Racially integrated mobs (with no white, Asian or Hispanic members)

“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon” — Race Baiter in Chief

by Don Hank

Ever since about the time of the Trayvon Martin incident, I have been receiving regular, roughly daily, forwarded reports of unprovoked attacks by mobs of  “young people” all around the US. A visitor from another planet would certainly infer from these reports that young people are a dangerous mutant subspecies of human and need to be monitored and strictly disciplined.

That’s because the mainstream media almost never identify racially homogeneous mobs by race unless they are white. They pretend the mobs are diverse, thinking, I suppose, that if they don’t identify the problem, it will simply go away.

By this logic, Hitler was an international citizen, not a German. Mussolini was a man without a country. Al Capone was an international business man, not a member of the Italian mafia. Pablo Escobar was a successful American merchant, not a member of the Medellin cartel. Godzilla was a troubled youth who was painfully conscious of his size and was merely overcompensating. And so forth. 

Anyway, the mobs are growing and the racially homogeneous violence is escalating, despite efforts to minimize it and pretend it is diverse and non-specific. (Say, how about we stop looking for specific bacteria that cause disease? Let’s just have a campaign to wipe out all germs? Wouldn’t that be more effective? Oh, that’s right. Some commensal bacteria are needed by the body to digest food. Never mind).

But now for the good news.

Recently, President Obama issued the statement shown below clarifying his “post-racial” position. Did you catch it? Here it is again in case you missed it:

“Shortly after I was elected I proclaimed America to be in its post-racial phase, where race has become totally irrelevant and people are judged on the noble principle set forth by Dr. Martin Luther King, namely, according to the content of their character. I meant exactly what I said.

A growing number of people of my race – and party (guess that goes without saying) – weren’t listening to King or to me and they have attacked white people simply for being white, claiming “your people” hurt “our people.” Let me be clear: There is no “your people” and there is no “our people” in post-racial America. Both blacks and whites need to follow MLK’s guidelines, without exception, if we are to get along. Your asinine presumption that someone’s ancestors harmed your ancestors does not give you the right to practice violence against that person or steal their property. Before the civil war, most northern whites, guided by Christ’s teachings, thought slavery was evil and acted accordingly. They set up the Underground Railroad to help eliminate the practice. William Wilberforce, the British activist who almost single-handedly ended the institution of slavery in his country, was a white Christian. White Christians also helped end slavery here and later helped spearhead the civil rights movement. They were so successful that slavery is virtually non-existent in the West, having survived almost solely in certain Muslim countries (like Sudan) today.

E pluribus unum means out of many one (I had mistranslated that in an earlier speech. My apologies). Throughout my 3.5 years as president I have gradually come to realize we are all one people now and the name of that people is Americans, one of the most beautiful names in the English language.

I was elected by a majority of all Americans, am grateful to each and every one of you, and as long as I am president, I will stand up for the rights of all Americans, regardless of their color. There will be no race baiting, no special rights for minorities, no legal double standards and no coddling of people who violate the law. You violate the law and you hurt me, Barack Obama.

I may take some heat for saying this, but someone had to say it, and the buck stops with me.

BTW, Eric Holder, you’re fired! Get outta here!

Thank you and may God bless America.

Oh, I omitted to say that Obama made this speech in a dream I had. Guess I shouldn’t have eaten those spicy meatballs before retiring last night.

 

Of interest:

The escalation of the violence all started with this speech:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57403200-503544/obama-if-i-had-a-son-hed-look-like-trayvon/

The rest (see below) was 100% predictable. The White House resident got exactly what he wanted.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/racial-violence-explodes-in-3-states/?cat_orig=us

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/black-mobs-terrorize-1-of-whitest-big-cities/

One lady whose own neighborhood had been a victim of the violence objected to the fact that some referred to the black rioters as black. Maybe Hampton is getting what it asked for? 

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/black-mob-in-the-hamptons/?cat_orig=us

“Young people” targeting Jews:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/black-mobs-now-beating-jews-in-new-york/?cat_orig=faith

“Young people” assault pregnant white girl
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500202_162-7159518.html

The EU expands further

Quote:

Prime Minister, Ted Heath when he said in a Government White Paper of July 1971, “There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty”. (On a TV current affairs programme in 1990, he was asked if he had known that this statement was untrue. His answer was “Of course, yes”.)

There is a bit of history to this idea of politicians lying to the public to achieve what is supposed to be a noble end, a phenomenon we see on both sides of the pond. In the 1880s a group of wealthy English met in a private home in London to discuss how best to implement socialism and eliminate Christianity (which stands in the way). The group included Karl Marx’s sister, just to give you an idea of the ideology they represented.

They met later a number of times and eventually settled on a name for themselves: The Fabian Society, after a Roman general who had successfully used stealth to gain victory, thereby saving lives. They would do likewise, preferring stealth to usurp power over the violence used later in Russia.

But is stealth necessarily harmless?

Suppose you stop your car and ask me directions to a place. I direct you over a bridge, which happens to have collapsed in a recent hurricane. I tell you that it is narrow, so in order to avoid meeting another vehicle, you should speed up as you approach it. You do so and plunge to your death in the canyon below.

I didn’t harm you directly. But I caused you great violence through my stealthy and false directions.

So it is with the EU. It was sold as a community of states that would contribute to economic stability and greater harmony in Europe. No sovereignty would be lost and there would be a net gain for all.

But this community is now called a union and is a de facto empire with central control and almost no participation of the populace, with formidable power, ever-expanding boundaries (see Sonya Porter’s article below), a court, one of the largest bureaucracies in the world, and a growing military, and its economic policies are leading, by socialist wealth redistribution, to what is expected by many economists to be the greatest economic crisis of our age.

The Soviet Union has been reborn.

Don Hank

 

Sonya Jay Porter on the ever-expanding, rarely-asking EU

The creation of a European union of states was considered a noble aspiration following the destruction of the continent in two world wars. First proposed in the Schuman Declaration of 1950 by the then-French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman, it aimed to transform Europe through a “step-by-step” process, leading to the unification of Europe and so ensuring that the individual nations of Europe should never go to war with one other again. But although senior politicians may have been aware of the gradual subsuming of their countries into a Federal Europe, most of their populations were not.

In Britain, for instance FCO 30/1048 which was written in 1971 by civil servants at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but only brought to light in 2001 under the 30 year rule, shows that the FCO was definitely aware of the gradual loss of Britain’s sovereignty that entry into the Common Market would entail. However, introducing the 1972 Bill, Geoffrey Rippon, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said “there would be no essential surrender of sovereignty” and this was echoed by the Prime Minister, Ted Heath when he said in a Government White Paper of July 1971, “There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty”. (On a TV current affairs programme in 1990, he was asked if he had known that this statement was untrue. His answer was “Of course, yes”.) So it would be unwise to take what the EU authorities say at face value, including the fact that it is a strictly European union of nations or that any other countries brought into its fold would be there simply as trading partners.

Turkey is not a member of the European Union, and may never be. Yet on 30th March 2012, the members of the European Commission (who are appointed by the governments of member states rather than elected) quietly decided to grant Turkish citizens the same residency and labour rights as full members of the Union.

This accord will apply to Turkish workers who are or have been legally employed in the territory of a member state and who are or who have been subject to the legislation of one or more member states, and their survivors; to the members of the family of workers referred to above, provided that these family members are or have been legally resident with the worker concerned while the worker is employed in a member state. The text reads:

“It follows from Article 12 of the Agreement establishing an association between the European Economic Community and Turkey (the Ankara Agreement) and Article 36 of the Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement (the Additional Protocol) that freedom of movement for workers between the Union and Turkey is to be secured by progressive stages.”

It adds,

“This proposal is part of a package of proposals which includes similar proposals with regard to the Agreements with Albania, Montenegro and San Marino. A first package with similar proposals in respect of Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Israel was adopted by the Council in October 2010.”

As a mark of their devotion to openness and transparency, the following laconic note appears under the heading “Consultation of interested parties” –

“There was no need for external expertise.”

Later still, the following difficult-to-believe statement appears:

“The proposal has no implications for the Union budget.”

Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Israel are not in the EU but many of their citizens will now be allowed to live in, and benefit from, EU countries – which could cause many problems, not least that of how the EU is going to cope with yet more unemployed at a time when the Union’s financial situation is so parlous.

Read more:

http://www.quarterly-review.org/?p=919