Western Africa.
 Anyone interested in this project should please contact Mrs. Sharity Ross-Petit, Director of the CPD's Motherland Project at (301) 792-5810.
.Mrs. Sharity Ross-Petit in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC.

Reparations for Slavery / Repatriation
The Center for Perpetual Diversity supports the idea of reparations for slavery. Millions of Africans were wrongfully taken from their homes in Africa to be enslaved in America. It is our moral obligation to return the descendants of these people, regardless of the cost. If we fail to do so, the cost will be far greater. Simply giving money is not really social justice and will do nothing to stop racism. True reparations for slavery involves correcting the wrong which was done.
One of the Center's goals is to restart a program which was active for several decades prior to the 1860s. This will hopefully be the beginning of a large project which will reverse the African Diaspora similar to the way it was described in the epic novel, White Flight by J. F. Schneider.

A brief history of American repatriation efforts.
The American Colonization Society (ACS) was formed in 1817. It bought land around what is today Liberia. In 1835, unarmed American settlers in Liberia were massacred by native Africans who were upset by disruption of the slave trade which was very profitable for them. But this did not deter the settlers. In 1847, the colony became an independent nation.
The ACS tried to persuade the United States Congress to fund its programs but was never successful. It did manage to get some money from several states. In 1850, Virginia set aside $30,000 per year to help the ACS repatriation effort. During the 1850's, the ACS also received thousands of dollars from Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. By 1867, the ACS had returned more than 13,000 former slaves to Africa. Unfortunately after the Civil War, when many Blacks were anxious to go home, Whites had lost interest in the project. A few million dollars wisely spent at that time would have solved all of our racial problems and made our contribution to world diversity more secure.
Marcus Garvey achieved the most successful attempt at Black independence by a Black leader. Around 1920, Garvey tried to organize such an effort. He established the Universal Negro Improvement Association which was the largest Black political organization at the time with chapters in South America, Africa, the Caribbean and even Europe. He started a passenger ship company called the Black Star Line for the purpose of returning Blacks to their homeland in Africa. Unfortunately America's leaders at that time were just as stupid as they are today. Most white Americans opposed Garvey and his visionary ideas; eventually he was deported.
To contribute to our repatriation effort, send check (payable to Jefferson Tax Fund) to

Center for Perpetual Diversity
PO Box 3151
Gaithersburg, MD 20885-3151
Please write "Repatriation Fund" on the check.

If you want to volunteer to be repatriated or help in another way please email us at:

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

As Federal Crime List Grows, Threshold of Guilt Declines

  • SEPTEMBER 27, 2011
  • As Federal Crime List Grows, Threshold of Guilt Declines

    For centuries, a bedrock principle of criminal law has held that people must know they are doing something wrong before they can be found guilty. The concept is known as mens rea, Latin for a "guilty mind."
    This legal protection is now being eroded as the U.S. federal criminal code dramatically swells. In recent decades, Congress has repeatedly crafted laws that weaken or disregard the notion of criminal intent. Today not only are there thousands more criminal laws than before, but it is easier to fall afoul of them.
    As a result, what once might have been considered simply a mistake is now sometimes punishable by jail time. When the police came to Wade Martin's home in Sitka, Alaska, in 2003, he says he had no idea why. Under an exemption to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, coastal Native Alaskans such as Mr. Martin are allowed to trap and hunt species that others can't. That included the 10 sea otters he had recently sold for $50 apiece.

    The Hunt for Sea Otters

    Joe Buglewicz for The Wall Street Journal
    Wade Martin and Peter Williams scan the waters for sea otters about a mile off the coast of Sitka, Alaska.

    Growth in Federal Criminal Sentences

    See a breakdown of the rise in federal sentences by the type of offense.
    Mr. Martin, 50 years old, readily admitted making the sale. "Then, they told me the buyer wasn't a native," he recalls.
    The law requires that animals sold to non-Native Alaskans be converted into handicrafts. He knew the law, Mr. Martin said, and he had thought the buyer was Native Alaskan.
    He pleaded guilty in 2008. The government didn't have to prove he knew his conduct was illegal, his lawyer told him. They merely had to show he had made the sale.
    "I was thinking, damn, my life's over," Mr. Martin says.
    Federal magistrate Judge John Roberts gave him two years' probation and a $1,000 fine. He told the trapper: "You're responsible for the actions that you take."
    Mr. Martin now asks customers to prove their heritage and residency. "You get real smart after they come to your house and arrest you and make you feel like Charles Manson," he says.
    The U.S. Attorney's office in Alaska didn't respond to requests for comment.
    Back in 1790, the first federal criminal law passed by Congress listed fewer than 20 federal crimes. Today there are an estimated 4,500 crimes in federal statutes, plus thousands more embedded in federal regulations, many of which have been added to the penal code since the 1970s.
    One controversial new law can hold animal-rights activists criminally responsible for protests that cause the target of their attention to be fearful, regardless of the protesters' intentions. Congress passed the law in 2006 with only about a half-dozen of the 535 members voting on it.
    Under English common law principles, most U.S. criminal statutes traditionally required prosecutors not only to prove that defendants committed a bad act, but also that they also had bad intentions. In a theft, don't merely show that the accused took someone's property, but also show that he or she knew it belonged to someone else.
    Over time, lawmakers have devised a sliding scale for different crimes. For instance, a "willful" violation is among the toughest to prove.
    Requiring the government to prove a willful violation is "a big protection for all of us," says Andrew Weissmann, a New York attorney who for a time ran the Justice Department's criminal investigation of Enron Corp. Generally speaking in criminal law, he says, willful means "you have the specific intent to violate the law."
    A lower threshold, attorneys say, involves proving that someone "knowingly" violated the law. It can be easier to fall afoul of the law under these terms.
    In one case, Gary Hancock of Flagstaff, Ariz., was found guilty in 1999 of violating a federal law prohibiting people with a misdemeanor domestic violence record from gun ownership. At the time of his domestic-violence convictions in the early 1990s, the statute didn't exist—but later it was applied to him. He hadn't been told of the new law, and he still owned guns. Mr. Hancock was convicted and sentenced to five years' probation.
    His lawyer, Jane McClellan, says prosecutors "did not have to prove he knew about the law. They only had to prove that he knew he had guns."
    Upholding the conviction, a federal appellate court said that "the requirement of 'knowing' conduct refers to knowledge of possession, rather than knowledge of the legal consequences of possession."
    In 1998, Dane A. Yirkovsky, a Cedar Rapids, Iowa, man with an extensive criminal record, was back in school pursuing a high-school diploma and working as a drywall installer. While doing some remodeling work, Mr. Yirkovsky found a .22 caliber bullet underneath a carpet, according to court documents. He put it in a box in his room, the records show.
    A few months later, local police found the bullet during a search of his apartment. State officials didn't charge him with wrongdoing, but federal officials contended that possessing even one bullet violated a federal law prohibiting felons from having firearms.
    Mr. Yirkovsky pleaded guilty to having the bullet. He received a congressionally mandated 15-year prison sentence, which a federal appeals court upheld but called "an extreme penalty under the facts as presented to this court." Mr. Yirkovsky is due to be released in May 2013.
    Joe Buglewicz for The Wall Street Journal
    Changing laws mean it's easier for a mistake to be treated as a federal crime. Mr. Martin says he learned that firsthand.
    Overall, more than 40% of nonviolent offenses created or amended during two recent Congresses—the 109th and the 111th, the latter of which ran through last year—had "weak" mens rea requirements at best, according to a study conducted by the conservative Heritage Foundation and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. The study, one of the few to examine mens rea, was extended to include the most recent Congress at the request of The Wall Street Journal.
    Earlier this year, Justice Antonin Scalia, in a dissent from a Supreme Court decision upholding a firearms-related conviction, wrote that Congress "puts forth an ever-increasing volume" of imprecise criminal laws and criticized lawmakers for passing too much "fuzzy, leave-the-details-to-be-sorted-out-by-the-courts" legislation.
    Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle worry about the weakening of mens rea. "Over my six years in Congress there have been many times when in discussions with members of Congress I say, 'Look, I know you want to show people how serious you are about crime, but don't put anything on the books that doesn't require criminal intent,'" says Rep. Louie Gohmert, (R., Tex.) a former state judge who wants the federal system reworked.
    In a 2009 Judiciary subcommittee hearing on the growth of federal criminal law, Rep. Bobby Scott (D., Va.)., said that mens rea had long served "an important role in protecting those who do not intend to commit wrongful or criminal acts from prosecution and conviction."
    The growing number of federal laws with weakened mens rea safeguards is making the venerable legal principle that ignorance of the law is no defense a much riskier proposition for people. That principle made sense, says University of Virginia law professor Anne Coughlin, when there were fewer criminal laws, like murder, and most people could be expected to know them.
    But when legislators "criminalize everything under the sun," Ms. Coughlin says, it's unrealistic to expect citizens to be fully informed about the penal code." With reduced intent requirements "suddenly it opens a whole lot of people to being potential violators."
    F. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the House crime subcommittee, said he wants to clean up the definition of criminal intent as part of a broader revamp of the criminal-justice system. There are crimes scattered among 42 of the 51 titles of the federal code, with varying standards of criminal intent. Still others are set by court decisions.
    "How the definition of mens rea is applied is going to be one of the more difficult areas to figure out a way to fix," he said.
    When a humpback whale got tangled in his fishing-boat net in 2008, Robert Eldridge Jr., a commercial fisherman, says he had one overriding thought: free it. He freed the whale, although it swam away with 30 feet of his net still attached.
    A few weeks later, he was charged with harassing an endangered species and a marine mammal. Under federal law, Mr. Eldridge was supposed to contact authorities who would send someone trained to rescue the animal. The law is designed to prevent unskilled people from accidentally injuring or killing a whale while trying to release it.
    Mr. Eldridge says he was fully aware of the federal Marine Animal Disentanglement Hotline for summoning a rescuer. But "it didn't cross my mind to do anything but keep it alive. I thought I was doing the right thing," the Massachusetts fisherman said.
    There were two federal observers aboard his boat that day, performing routine checks, who reported the incident, according to court documents. Mr. Eldridge's potential sentence was one year in jail and a $100,000 fine.
    Mr. Eldridge, 42, pleaded guilty and has a misdemeanor on his record. He was fined $500 and ordered to write a warning letter to other fishermen to look out for whales.
    "I'm just glad it's done," he said of the case.
    Asked for comment, a Justice spokeswoman referred to Mr. Eldridge's guilty plea, in which he admitted knowing the procedure and having the hotline number posted on his boat at the time of the incident.
    The erosion of mens rea is partly due to the "hit or miss" way American legislation gets written today, says Jay Apperson, a former Chief Counsel to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Some lawmakers simply omit criminal-intent provisions when they draft legislation. "Lots of members don't think about it, not out of a malevolent motive," he says. "They just don't think about it."
    Other times they do. In 1994, Congress rewrote part of the anti-money-laundering law that requires any cash transaction above $10,000 to be reported. The Supreme Court had just vacated a conviction, saying the "willful" provision required the government to show that someone knew he was violating the law when not reporting a transaction. In response, Congress took the "willful" provision out of the law.
    An incident from 2002 illustrates the sometimes messy process of drafting legislation. That year, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which set new punishments for white-collar crime following the scandals at Enron, WorldCom and other companies. Several legal experts were about to testify on key provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley before a Senate subcommittee when the chairman called a break in the meeting. The reason: The senators needed to vote on the very provisions the panelists were there to discuss.
    The hearing resumed two hours later, after the provisions were approved 97-0. The witnesses went on to testify about the dangers of weakening criminal-intent standards, as Sarbanes-Oxley did.
    "That slapdash approach to drafting was pretty rife throughout the period," said Frank Bowman, a University of Missouri law-school professor who advised the Senate Judiciary Committee during the bill's creation.
    Among other things, the new law made it easier for prosecutors to bring obstruction-of-justice cases related to destruction of evidence. Under earlier law, prosecutors had to show the defendant's destruction of evidence was impeding an active investigation. Sarbanes-Oxley broadened that, prohibiting the destruction of material that might be part of any future investigation.
    One of the witnesses that day, former deputy attorney Gen. George Terwilliger, says that, "In retrospect, the hearing must have been about: Is what we just voted on a good idea?"
    Write to Gary Fields at and John R. Emshwiller at

    Turkish Prime Minister claims Israel uses Holocaust as excuse

    Turkish Prime Minister claims Israel uses Holocaust as excuse

    The JEWS have made an industry out of being "victims" and have never missed an oppurtunity to rationalize their own bad behavior (war crimes) by their supposed "victimhood". The Jews do not have a monopoly on suffering, despite what a the Jew controlled media would have you think. And finally the rest of the world  is tiring of their "woe is me" bull$#!t ! To use an analogy, If a drunk managed to get himself kicked out of 109 bars for pulling the same sort of crap at each bar, would we say "Oh the poor poor misunderstood drunk!" ... "if only the  mean ol bars would  just quit picking on him and treat him like he is chosen by God...."   OR would we finally say that  drunk jack ass  has gotten kicked out of 109  bars for pulling the same  crap over and over and over again?

    Recep Tayyip Erdogan
    Holocaust survivors have reacted furiously to comments by the Turkish Prime Minister suggesting that Israel uses the Holocaust as an excuse to kill Palestinians.
    The Israeli Prime Minister also condemned Recep Tayyip Erdogan for his remarks, made during an appearance on Turkish television.

    Mr Erdogan said Israelis act "as if they are the victims all the time." He also denied that there were accurate numbers for casualties in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and claimed that "hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were killed" while only 200 Israelis were.
    Relations between Israel and Turkey have deteriorated in the past year following the clash on the Gaza-bound flotilla in May 2010 and at the beginning of September this year Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador.

    Benjamin Netanyahu described what was said as "outrageous charges against Israel that have nothing to do with the facts".

    "We don't use the Holocaust," he said. "The Holocaust was the worst crime in history perpetuated against our people."

    Elan Steinberg, the vice-president of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants demanded that Mr Erdogan apologise to those he "so cavalierly offended".
    He said: "Holocaust survivors are indignant at the morally obscene manner in which he has sought to instrumentalise the tragedy of the Holocaust for crass political aims."
    Noting that Mr Erdogan visited Yad Vashem in 2005, he added: "We who suffered the brutalities of the Nazi regime are pained by the continued exploitation by politicians who twist our mass tragedy for the narrow self-promotion of their political agenda."



    Mark LaVelle sits outside his house with twins Mark (left) and Mason. (Steven M. Falk/Staff)
    Mark LaVelle sits outside his house with twins Mark (left) and Mason. (Steven M. Falk/Staff)

    Chased home: Mob attacks man in his house

    This story was updated at 11 a.m. Tuesday, Sept. 27.
    ABOUT 11 P.M. on Sept. 9, dozens of youths with bats and pipes descended on a tidy residential area of Port Richmond looking for white teens who allegedly had attacked an African-American kid at Stokely Playground a couple of hours earlier.
    Two fearful white teens spotted Mark LaVelle on Indiana Avenue near Belgrade Street and asked for help. Suddenly, the mob appeared. LaVelle, who said that he didn't know the two kids, who looked to be 13 or 14, ran with them into his nearby house.
    " 'We got you, you white mother-------!' " LaVelle said he heard someone yell in the "mob" of black and Hispanic youths.
    Inside his house, LaVelle, 37, called to his wife, Kim, 30, to go to their bedroom with their twin 13-month-old boys, Mark and Mason, and to call police. He also ordered his two other sons, 11 and 17, and his nephew, 7, to stay upstairs.
    With the two teens hiding in the house, LaVelle, 5 feet 10, 220 pounds, a well-known sports-league organizer and coach in the community, went outside to try to calm the angry mob.
    They were standing on his steps. One shouted, " 'Something's going to happen now!' " LaVelle recalled in an interview Friday at his house. LaVelle got nervous and went back inside, locking his door with a deadbolt.
    But the attackers pounded on his front windows and kicked his wooden door so hard, it flew open and some of them entered his house.
    "The first guy hits me with a pipe. The second guy knocks me in the face. All I'm hearing is my wife and kids screaming," said LaVelle, who feared that the next time they saw him, he would be in a casket.
    He said that he was able to push the attackers out the door, but then a third man - who had a gun - tried to extend his arm. LaVelle grabbed onto the gunman's lower arm and shoulder so he couldn't raise the weapon. Then, police sirens screamed in the neighborhood, and the mob turned and ran.
    LaVelle was able to identify three of the people from the melee. He said he did not know if they had been chasing the white teenagers, or if they were just trying to find someone to attack.
    Police arrested Bergson Morin, 21, of Rosehill Street near Wyoming Avenue, Feltonville, as the man with the gun. They arrested Enrique Delgado, 32, of Rockland and C streets, Feltonville, as the man who hit LaVelle with the pipe. And they arrested a 17-year-old juvenile as the one who punched LaVelle in the face, giving him a black eye.
    LaVelle said that the next day the mother of the juvenile came back with some other people, banging on his door, screaming. LaVelle, who was at a charity sports event, was called back to the house by one of his sons.
    When he got home, LaVelle said, the mother yelled at him, " 'You white mother------, you got my kid locked up! You got my son locked up because he's black, you're white!' " The mother claimed that her son had been "a witness," not an attacker. To that, LaVelle said if that were true, it would come out in court.
    But the mother, according to LaVelle, then yelled: " 'If you make it to court! I know where you live!' "
    Police public affairs could not confirm yesterday if the mother has been arrested for making threats.
    Patty-Pat Kozlowski, president of the Port Richmond on Patrol and Civic Association, said that police told her that the attack on LaVelle stemmed from the incident at Stokely Playground, Indiana Avenue and Thompson Street, a few blocks from LaVelle's house.
    She heard that an African-American "kid got knocked off his bike or fell off" and white kids were laughing at him. The group of African-Americans and Hispanics came back for retaliation, Kozlowski believes.
    She said she didn't know any of the people involved in the playground incident or in the attack on LaVelle. LaVelle said he also did not know anyone involved.
    Morin and Delgado, who face charges of aggravated assault, conspiracy, burglary, weapons and related offenses, were scheduled to face a preliminary hearing in Municipal Court today, but the hearing got postponed to Nov. 7. Delgado, who is in state prison, was not brought down to the city. Also, both defense attorneys requested a lineup in the case, which the judge granted. Morin is in custody in county prison. Their family members could not be reached for comment Monday.
    Freddy Godoy, Delgado's attorney, said yesterday that someone Delgado knows "was probably related to the child" who was attacked in the playground. But he contends that Delgado was not one of the people who attacked LaVelle.
    Richard Patton, Morin's attorney, declined comment yesterday.
    Kozlowski, a legislative aide to City Councilwoman Joan Krajewski and a lifelong Port Richmond resident, wrote about the attack in The Spirit community newspaper, which serves the river wards. Since then, the story has created a lot of buzz in the predominantly white neighborhood.
    Kozlowski and Maryann Trombetta, president of the Port Richmond Town Watch, both recalled the murder of Sean Daily, a white teen who was beaten and shot by bat-wielding youths, mostly Latino, in May 1989.
    They don't believe that the attack on LaVelle started as a racial incident, but believe that there was a racial element to it when the mob "called him a white mother------" and when the juvenile's mother allegedly threatened LaVelle.
    LaVelle, who runs sports leagues composed of youths and adults of different races, said he doesn't want any retaliation on the people who attacked him. But the attack has instilled fear in him and his family, and he hopes that there will be more of a police presence in the neighborhood.
    His wife is afraid to stay at home, and "every time I hear a car, I'm looking out the door," he said.
    "It's not a good way to live."

    Monday, September 26, 2011

    Rick Perry dances for his BOSSES (the ZOG puppet masters) ... Literally


    Rick Perry's Israel stance: A 'gift to Islamic extremists'?

    Perry says he has a Christian duty to help Israel — but will that only convince Arabs that Islam is under attack from a "Christian-Jewish alliance"?

    Republican presidential frontrunner Rick Perry publicly supported Israel during a speech Tuesday, but couched his support as an extension of his Christian faith.
    Republican presidential frontrunner Rick Perry publicly supported Israel during a speech Tuesday, but couched his support as an extension of his Christian faith. Photo: REUTERS/Eric Thayer SEE ALL 31 PHOTOS
    Best Opinion:  Tablet, Outside the Beltway, Wash. Post
    On Tuesday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) pledged his ardent support for Israel in a speech to Jewish leaders in New York. That's business as usual for a presidential candidate, says William Saletan in Slate, but Perry made a "stupid and dangerous" blunder when he added: "I also, as a Christian, have a clear directive to support Israel." That's new, and it's a "gift to Islamic extremists," Saletan argues. "By framing U.S. foreign policy in terms of a religious alliance between Christians and Jews, Perry is validating the propaganda of Islamic extremists. He's jeopardizing peace, Israel, and the United States." Is Saletan right?
    People are making too much of the remark: "I wouldn’t put too much stock" in Perry's "as a Christian" remark, says Marc Tracy in Tablet. He was responding to a leading question from an audience member, and, while he clearly believes that his faith directs him to support Israel, the broader thrust of his comments was a relatively uncontroversial reiteration of the broader moral and strategic reasons the U.S. considers Israel an important friend.
    Perry's comment is "odd and alarming": "Saletan's alarm may be just a bit over-stated," says Doug Mataconis in Outside the Beltway. After all, Perry isn't president yet, and if he is elected, he'll be surrounded by a host of advisers warning him how "insane" it is to turn "American policy in the most volatile part of the world into some kind of religious crusade." Let's hope Perry is just making "a fairly naked play for Jewish support."
    Perry wasn't courting Jewish voters: Actually, Perry's "explicit religious appeal is the sort of comment that could displease Jewish voters," says Rachel Weiner in The Washington Post. But you don't win the GOP nomination with Jewish votes — you win with evangelical Christians, "many of whom support Zionism for their own religious reasons" that Jewish backers of Israel probably wouldn't appreciate. Perry's "outspoken defense of Israel will only endear him more to those voters."

    Sunday, September 25, 2011

    Immigration, the Republicans, and the End of White America

    Immigration, the Republicans, and the End of White America

    More news stories on the Demographic Transformation

    Ron Unz, The American Conservative, September 21, 2011
    Last June the U.S. Census disclosed that non-white births in America were on the verge of surpassing the white total and might do so as early as the end of this year. Such an event marks an unprecedented racial watershed in American history. Over the last few years, various demographic projections from governmental agency and independent analysts have provided somewhat fluctuating estimates of the date—perhaps 2042 or 2037 or 2050—at which White Americans will become a minority! T

    his represents a remarkable, almost unimaginable, demographic change from our country of the early 1960s, when whites accounted for over 85 percent of the population and seemed likely to remain at that level indefinitely.
    Many years of heavy foreign immigration have been the crucial element driving this transformation, but even if all immigration—legal and illegal—were halted tomorrow and the border completely sealed, these demographic trends would continue, although at a much slower pace. Today, the median age of American whites is over 40, putting most of them past their prime child-bearing years. Meanwhile, America’s largest minority group, the rapidly growing population of Hispanics, has a median age in the mid-20s, near the peak of family formation and growth, while both Asians and blacks are also considerably younger than whites. In fact, since 1995 births rather than immigration have been the largest factor behind the near doubling of America’s Hispanic population.
    As in most matters, public perceptions of America’s racial reality are overwhelmingly shaped by the images absorbed from the national media and Hollywood, whether these are realistic or not. For example, over the last generation the massive surge in black visibility in sports, movies, and TV has led to the widespread perception of a similarly huge growth in the black fraction of the population, which, according to Gallup, most people now reckon stands at 33 percent or so of the national total. Yet this is entirely incorrect. During the last hundred-plus years, American blacks have seen their share of the population fluctuate by merely a percentage point or two, going from 11.6 percent in 1900 to 12.6 percent in 2010. By contrast, five decades of immigration have caused Asian Americans—relatively ignored by the news, sports, and entertainment industries—to increase from 0.5 percent in 1960 to 5 percent today, following the fifteen-fold rise in their numbers which has established them as America’s most rapidly growing racial group, albeit from a small initial base.
    These national changes in racial distribution have been quite uneven and geographically skewed, with some parts of the country leading and others lagging. For example, during the 1970s when I was a teenager growing up in the Los Angeles area, that city and the surrounding sprawl of Southern California constituted America’s whitest region, about the only large urban agglomeration whose racial character approximated that of the country as a whole—around 85 percent white—and my own San Fernando Valley area in particular exemplified the popular image of suburban picket fences and lighthearted “Leave It to Beaver” family comedies. Yet during the two decades that followed, Southern California underwent an enormous immigration-driven demographic transformation, creating a new Los Angeles which was almost 80 percent non-white and a surrounding region in which whites no longer held even a mere plurality.
    This sweeping racial shift, involving the movement or displacement of over ten million people, might easily rank as the largest in the peacetime history of the world and is probably matched by just a handful of the greatest population changes brought about by war. The racial transformation in America’s national population may be without precedent in human history.
    Republicans as the White Party
    It is a commonplace that politics in America is heavily influenced by race, and these enormous demographic changes since 1965 have certainly not gone unnoticed within the political world. For decades, white voters have tended to lean Republican while non-whites have been strongly Democratic, so the swiftly falling ratio of the former to the latter has become a source of major concern, even alarm, within the top ranks of the GOP, which received a sharp wake-up call when gigantic California, traditionally one of the most reliably Republican states, suddenly became one of the most reliably Democratic.
    During the mid-1990s there was a powerful strain of thought within conservative and Republican circles that the best means of coping with this looming political problem was to reduce or even halt the foreign immigration that was driving it. But after several years of bitter internal conflict, this anti-immigrationist faction lost out almost completely to the pro-immigrationist camp, which was backed by the powerful business lobby. As a result, the Republican Party mantra became one of embracing “diversity” rather than resisting it and focused on increasing the Republican share of the growing non-white vote. Former President George W. Bush, strategist Karl Rove, and Sen. John McCain have been the most prominent advocates of this perspective.
    Rove invested huge resources in maximizing Bush’s Hispanic numbers in 1998 during his easy Texas gubernatorial reelection campaign and achieved considerable success, persuading some 40 percent or more of local Hispanics to vote the Republican ticket that year, a major shift of political loyalties. This later allowed him to tout his candidate’s excellent Hispanic rapport in national GOP circles, which was an important factor in gaining him the presidential nomination in 2000. Although Bush’s national Hispanic totals were much less impressive in the 2000 race, and the vast funds he invested in a quixotic attempt to carry California were totally wasted, Rove and his allies redoubled their efforts during the 2004 reelection campaign, and buoyed by the continuing patriotic aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, largely succeeded. Although the percentages have been much disputed, Bush seems to have carried somewhat over 40 percent of the Hispanic vote nationwide in 2004, although he was once again trounced in California.
    • • •
    Part of the Bush/Rove political strategy was to take a leading role in passing a sweeping immigration-reform measure, aimed at legalizing the status of many millions of (overwhelmingly Hispanic) illegal immigrants, easing the restrictions on future legal immigration, while also tightening border enforcement. Leaving aside policy matters, the political theory was simple: if the Republican Party changed the laws to benefit Hispanic and other immigrants, these groups and their children would be more likely to vote Republican, thereby helping to solve the GOP’s demographic dilemma. Rove endlessly pointed to 40 percent as the necessary GOP level of future Hispanic support—score above that number and political victory was likely, score much below it and defeat was nearly assured. Although this precise quantitative target was obviously intended for rhetorical effect, it does seem to represent the dominant strain in conservative thinking, namely the need to combine a strong white vote with a solid minority of Hispanics and Asians, thereby allowing the Republicans to survive and win races in an increasingly non-white America. (Meanwhile decades of fruitless efforts to attract a significant share of the black vote would be quietly abandoned.)
    But does this political strategy actually make any sense? Or are there far more effective and more plausible paths to continued Republican political success? Although almost totally marginalized within Republican establishment ranks, the anti-immigrationist wing of the conservative movement has maintained a vigorous intellectual presence on the Internet. Over the years, its flagship organ, the website run by Peter Brimelow, a former National Review senior editor, has been scathing in its attacks on the so-called Rove Strategy, instead proposing a contrasting approach christened the Sailer Strategy, after Steve Sailer, its primary architect and leading promoter (who has himself frequently written for The American Conservative). In essence, what Sailer proposes is the polar opposite of Rove’s approach, which he often ridicules as being based on a mixture of (probably dishonest) wishful thinking and sheer innumeracy.
    Consider, for example, Rove’s oft-repeated mantra that a Republican presidential candidate needs to win something approaching 40 percent of the national Hispanic vote or have no chance of reaching the White House. During the last several election cycles, Hispanic voters represented between 5 and 8 percent of the national total, so the difference between a candidate winning an outstanding 50 percent of that vote and one winning a miserable 30 percent would amount to little more than just a single percentage point of the popular total, completely insignificant based on recent history. Furthermore, presidential races are determined by the electoral college map rather than popular-vote totals, and the overwhelming majority of Hispanics are concentrated either in solidly blue states such as California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey, or solidly red ones such as Texas and Georgia, reducing their impact to almost nothing. Any Republican fearful of a loss in Texas or Democrat worried about carrying California would be facing a national defeat of epic proportions, in which Hispanic preferences would constitute a trivial component. Pursuing the Hispanic vote for its own sake seems a clear absurdity.
    Even more importantly, Sailer argues that once we throw overboard the restrictive blinkers of modern “political correctness” on racial matters, certain aspects of the real world become obvious. For nearly the last half-century, the political core of the Republican Party has been the white vote, and especially the votes of whites who live in the most heavily non-white states, notably the arc of the old Confederacy. The political realignment of Southern whites foreshadowed by the support that Barry Goldwater attracted in 1964 based on his opposition to the Civil Rights Act and that constituted George Wallace’s white-backlash campaign of 1968 eventually became a central pillar of the dominant Reagan majority in the 1980s.
    In many cases, this was even true outside the Deep South, as the blue-collar whites of Macomb County and other areas surrounding overwhelmingly black cities such as Detroit became the blue-collar Reagan Democrats who gave the GOP a near lock on the presidency. While the politics of racial polarization might be demonized in liberal intellectual circles, it served to elect vast numbers of Republicans to high and low office alike. George H.W. Bush’s “Willie Horton” ad and Jesse Helms’s “White Hands” ad have been endlessly vilified by the media, but they contributed to unexpected come-from-behind victories for the candidates willing to run them. And in politics, winning is the only metric of success.
    Sailer suggests that a very similar approach would work equally well with regard to the hot-button issue of immigration and the rapidly growing Hispanic population, arguing that the votes of this group could be swamped by those of an angry white electorate energized along racial lines. He cites Pete Wilson’s unexpected California gubernatorial reelection victory in 1994 as a perfect example. Deeply unpopular due to a severe statewide recession and desperately behind in the polls, Wilson hitched his candidacy to a harsh media campaign vilifying illegal immigrants, and although his Hispanic support plummeted, his white support soared to an equal extent, giving him a landslide victory in a race the pundits had written off and sweeping in a full slate of victorious down-ticket Republicans. Sailer’s simple point is that individual white votes count just as much as Hispanic ones, and since there are vastly more of the former, attracting these with racially-charged campaign themes might prove very politically productive.
    An additional fact noted by Sailer is that the racial demographics of a given region can be completely misleading from a political perspective. As mentioned earlier, Hispanics and other immigrants tend to be much younger than whites and much less likely to hold citizenship. Therefore, a state or region in which whites have become a numerical minority may still possess a large white supermajority among the electorate. Once again, today’s California provides a telling example, with Hispanics and whites now being about equal in numbers according to the Census, but with whites still regularly casting three times as many votes on Election Day.
    The Sailer analysis is ruthlessly logical. Whites are still the overwhelming majority of voters, and will remain so for many decades to come, so raising your share of the white vote by just a couple of points has much more political impact than huge shifts in the non-white vote. As whites become a smaller and smaller portion of the local population in more and more regions, they will naturally become ripe for political polarization based on appeals to their interests as whites. And if Republicans focus their campaigning on racially charged issues such as immigration and affirmative action, they will promote this polarization, gradually transforming the two national political parties into crude proxies for direct racial interests, effectively becoming the “white party” and the “non-white party.” Since white voters are still close to 80 percent of the national electorate, the “white party”—the Republicans—will end up controlling almost all political power and could enact whatever policies they desired, on both racial and non-racial issues.
    • • •
    Many might find this political scenario quite distasteful or unnerving, but that does not necessarily render it implausible. In fact, over the last couple of decades, this exact process has unfolded in many states across the Deep South, with elected white Democrats becoming an increasingly endangered species. Each election year, blacks overwhelmingly vote for the “black party,” whites overwhelmingly vote for the “white party,” and since whites are usually two-thirds or so of the electorate, they almost invariably win at the polls. Although Republican consultants and pundits make enormous efforts to camouflage or ignore this underlying racial reality, it exists nonetheless.
    By contrast, appeals for white support based on racial cohesion would be almost total nonstarters in 95 percent white Vermont or New Hampshire, or in many other states of the North in which the local demographics still approximate those of the country that overwhelmingly supported the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s. But today’s national white percentages are much closer to those of 1960s Alabama and Mississippi, where whites fought that legislation tooth and nail on racial grounds. And as the nation’s overall demography continues its inexorable slide from that of Vermont to that of Mississippi, will white politics move in that same direction, especially if given a push?
    Now I think a strong case can be made that such a process of deliberate racial polarization in American politics might have numerous adverse consequences for the future well-being of our country, sharply divided as it would become between hostile white and non-white political blocs of roughly equal size. But given the extremely utilitarian mentality of those who practice electoral politics for a living, the more important question we should explore is whether it would actually work, purely on the political level. Might this strategy of racial polarization be applicable across the country as a whole?
    Non-Whites and Blacks
    Consider an interesting datapoint. It is certainly true that the over the last century those states with the smallest white majorities have generally had names like Mississippi, South Carolina, and Alabama, and these have exhibited a very distinctive brand of white politics and race relations. But the least white state of all has actually projected a very different cultural image.
    Whites were a minority in Hawaii at the time of statehood and have always been so, with the relative numbers of whites and Asians shifting somewhat based upon the various flows of migrants. Furthermore, the original white colonists and plantation elites historically had had a quite conflicted relationship both with the Native Hawaiian population whose leadership they supplanted and also with the large numbers of Japanese, Chinese, and other Asian workers originally imported as impoverished plantation laborers.
    Yet although the local Republican Party has generally skewed toward the 25 percent of the population that is white, while the Democrats have been more popular among the majority Asians, the state’s reputation has overwhelmingly been one of easygoing race relations, a high degree of intermarriage, and a complete lack of vicious political conflict. Ideologically, Hawaii’s white minority seems to think and vote much more like the racially liberal residents of 95 percent white Vermont than as members of a racially polarized minority bloc, locked in endless political struggle with its non-white opponents.
    Perhaps Hawaii is just a unique case, being a chain of small tropical islands located thousands of miles off the mainland and heavily dependent upon tourism for its economy. But there is an additional example. After Hawaii, the state with the next lowest white percentage throughout most of the 20th century was New Mexico, with the number of whites fluctuating at around half the total depending upon the ebbs and flows of the white and Hispanic populations, before eventually falling to 40 percent in 2010.
    And although New Mexico hardly possesses Hawaii’s enormously positive social image—it is mostly rural with a small economy—it has also never developed the reputation of being a boiling racial cauldron, with whites and Hispanics locked in a bitter battle for power. Mention “New Mexico” and the popular images that spring to mind probably revolve around UFOs, vistas of great natural beauty, and government research laboratories, not longstanding racial conflict.
    These examples lead to the suspicion that the history of bitter racial politics across most of the Deep South may represent less a conflict of white vs. non-white than one of white vs. black, and this seems quite plausible. After all, slavery and its legacy have for centuries constituted the deepest wound in American society, provoking a bloody Civil War which cost the lives of almost one third of all white Southern men of military age. The history of black/white racial relations is arguably the single most significant element in American political history, so we should hardly be surprised if it continues to heavily influence the politics of numerous states and cities, including those outside the South.
    By contrast, although relations between whites and various other groups—Asians, Hispanics, and American Indians—have sometimes been hostile or even violent, these conflicts have never been nearly as long nor intense and are more like the often contentious relationships between various white ethnic groups. As our schoolbooks endlessly emphasize, black/white relations do indeed constitute a unique aspect of American history.
    • • •
    These alternate hypotheses about the underlying sources of white political behavior may be explored empirically by examining the electoral data across the 50 states. Like it or not, today’s Republican Party does indeed constitute the “white party,” drawing almost all of its national votes from whites, while the Democratic Party serves as the “mixed party,” with roughly comparable support from whites and non-whites. Therefore, white support for Republicans, particularly at the national level, may serve as a reasonable proxy for a state’s apparent degree of “white racial consciousness,” whether implicit or explicit.
    Under the “Sailer Hypothesis,” white alignment with the Republicans should be heavily influenced by the white share of the population, with the residents of lily-white states exhibiting little racial consciousness, while those living in states in which whites have slender or non-existent majorities would tilt much more heavily Republican. A second possibility to consider might be called the “Hispanic Hypothesis,” in which the heavy influx of Hispanic immigrants, both legal and illegal, pushes whites toward the harder-line Republicans; since the vast majority of today’s Hispanics come from a relatively recent immigrant background, a state’s overall Hispanic population can be used as a good approximation for this independent variable. Finally, there is the “Black Hypothesis,” in which the long history of black/white racial conflict is assumed to be the primary factor, and the percentage of blacks in the local population is what generally influences white political behavior.
    For the sake of simplicity and to minimize the confounding impact of local political issues and personalities, the easiest output variable to examine would be the percentage of the white vote that supported the Republican presidential ticket over the last 20 years. On a population-weighted basis, the correlation results for elections from 1992 through 2008 across the 50 states are as shown in the chart below.


    The results seem conclusive. The correlations between the Hispanic percentage of each state and white voter preferences are approximately zero for all presidential elections, implying that the presence of large Hispanic populations appears to have virtually no impact upon white political alignment, either one way or the other.
    By contrast, the evidence for apparent black/white racial conflict being the driving force that prompts whites to vote Republican seems very strong: the correlations between the size of the black population and the degree of white GOP support range from 0.43 to 0.70, with a mean of 0.55, being both quite substantial and very consistent over time.
    The data regarding the “Sailer Hypothesis” is bit more interesting, with the correlations between a state’s overall non-white percentage and white Republican alignment being small but noticeable, ranging between 0.14 and 0.31, with a mean of 0.20. However, we must remember that a considerable fraction of America’s non-whites are blacks, with the ratio declining from around half in 1992 to about one-third by 2008, and obviously the strong black correlations impact the non-white result. In fact, the Sailer Hypothesis curve closely tracks the weighted average of the Hispanic and Black Hypothesis curves, the difference being mostly due to America’s small but growing Asian population. Thus, any “Sailer Effect” in white voting patterns appears almost entirely due to the black portion of the non-white population and is therefore merely a statistical artifact.
    [Editor’s Note: Be sure to view the original article to read the remainder of this piece.]