If you ever wanted to see a story that so profoundly shows what a revolting monster our government and our legal system has become and how it is the enemy of flesh and blood Americans read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/national/19ranch.html?
Note: I've pasted the story within []
[2 Illegal Immigrants Win Arizona Ranch in Court
By ANDREW POLLACK
Published: August 19, 2005
Correction Appended
DOUGLAS, Ariz., Aug. 18 - Spent shells litter the ground at what is left of the firing range, and camouflage outfits still hang in a storeroom. Just a few months ago, this ranch was known as Camp Thunderbird, the headquarters of a paramilitary group that promised to use force to keep illegal immigrants from sneaking across the border with Mexico.
David Bowser for The New York Times
A windmill tower in Douglas, Ariz., was a lookout point for members of a group that tried to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing the border.
The New York Times
Camp Thunderbird is two miles from the Mexican border. Now, in a turnabout, the 70-acre property about two miles from the border is being given to two immigrants whom the group caught trying to enter the United States illegally. The land transfer is being made to satisfy judgments in a lawsuit in which the immigrants had said that Casey Nethercott, the owner of the ranch and a former leader of the vigilante group Ranch Rescue, had harmed them. "Certainly it's poetic justice that these undocumented workers own this land," said Morris S. Dees Jr., co-founder and chief trial counsel of the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala., which represented the immigrants in their lawsuit. Mr. Dees said the loss of the ranch would "send a pretty important message to those who come to the border to use violence."
The surrender of the ranch comes as the governors of Arizona and New Mexico have declared a state of emergency because of the influx of illegal immigrants and related crime along the border. Bill Dore, a Douglas resident briefly affiliated with Ranch Rescue who is still active in the border-patrolling Minuteman Project, called the land transfer "ridiculous." "The illegals are coming over here," Mr. Dore said. "They are getting the American property. Hell, I'd come over, too. Get some American property, make some money from the gringos."
The immigrants getting the ranch, Edwin Alfredo Mancía Gonzáles and Fátima del Socorro Leiva Medina, could not be reached for comment. Kelley Bruner, a lawyer at the law center, said they did not want to speak to the news media but were happy with the outcome. Ms. Bruner said that Mr. Mancía and Ms. Leiva, who are from El Salvador but are not related, would not live at the ranch and would probably sell it. Mr. Nethercott bought the ranch in 2003 for $120,000. Mr. Mancía, who lives in Los Angeles, and Ms. Leiva, who lives in the Dallas area, have applied for visas that are available to immigrants who are the victims of certain crimes and who cooperate with the authorities, Ms. Bruner said. She said that until a decision was made on their applications, they could stay and work in the United States on a year-to-year basis.
Mr. Mancía and Ms. Leiva were caught on a ranch in Hebbronville, Tex., in March 2003 by Mr. Nethercott and other members of Ranch Rescue. The two immigrants later accused Mr. Nethercott of threatening them and of hitting Mr. Mancía with a pistol, charges that Mr. Nethercott denied. The immigrants also said the group gave them cookies, water and a blanket and let them go after an hour or so.
The Salvadorans testified against Mr. Nethercott when he was tried by Texas prosecutors. The jury deadlocked on a charge of pistol-whipping but convicted Mr. Nethercott, who had previously served time in California for assault, of gun possession, which is illegal for a felon. He is now serving a five-year sentence in a Texas prison.
Mr. Mancía and Ms. Leiva also filed a lawsuit against Mr. Nethercott; Jack Foote, the founder of Ranch Rescue; and the owner of the Hebbronville ranch, Joe Sutton. The immigrants said the ordeal, in which they feared that they would be killed by the men they thought were soldiers, had left them with post-traumatic stress.
Mr. Sutton settled for $100,000. Mr. Nethercott and Mr. Foote did not defend themselves, so the judge issued default judgments of $850,000 against Mr. Nethercott and $500,000 against Mr. Foote.
Mr. Dees said Mr. Foote appeared to have no substantial assets, but Mr. Nethercott had the ranch. Shortly after the judgment, Mr. Nethercott gave the land to his sister, Robin Albitz, of Prescott, Ariz. The Southern Poverty Law Center sued the siblings, saying the transfer was fraudulent and was meant to avoid the judgment.
Ms. Albitz, a nursing assistant, signed over the land to the two immigrants last week.]
As bad as things have gotten, when I first read this I almost thought it was parody. It would have been funny parody but instead it is the disgusting truth. If this doesn’t make you despise the tyrants that have enslaved us and made us their serfs nothing will. It is actually worse than serfdom since it is clear that genocide of Whites is what the New America is after. No, this won’t take place in gas chambers, yet at least, but instead is much more shrewdly accomplished through public policy and attitudes affecting relative birth rates and racial purity. Whites are a free and liberty loving people who are clearly much less compliant than the 3rd World masses who would gladly trade a tyrant who gives them McDonalds, WWF, and WalMart at slave wages for their old masters who didn’t. That they are willing to live under tyranny, as the countries they flee from testifies, and we are not is why they are preferable. They will be the useful little cogs in the machine while we are not. Progress will be able to continue unabated. The theory for why 3rd Worlders ARE 3rd Worlders is not allowed into public discussion as it actually involves immutable racial differences (such as their reduced initiative, innovativeness, and spirit due to the smaller frontal lobes of their brains). I wish I were wrong on this but the evidence is very compelling. We can’t talk about these things since that would be hateful. Only genocide of Whites is allowable AND we Whites must celebrate it.
Read that story and reflect on how, if our government were legitimate, it would do exactly the opposite of what actually happened. Trespassers would face expulsion at the least, if not the risk of death and it would not be our citizens having to do this but the Border Patrol or other representatives of our will. Now our government attacks its own people for daring to defend their own property. A parasite like Morris Dees (in Cyberspace aka Morris Disease) has an extortion racket that uses our ‘legal’ system to deny our citizens self-defense and then steals their property. He should be in prison and the judges that allow these mockeries as well but that would be an older America of real justice and liberty. It is looooooooong gone.
Of course our great ‘watchdog’, the news media, shows how ‘objective’ they are by making the tyrants seem legitimate. If they had wanted to they could have made the judge, jurors, and SPLC seem like scum – easily – but that is not part of their agenda. If they had done their job the tyranny of our government would have been stopped a long time ago; likewise with the entertainment industry. Why are these institutions defenders of tyranny rather than its enemy? Do these institutions really reflect freedom loving, kin loving, productive and independent Americans? What is different about them that they are against us and why are they not honest enough to say so????? I’d speculate as to the overwhelming jewishness of these institutions but that is more unallowable hate speech. Besides, like a good conservative, I have to nod my head when told the Jews are our friends just like they were the friends of Russia and Germany and Spain in earlier times. They were just misunderstood and exploited by evil Christian Whites who needed a scapegoat.
If you are a typical brain-dead American keep loving this thing. Keep sending your sons, and now daughters, to die for its satanic lusts, and to be indoctrinated into its religion. Keep paying your taxes, regardless of how high. Leave your property when they claim it. Ask how high when told to jump. And, most of all, keep hating those of us who don’t. Only then will your continued presence be allowed.
For the rest of us, be wise as serpents. We can’t win a fight until we are clear who are enemies are and who are friends aren’t.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Friday, August 12, 2005
Questions for Judge Roberts
I recently received an email alert from the American Family Association requesting that American Christians rally in defense of President Bush’s nomination of Judge Roberts to the Supreme Court of the U.S. This is in anticipation of the liberal attacks that are bound to come. In the past I would almost reflexively answer the call to arms, maybe in so small a way as to send an encouraging email. Now, I take everything from the Conservative Establishment with a very large grain of salt. I don’t follow things much in Washington anymore since I believe it is largely a wasted effort while there are other areas we can make a big difference. Still, I have heard some things about Roberts that bring to question Bush’s promise to nominate someone in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. I’ll touch on those things in a moment but if I have heard these things, in very casual perusals of the Internet, wouldn’t Don Wildmon (head of the AFA), supposedly a very conservative and principled man, have also heard these things? If there are serious red flags regarding the judicial temperament of Roberts why wouldn’t the AFA bring those to the attention of its members rather than a call to blind support?
I hope history proves me wrong but right now Roberts looks like a spineless, liberal weasel like Souter, or a constantly compromising, ever “growing”, centrist like O’Connor or Kennedy. (As a side note, this morning I heard the abortion advocacy group NARAL is pulling an attack ad on Roberts. Are these liberals finally realizing they have nothing to fear from this guy? I think so. He seems such a domesticated, tame, acceptable little conservative.)
I’ll raise my two concerns in a series of questions that I would ask of Judge Roberts were I a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. These questions will not be asked due to both the blind support of Republicans for Bush and due to the liberal religion under which almost all Democrats are acolytes, if not clergy. Liberalism holds these things, that I consider major concerns of Roberts, as sacrosanct, akin to the geocentric universe before the time of Copernicus and Galileo. Cyberspace is the only place these questions will be asked.
1) Judge Roberts, you have said that Roe vs. Wade is the “settled law of the land”. Please explain.
(After the normal doublespeak and sophistry that is intended to bore people to disinterest…)
2) Judge Roberts, can the Supreme Court create “law”?
3) Judge Roberts, which body does our Constitution grant the authority to pass laws?
4) Judge Roberts, has the U.S. Congress ever passed a law prohibiting statutory abortion restrictions?
5) Judge Roberts, has not the U.S. Congress attempted to pass numerous laws to just the opposite effect – to override the “law” created by the Supreme Court?
6) Judge Roberts, is what the Supreme Court decides a law unto itself regardless of what our Constitution says?
7) Judge Roberts, are there no transcendent or institutional constraints that can correct rulings of the Supreme Court?
8) Judge Roberts, isn’t that why you say Roe vs. Wade is “settled” and “law”, because the Supreme Court said it is?
New line of questions
9) Judge Roberts, please explain the concept of “pro bono” legal advice.
10) Judge Roberts, is it fair to say that lawyers only provide pro bono services in support of cases in which they strongly believe?
11) Judge Roberts, are you familiar with the state of Colorado’s referendum, adopted by the vote of its citizens, that would bar special rights to sodomites, or, if you prefer, “gay” people?
12) Judge Roberts, you provided pro bono (i.e. free and voluntary) legal services in support of sodomite activists who sought to overturn the will of the people of Colorado in Romer vs. Evans. Why?
13) Judge Roberts, there are many places you could have provided free legal services where they are desperately needed, where there is no establishment popularity as with “gay” rights, but you chose this cause. What does this say about your value system, your convictions, and your courage?
14) Judge Roberts, are you proud that your volunteer effort helped to overturn this decision of the people of Colorado?
15) Judge Roberts, in what way did the Colorado Referendum violate Colorado Law, Federal Law, God’s Law?
16) So, if God’s Law is no longer relevant what did Thomas Jefferson mean when he stated our rights are “inalienable”?
17) So, if God’s Law is relevant only if it comports with modern sensibilities has it not become Man’s Law and are not Supreme Court Justices modern day prophets of a new polymorphous god?
18) Judge Roberts, are you an example of what President Bush considers a conservative judge in the mold of Scalia and Thomas?
19) Judge Roberts, might you speculate then as to who President Bush might think is in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Never mind, don’t answer.
20) Judge Roberts, what are your thoughts on Judge Roy Moore?
Judge Roberts, I never would have known you were a Christian if I hadn’t read it in your bio. That should make you proud.
No further questions.
If Roberts can't "get" these simple things like abortion and sodomite "rights" how the hell can he deal with the harder issues that will come up where he would really have to prove himself a man of the law? The answer is he won't. He has failed on these little things so he should not be trusted on the big things. I wonder if the liberals will do the conservatives job and reject this example of mediocrity? I doubt it. As dumb as they are, they are not as dumb as conservatives.
I hope history proves me wrong but right now Roberts looks like a spineless, liberal weasel like Souter, or a constantly compromising, ever “growing”, centrist like O’Connor or Kennedy. (As a side note, this morning I heard the abortion advocacy group NARAL is pulling an attack ad on Roberts. Are these liberals finally realizing they have nothing to fear from this guy? I think so. He seems such a domesticated, tame, acceptable little conservative.)
I’ll raise my two concerns in a series of questions that I would ask of Judge Roberts were I a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. These questions will not be asked due to both the blind support of Republicans for Bush and due to the liberal religion under which almost all Democrats are acolytes, if not clergy. Liberalism holds these things, that I consider major concerns of Roberts, as sacrosanct, akin to the geocentric universe before the time of Copernicus and Galileo. Cyberspace is the only place these questions will be asked.
1) Judge Roberts, you have said that Roe vs. Wade is the “settled law of the land”. Please explain.
(After the normal doublespeak and sophistry that is intended to bore people to disinterest…)
2) Judge Roberts, can the Supreme Court create “law”?
3) Judge Roberts, which body does our Constitution grant the authority to pass laws?
4) Judge Roberts, has the U.S. Congress ever passed a law prohibiting statutory abortion restrictions?
5) Judge Roberts, has not the U.S. Congress attempted to pass numerous laws to just the opposite effect – to override the “law” created by the Supreme Court?
6) Judge Roberts, is what the Supreme Court decides a law unto itself regardless of what our Constitution says?
7) Judge Roberts, are there no transcendent or institutional constraints that can correct rulings of the Supreme Court?
8) Judge Roberts, isn’t that why you say Roe vs. Wade is “settled” and “law”, because the Supreme Court said it is?
New line of questions
9) Judge Roberts, please explain the concept of “pro bono” legal advice.
10) Judge Roberts, is it fair to say that lawyers only provide pro bono services in support of cases in which they strongly believe?
11) Judge Roberts, are you familiar with the state of Colorado’s referendum, adopted by the vote of its citizens, that would bar special rights to sodomites, or, if you prefer, “gay” people?
12) Judge Roberts, you provided pro bono (i.e. free and voluntary) legal services in support of sodomite activists who sought to overturn the will of the people of Colorado in Romer vs. Evans. Why?
13) Judge Roberts, there are many places you could have provided free legal services where they are desperately needed, where there is no establishment popularity as with “gay” rights, but you chose this cause. What does this say about your value system, your convictions, and your courage?
14) Judge Roberts, are you proud that your volunteer effort helped to overturn this decision of the people of Colorado?
15) Judge Roberts, in what way did the Colorado Referendum violate Colorado Law, Federal Law, God’s Law?
16) So, if God’s Law is no longer relevant what did Thomas Jefferson mean when he stated our rights are “inalienable”?
17) So, if God’s Law is relevant only if it comports with modern sensibilities has it not become Man’s Law and are not Supreme Court Justices modern day prophets of a new polymorphous god?
18) Judge Roberts, are you an example of what President Bush considers a conservative judge in the mold of Scalia and Thomas?
19) Judge Roberts, might you speculate then as to who President Bush might think is in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Never mind, don’t answer.
20) Judge Roberts, what are your thoughts on Judge Roy Moore?
Judge Roberts, I never would have known you were a Christian if I hadn’t read it in your bio. That should make you proud.
No further questions.
If Roberts can't "get" these simple things like abortion and sodomite "rights" how the hell can he deal with the harder issues that will come up where he would really have to prove himself a man of the law? The answer is he won't. He has failed on these little things so he should not be trusted on the big things. I wonder if the liberals will do the conservatives job and reject this example of mediocrity? I doubt it. As dumb as they are, they are not as dumb as conservatives.
Thursday, August 11, 2005
The Sucker Dance
The Republican Party, President Bush, the Catholic Church, the Evangelical Church, Wall Street, Corporate America, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, William Buckley, Bill O’Reilly, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal. These institutions and people are what most consider to be symbols of Conservative America. Sometimes they are called right wing as well. Do you consider them conservative? Do you consider yourself conservative? If the answer to both questions is “yes” then the label is meaningless.
These questions are at the heart of what I consider to be the conservative dilemma. Since conservatives are characterized by wanting to maintain the established order and the established order is now rotten (due to institutionalized liberalism) are conservatives, therefore, rotten? Thoughtful Conservatives do not want to conserve everything and instead only want to conserve what is good but they are now a fringe, having been either purged from any meaningful institutional power or been reeducated into seeing the “light”. Conservatives are also characterized by a respect for authority which further exacerbates the problem since our institutions have adopted the fundamental premises of liberalism.
The conservative rank and file still believes in our institutions even though the institutions now embrace those very things Conservatives used to consider anathema. What gives? Are Conservatives nothing other than the practical implementers of liberal ideas? Are we the ones who prevent the crazy uncle (liberalism) from killing himself on heroine by instead giving him methadone and Marlboros? The blogger Lawrence Auster has a term for the mechanism that holds the unholy relationship between conservatism and liberalism together – unprincipled exceptions. Go to his web site (View from the Right) for an explanation much better than I can provide. Sadly the relationship is completely one way. Liberalism is suicidal such that, if allowed to continue without constraint, it would destroy its host. Conservatism provides the brakes to this runaway train but Conservatives are never in the Engine, just the Caboose. Conservatives eventually grow to love the monster more than the Liberals who created it. It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.
Does the Conservative Establishment (CE) challenge the New Deal era programs that now characterize our government? Does the CE challenge the taking of our freedom of association by “Civil Rights”? Does the CE challenge international American political tyranny through our stated advocacy of forced democratization? Does the CE challenge the imperialism of American Corporate conquest at home and abroad? Does the CE challenge the modern American identity of Consumer instead of Producer? Does the CE ever say that Caesar is subordinate to God and not vice versa? Does the CE do anything to stop the constitutional rape occurring because our Supreme Court acts as the Supreme Legislature? Does the CE try to defend the racial stock that created America in the first place by stopping unlimited 3rd World immigration? Does the CE do anything of substance to return us to a state of natural liberty?
Not only is the answer in almost every case “no” but the CE is often the very proponent of these agendas. Sometimes, comically, they are even opposed by the LE. Conservatives are now the chief defenders of a status quo that is diametrically opposed to Christian concepts of right and wrong.
I no longer think Frankenstein can be turned into Fred Astaire. No charm school, no makeover, no dance lessons, no education can do it. Eliza Doolittle was turned into My Fair Lady but we are dealing with Bella Abzug. Henry Higgins wouldn’t have a chance and neither do we. We now have a beast that should be given enough rope to hang itself. The sooner we jump out of the caboose the sooner those that love the train will catapult over a cliff. I am afraid if we keep trying to stop it we will only become its advocates and, therefore, its food. Leave it and start to build something better subordinating all to The Author of all that is good. It’s been done before and it can happen again.
Your treasure is in your kin and kith, in your industriousness, in your willing submission to Jesus as the Lord of your life, in your voluntary sacrifice for your community, in your love of liberty, and of justice. If you want to conserve the established order your real treasure will be destroyed or corrupted. Which do you choose?
I pray that God will give me the courage and wisdom to follow the example of Joshua who said, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."
These questions are at the heart of what I consider to be the conservative dilemma. Since conservatives are characterized by wanting to maintain the established order and the established order is now rotten (due to institutionalized liberalism) are conservatives, therefore, rotten? Thoughtful Conservatives do not want to conserve everything and instead only want to conserve what is good but they are now a fringe, having been either purged from any meaningful institutional power or been reeducated into seeing the “light”. Conservatives are also characterized by a respect for authority which further exacerbates the problem since our institutions have adopted the fundamental premises of liberalism.
The conservative rank and file still believes in our institutions even though the institutions now embrace those very things Conservatives used to consider anathema. What gives? Are Conservatives nothing other than the practical implementers of liberal ideas? Are we the ones who prevent the crazy uncle (liberalism) from killing himself on heroine by instead giving him methadone and Marlboros? The blogger Lawrence Auster has a term for the mechanism that holds the unholy relationship between conservatism and liberalism together – unprincipled exceptions. Go to his web site (View from the Right) for an explanation much better than I can provide. Sadly the relationship is completely one way. Liberalism is suicidal such that, if allowed to continue without constraint, it would destroy its host. Conservatism provides the brakes to this runaway train but Conservatives are never in the Engine, just the Caboose. Conservatives eventually grow to love the monster more than the Liberals who created it. It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.
Does the Conservative Establishment (CE) challenge the New Deal era programs that now characterize our government? Does the CE challenge the taking of our freedom of association by “Civil Rights”? Does the CE challenge international American political tyranny through our stated advocacy of forced democratization? Does the CE challenge the imperialism of American Corporate conquest at home and abroad? Does the CE challenge the modern American identity of Consumer instead of Producer? Does the CE ever say that Caesar is subordinate to God and not vice versa? Does the CE do anything to stop the constitutional rape occurring because our Supreme Court acts as the Supreme Legislature? Does the CE try to defend the racial stock that created America in the first place by stopping unlimited 3rd World immigration? Does the CE do anything of substance to return us to a state of natural liberty?
Not only is the answer in almost every case “no” but the CE is often the very proponent of these agendas. Sometimes, comically, they are even opposed by the LE. Conservatives are now the chief defenders of a status quo that is diametrically opposed to Christian concepts of right and wrong.
I no longer think Frankenstein can be turned into Fred Astaire. No charm school, no makeover, no dance lessons, no education can do it. Eliza Doolittle was turned into My Fair Lady but we are dealing with Bella Abzug. Henry Higgins wouldn’t have a chance and neither do we. We now have a beast that should be given enough rope to hang itself. The sooner we jump out of the caboose the sooner those that love the train will catapult over a cliff. I am afraid if we keep trying to stop it we will only become its advocates and, therefore, its food. Leave it and start to build something better subordinating all to The Author of all that is good. It’s been done before and it can happen again.
Your treasure is in your kin and kith, in your industriousness, in your willing submission to Jesus as the Lord of your life, in your voluntary sacrifice for your community, in your love of liberty, and of justice. If you want to conserve the established order your real treasure will be destroyed or corrupted. Which do you choose?
I pray that God will give me the courage and wisdom to follow the example of Joshua who said, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)