http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=Black-on-White+Crime Thu, 20 Jun 2013 05:17:11 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=Black-on-White+Crime Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:53:41 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=54d_1371145799 Proud_Canadian_1978 Published on Jun 12, 2013 Know these TD Bank robbery suspects from Victoria Park / Sheppard Av E Toronto on March 3, 2013? Please call Toronto Police Hold Up Squad 416-808-7300 or submit an anonymous tip to Toronto Crime Stoppers 1-800-222-8477 http://222tips.com Text TOR plus your message to 274637 Police request assistance with robbery investigation, Security camera video of robbery released Broadcast time: 15:09 Wednesday, June 11, 2014 Hold Up Squad 416-808-0703 The Toronto Police Service would like to make the public aware of an armed robbery investigation. It is reported that: - on Sunday, March 3, 2013, at 3:55 p.m., two suspects entered the TD bank at Victoria Park Avenue &Sheppard Avenue East. One suspect grabbed a witness who was about to exit the branch, pulled him back inside and pointed a handgun at him. The second suspect jumped the teller's counter and demanded money. He then grabbed the victim by the throat, slapped her across the head, and pulled her by the hair while yelling for money. After receiving a quantity of money both suspects fled the scene. Description of Armed Suspect 1: Male Black, 5'8, blue jeans, black clothing, black bandana with white designs. Suspect #2: Male Black, mid 20's, 6', 180lbs, black ski mask, black clothing, carrying a plastic 'Dollarama' bag. Anyone with information is asked to contact police at 416-808-7300, Crime Stoppers anonymously at 416-222-TIPS (8477), online at http://www.222tips.com, text TOR and your message to CRIMES (274637), or Leave A Tip on Facebook. Download the free Crime Stoppers Mobile App on iTunes, Google Play or Blackberry App World. Video posted by Toronto Police Service Corporate Communications Social Media. Scott.Mills@TorontoPolice.on.ca http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=54d_1371145799 Proud_Canadian_1978 Violent Toronto bank robber caught on video Violent, Toronto, bank robber, Police, Wanted, Crime Sat, 15 Jun 2013 17:06:30 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=81f_1371330063 Detroit Iron Posted by Edward Cline at 8:22 PM Review: American Betrayal : The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character , by Diana West Where to begin? In American Betrayal *, Diana West begins in 1933. In the name of establishing historical causo-connections, I would have begun in 1781, when Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason , a brain-cracking treatise which relied on reality to prove that reality was unknowable. That is, by reading his book, a real thing in your real hands, you were expected to agree with Kant that real things were only rough reflections of things whose "essences" existed beyond the evidence of our benighted, warping senses, in some other realm. Kant counted on everyone not noticing the contradiction and not seeing the ease with which his elaborately constructed mare's nest could be exploded. No contemporary, I gather, ever confronted Kant and said, "Herr Professor! If what you say is true, then this book is just a shadow, and the print in it, and all your words, too! What could they mean? How could they be true? Are your words noumena , or mere phenomena ?" But no one ever did confront Kant with his contradictions, fallacies, and cerebral legerdemain, except some Hegelian hair-splitters, and the Western world has been the worse for it. 1781 . Just as the American Revolution, a product of the Enlightenment, was winding to a close with the surrender of Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown, with reality-loyal Americans winning their freedom from the British monarchy, Kant published his Critique , whose ideas, if not opposed and refuted, were guaranteed to destroy the freedom of their heirs. The Founders, as they later debated in Philadelphia the means and ends of a true republican government that would guarantee men's freedom from each other, were not aware of the incubus that was birthing across the Atlantic and which would eventually infect American political philosophy with the syphilis of collectivism, moral relativism, and statism in the 19thcentury. Kant was an enemy of the Enlightenment. Diana West, among her other arguments, contends that the political and intellectual leaders of the West by 1933 had abandoned reason and all Enlightenment ideas. Nay, with very few exceptions, they became as hostile to them as Kant ever was. West begins in 1933. Of what significance is that year? Adolph Hitler became Chancellor of Germany and Reichsstatthalter of Prussia on January 30th, 1933. From August 1934, he would be F"uhrer of Germany until his suicide in April 1945. Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt became the 32nd president of the United States on March 4th, 1933. He would remain in that office until his death in April 1945. On November 20, 1933, at Roosevelt's urging, the U.S. recognized the Soviet Union. West writes: The West's decision to recognize the USSR - and its determination to keep recognizing it, no matter how much lying and acquiescence to betrayal that entailed - did more to transform us than any single act before or since. The profound diplomatic shift - part Faustian bargain, part moral lobotomy - didn't just invite the Soviet Union into the community of nations. To make room for the monster-r'egime, the United States had to surrender the terra firma of objective morality and reality-based judgment. No wonder, then, that tens of thousands of Dreyfus cases in Russia meant nothing to the "conscience of the civilized world.... Because the Communist r'egime was so openly and ideologically dedicated to our destruction, the act of recognition defied reason and the demands of self-preservation. Recognition and all that came with it, including alliance, would soon become the enemy of reason and self-preservation.... ...It was here that we abandoned the lodestars of good and evil, the clarity of black and white. Closing our eyes, we dove head first into a weltering morass of exquisitely enervating and agonizing grays. (pp. 195-196) In short, the U.S. government had by 1933 lost the capacity for making moral judgments. It cringed like a coward when asked to make one, and hissed and spat like a rabid animal at the mere suggestion of it. It still does when the subject of Islam comes up. Recognition of the Soviet Union not only granted the murderous Communist dictatorship a moral sanction, it also opened the gates to the wholesale Soviet infiltration and subversive activities of its agents, American sympathizers or "fellow travelers," and members of the Communist Party USA. The Soviets never honored any of the terms of that recognition. The precedent had been set. We can see the insidious parallels today in our government's refusal to withdraw moral sanctions from Islamic r'egimes and its tolerance of terrorist-founded and terrorist state-funded organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim American Society (MAS) within our own borders. In March 1933, Harry Hopkins, a veteran of former New York Governor Roosevelt's welfare programs, on Roosevelt's invitation joins the new administration, at first running the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), the Civil Works Administration (CWA) and the Works Progress Administration (WPA). In this pre-war period he also established the National Youth Administration (NYA) and the Federal One Programs for artists and writers. In May 1940, Roosevelt makes Hopkins his first counsel in all matters pertaining to Europe and the new war. Hopkins moves into the Lincoln Bedroom at the White House, his office and residence for the next three and a half years. Hopkins not only advises Roosevelt on foreign policy and war issues, but directs Lend-Lease, a program conceived by Armand Hammer, a notorious Sovietaphile, ostensibly created to aid the British in their fight against the Nazis, but actually intended to aid Josef Stalin and the Soviet Union. Between 1932 and 1933, millions of Russians starved to death as Stalin's government confiscated harvests in the brutal forced collectivization of Russian agriculture. Millions more would perish over the decade from starvation, from being sent as slaves in the Gulag, in mass executions, and in political purges. But 1933, writes West, was a crucial year in American history. In reprising the statements of historians and commentators about the wrongness of recognizing the Soviet r'egime as a legitimate government, given the known horrific consequences of forced collectivization, she states: Dennis J. Dunn agrees with historian David Mayers, who has argued that the failure of the U.S. government under Roosevelt to reckon with the profound crime of the Terror Famine in negotiations over recognition made it - us - "a passive accomplice to Stalin in the Ukraine." I agree. Which makes 1933 the year of America's Fall (p. 243) Diana West steps up to lectern and confronts Professor Kant with some very incisive and inconvenient questions of her own. Who really won World War II? Was it really America's "Good War"? Did the "greatest generation" fight to rid the world of one toxic dictatorship only to enable another to take its place? How is it that the only beneficiary of that war was the Soviet Union, which acquired an Eastern European empire? Were Americans conned, scammed, and robbed throughout the government-perpetuated Depression and then during the war? Who was really establishing American foreign policy in the 1930's and 1940's: Roosevelt, or Stalin through Harry Hopkins, who had Roosevelt's ear 24/7, and countless Soviet agents and traitors embedded in our government dedicated to selling secrets, altruism, self-sacrifice and welfare statism? Hopkins, West suggests, was the Soviets' most important agent in the U.S. government. Whether or not he was "recruited" or "co-opted" by the Soviets, or was a volunteer agent, West was not able to determine with certainty. He is referred to in Soviet cables as "Agent 19." The KGB boasted that he was the Soviet Union's "most important agent." West performs a yeoman's task and gets to the "essence" of that whole sorry and tragic period, proving in her narrative that the reality of our relationship with the Soviets is knowable, and moreover, that its "essence" was ugly, scary, and shameful. I would add, pertaining to all the actors in that period responsible for what West calls the "Big Lie," criminal and treasonous. What precedes and follows West's statement is not for the weak of stomach or faint of heart. With a meticulous and excruciating fealty to the truth, and after exhaustive and often frustrating research (because many documents that once existed and that were evidence of the government's complicity were destroyed or had simply vanished from government archives), West paints a picture of not only FDR's complacency towards Soviet totalitarianism, but Harry Hopkins's contribution to the fall, as well, in addition to that of a legion of liars, fabricators, Communist moles, agents, and spies who populated government positions. If you think the Benghazi cover-up is a classic case of desperate political back-pedaling, official lies and semi-lies, face-saving, and walking away from reality, that episode is merely a miniature of the colossal con pulled on the whole country by Roosevelt and his minions from 1933 onward. West covers several main subjects, among them the extent of Soviet espionage against the U.S. and the extent of Soviet infiltration in our government, an infiltration so common and ubiquitous in numerous Depression Era and wartime agencies that the government was literally top-heavy enough to cause the ship-of-state to list ever Leftward. The government was so saturated with lefties and Communists that they became the de facto architects of domestic and foreign policies. West dates the beginning of the end of a fairly solid and reclaimable constitutional republic - reclaimable from Wilson's Progressive precedents of a central bank, the income tax, and becoming the world's moral policeman, moves which put the country on the road to incremental serfdom - from 1933, when the U.S. recognized the U.S.S.R. as "just another system of government," not much different from our own. Roosevelt, West explains, believed in the "convergence" of our system of government and that of the Soviets. Aside from buttressing his collectivist programs of the New Deal welfare state, the "convergence theory" enabled Roosevelt to be essentially an apolitical pragmatist . There was...one point of ideology that Roosevelt does seem to have fervently embraced, which historian Dennis J. Dunn believes made him an ideologue after all. FDR, Dunn writes, seized on the theory of "convergence" as it applied to the United States and the USSR, the idea being that capitalism and Communism would take on enough characteristics of the other to "converge." ...As Dunn explains it, the convergence theory "held that Soviet Russia and the United States were on convergent paths, where the United States was moving from laissez-faire capitalism to welfare state socialism and the Soviet Union was evolving from totalitarianism to social democracy." (p. 192) There's that Hegelian/Marxist "dialectical" evolutionary force that was somehow ineluctably moving both sides toward "convergence" so that, to the casual observer, when the melding occurred, there wouldn't be a dime's or kopek's worth of difference between the two countries. Human volition and action would have nothing to do with it, neither in acts of Congress nor in executive branch decrees nor in Supreme Court decisions. "Convergence theory" assumed the cognitive powers of a somnambulist. It would "just happen." Don't blame us, counter the advocates of that theory and others. We have nothing to do with it. It's just "history." It would be unfair to both West and her book to attempt anything here other than highlighting some of the revelations she discusses at length throughout American Betrayal . Here are some of them: Lend-Lease Much of West's story focuses on the organized massive theft and redirection of American war productivity to the Soviets that occurred under Lend-Lease. But how did it really begin? As noted above, it was the idea of politically ambidextrous businessman Armand Hammer whose financial and commercial relationship with the Soviets dated back to 1921. (His father, Dr. Julius Hammer, a socialist and later a Communist, named him after the Socialist Labor Party of America's symbol of an arm and hammer.) Worried that a Nazi attack on the Soviet Union would jeopardize his interests in the Soviet Union (and no one in Washington believed the German-Soviet non-aggression pact, signed on August 23rd, 1939, would last), he met with Roosevelt in the White House on November 28th, 1940 and sold the president and Hopkins on the idea of establishing a government entity that would be responsible for aiding the British in their war with Germany (Hopkins later claimed the idea came to him out of the blue), but would actually help Stalin prepare for the expected abrogation of the "non-aggression" pact and enable him to withstand the invasion with American help. It should be noted that this "pact" prepared the way for the co-invasion of Poland by both the Nazis and the Soviets on September 1st, 1939, the spark that began World War II. Both regarded the pact as a temporary truce (in Islam, a hudna contrived to buy time); Stalin wanted to eventually conquer Europe; the Nazis drooled over the oil fields of Baku and the prospect of endless lebensraum . Armand Hammer, who died in 1989, was a walking exemplar of the political "convergence" subscribed to by Roosevelt, a Republican who contributed to Richard Nixon's 1972 presidential campaign, and was a frequent visitor to the White Houses of Presidents Reagan, Carter, and George H.W. Bush. He had met and was on friendly terms with every Soviet dictator but Stalin. Hitler signed the first operational directive to invade the Soviet Union on December 18th, 1940. On March 11, 1941, Congress passed the Lend-Lease bill, and on June 22nd, Hitler invaded Russia. Roosevelt appointed Hopkins as head of Lend-Lease. West details just how much Lend-Lease aided the Soviets. When the U.S. finally entered the war on December 7th, 1941, Hopkins and Lend-Lease gave aiding the Soviets the first priority in planes, tanks, small arms, munitions, Liberty ships, military machine parts, and other materiel, including food, clothing, medical supplies, etc. - over the U.S.'s own warfighting needs . While Americans had to make do with rationed sugar, butter, meat, tires and gasoline, the Soviet government received these things free, without condition, and without interest (on a "loan" which was not expected to ever be paid back by the Soviets, and never was). The Navy and Army had to wait until Soviet quotas were filled before being able to take delivery on their own weaponry and supplies. Harry Hopkins said so, and Roosevelt agreed. West also investigates the likelihood that Hopkins aided the Soviets in acquiring not only information regarding the Manhattan Project to produce the first atomic bomb, but facilitated, through Lend-Lease, the Soviets receiving the actual physical components, such as cadmium rods and uranium, allowing Soviet scientists to fashion their own bomb, first tested in 1949. (pp. 122-123) West writes about the political power Lend-Lease gave Roosevelt and his "co-president," Hopkins. Lend-Lease was ...sold to the American public as a means to keep the United States out of war in Europe - as a substitute for U.S. military involvement, not a means by which to enter the war...The legislation endowed the president with unprecedented powers to bypass the Senate and other checks and balances. For example, Lend-Lease allowed FDR to set the terms of the most massive U.S. expenditures in foreign aid history and their repayment, or nonrepayment. Who, then, needed a Senate to advise and consent on related treaties? The State Department, too, took on attributes of a governmental fifth wheel as Hopkins helmed Lend-Lease and U.S. foreign policy from the White House. (p. 134) Among other things, Singapore, the Philippines and Corregidor fell to the Japanese because all the war materiel that could've saved Americans and the British was instead sent to Russia under Lend-Lease, and FDR and his advisers knew it. Douglas MacArthur had to beg Washington for planes and naval support and relief, but the Soviets came first. Roosevelt said, "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else rather than have the Russian front collapse." (pp. 46-47) The Office of War Information (OWI) West devotes many pages to how the Office of War Information, staffed and controlled largely by Communist Party members, contributed to the white-washing of Soviet Russia, to make "Papa Joe" Stalin and his dictatorship palatable to the American public. Aiding them in this propaganda and agitprop were the press and broadcast luminaries. The overall mantra was: Stalin and Russia were the "good guys," put upon by the "bad guys," the Nazis. Stalin and his r'egime never did a bad thing, they just had a "different" political system, which shouldn't be judged because of the millions it wiped out of existence (those millions never mentioned). This effort ranged from standard pep-talky government propaganda to wartime newsreels to Hollywood movies. The standing orders from the OWI especially were that in no instance was the totalitarian nature of Soviet Russia ever to be revealed, discussed, or even insinuated. A book about novelist Ayn Rand's testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947 concerning the propaganda film Song of Russia (1944) is revealing in and of itself. Rand's testimony was solicited because she had escaped Soviet Russia in 1926 and had first-hand knowledge of conditions there. Concerning the lies propagated by the government, one committee member asked her why she objected to the U.S. allying itself with the Soviets to defeat Hitler. Rand answered: That is not what I said. I was not in a position to make that decision. If I were, I would tell you what I would do. That is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the fact that our country was an ally of Russia, and the question is: what should we tell the American people about it - the truth or a lie? If we had good reason, if that is what you believe, all right, then why not tell the truth? Say it is a dictatorship, but we want to be associated with it. Say it is worthwhile being associated with the devil, as Churchill said, in order to defeat another evil which is Hitler. There might be some good argument made for that. But why pretend that Russia was not what it was?** Why pretend, indeed? Because the government didn't want to risk alienating Americans from the war effort. It wouldn't be good for "morale." They might stop buying War Bonds, and demand an end to rationing. They might object to being in league with a devil that wanted to collectivize them, too. Katyn Forest Massacre After Hitler and Stalin had devoured Poland in 1939, both went about "cleansing" Poland of its government and military elements, with the Nazis targeting Polish Jews. We are accustomed to watching videos of the Polish cavalry facing German tanks, but we are rarely informed that in the spring of 1940 the Soviets murdered between 15,000 and 22,000 Polish officers and policemen in Katyn Forest to remove any chance of the Poles resisting the Soviet occupation. Initial blame was put on the equally blood-thirsty Nazis, but it was the Nazis who discovered the mass graves after capturing that region from the Soviets, and who brought in several American and British POWs to see for themselves (hoping to put a chink in the American-Soviet alliance), among them Americans Capt. Donald B. Stewart and Lt. Col. John H. Van Vliet Jr. Stewart later testified before a Congressional committee about what he saw, and Van Vliet wrote two memos, one of which was put into an Orwellian memory hole - by Alger Hiss in the State Department. This information was relayed to Roosevelt, so he and Hopkins knew about the massacre. They suppressed the information. The country would not learn about it until 1950, when Stewart delivered his testimony. Russia would not confess to the massacre until 1990. Diana West discusses this whole shameful episode in her ground-breaking book. (pp. 202-218) The Nuremberg Trials Another issue that sent Diana West off on a wholly justified tear was the hypocrisy of the Nuremberg Trials , two sets of them between November 1945 and October 1946, with the U.S. conducting separate trials in its occupied zone in Germany. Two Soviet judges sat in judgment of their fellow killers, the Germans, alongside their American, British and French colleagues, and one Soviet chief prosecutor argued that justice be meted out to the Germans in the dock. The presiding Soviet judge, Major General Iona Nikitchenko, had previously presided over some of the notorious show trials in the1930's during the Great Purge. But all the judges at Nuremberg took part in a conspiracy of silence about the enormity of guilt shared by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in the way of massacres, purges, beginning WWII by invading Poland with Germany, and policies of extermination. West noted: The fact is, not a jot about the Soviet criminal case came to judgment at Nuremberg - not the NKVD massacre of some twenty thousand Polish officers known as the Katyn Forest Massacre (charged to the Germans), not the forced "repatriation" of some two million Soviet-claimed refugees, which occurred thanks to essential assistance from British and U.S. troops - our very own war crime - which was still underway in Germany and elsewhere even as Nuremberg unfolded. (p. 55) No one was supposed to raise so much as an eyebrow, if the ghastly details of Nazi depredations described during the trials seemed to resemble the ghastly details of Soviet depredations. The Soviets commit such crimes? Perish the thought. And thought did indeed perish. Stalin's insistence on a "second front" The conduct of the war was more or less dictated by Stalin and adapted as necessary by Roosevelt and his Hopkins-picked general military staff, which included Generals Dwight D. Eisenhower and George C. Marshall. Stalin's idea was, first, to prolong the war as long as necessary, in order for the Soviets to better defend itself against the Nazis; and second, that the British and Americans should open up a "second front" by invading France. Winston Churchill, increasingly the odd-man-out in the triumvirate, argued fruitlessly to open up the new front by invading through the Balkans or through Italy, the better to cut off Soviet advances into central Europe. Unlike Roosevelt, he had no illusions about Stalin's master plan and motives. Both Roosevelt and Stalin knew alsowhat Churchill was certain would happen if the Soviet armies were able to overrun Eastern Europe and also Germany: those countries would remain under Soviet rule. Roosevelt, the "great liberator," was comfortable with the idea. West writes, quoting Francis Cardinal Spellman's recollections from his September 3rd, 1943 meeting with Roosevelt: "The European people will simply have to endure the Russian domination in the hope that in ten or twenty years they will be able to live well with the Russians," Spellman recounted FDR saying at this pre-Tehran, pre-Yalta moment. Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Bessarabia, the eastern half of Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Germany - FDR conceded all to Communist r'egimes or Soviet protection! What is most weird and most disturbing about Roosevelt's obdurate fatalism is that the entire Red Army at this time was still inside the USSR . (p. 266) Of course Roosevelt's "fatalism" saved him the necessity of making a moral judgment. That was moral relativism at work, his "convergence" kicking in to relieve him of all responsibility for the certain misery and deaths that were sure to follow a Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. Don't bother me, don't bother me. I don't want to know. And so Eisenhower became Supreme Allied Commander and began planning D-Day. German overtures to end war in 1943 rejected Integral to understanding why Stalin wanted his "second front" is West's revelations that not only was there an extensive German underground dedicated to ridding the country of Hitler and ending the war - an underground the U.S. refused to assist or aid in any way - but that Roosevelt, beholden to Stalin, rejected several overtures from high-ranking German officers to kill or incarcerate Hitler, establish a provisional, non-Nazi government, and sue for peace - but on the condition that German forces released from fighting the British and Americans be free to repel the Red Army from Germany and other regions then held by the Nazis. The war could have ended in 1943, long before the costly D-Day invasion through France in June 1944. Had that surrender happened, D-Day would never have taken place. It wouldn't have been necessary. Churchill, sympathetic to the idea, was helpless. Stalin wanted Germany reduced to rubble. A German surrender in 1943 would have been premature for Stalin and spoiled his plans to conquer as much of Europe as possible without bumping into Anglo-American forces coming from the west. He insisted on a "second front" and Roosevelt obliged him, with Churchill's strategic advice shunted to the side as irrelevant. All the men in the conspiracy to stage a coup d''etat against Hitler were subsequently executed by Hitler's henchmen, including Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, chief of German military intelligence, who had been aiding British intelligence, and who was baffled by Roosevelt's resistance. (pp. 282-286, pp. 308-309) The repatriation of Russians and Europeans to the Soviets by British and American forces, on order from Washington, was another shameful episode discussed by West, one not known to very many Americans. Ordering General Patton to stop his pell-mell drive so that the Red Army could take Berlin is a bit of history that hasn't been covered up. There is the issue of tens of thousands of American and British POWs in German camps being "liberated" by the Red Army and subsequently incarcerated in Soviet labor camps. There is one pre-war episode not mentioned by West but which has always stuck in my mind, one I read about long ago as a teen and which inaugurated my suspicions that WWII was not entirely conducted as I'd read in history books. This was story about the S.S. St. Louis , which left Hamburg, Germany in May 1939 with 900 Jewish refugees escaping Nazi persecution. After being turned away by Cuba, the ship called on Miami, Florida. No one was allowed to enter the country because of an annual quota on immigrants. After being rebuffed by the Canadians, as well, the ship sailed to Antwerp, where many of the passengers were taken in by Britain, Belgium, France, and the Netherlands. When the Nazis invaded the Continental countries, there was no escape for the remaining 620 passengers taken in by those countries. It is estimated that 254 of them died from one Nazi reason or another. My point here is that the U.S.'s ersatz immigrant quota system denied all those passengers a chance to survive and live. Today, we allow the virtually unlimited immigration of Muslims, and are contemplating allowing millions of illegal Mexican aliens, under the rubric of "amnesty," to remain here to better ensure a Democratic victory in 2016. This is a form of "convergence" not even Roosevelt could have contemplated or imagined. He opened the gates to one form of enemy; Obama and his minions continue to open them to another. Diana West has done this country a favor by putting between two covers the record of a long, disgraceful period in American history. She will not receive very many thanks or compliments for having done so. She is likely to be reviled and smeared, when it is Franklin D. Roosevelt's person and record that should be reviled, together with the Soviets' top agent, Harry Hopkins. Moral and political relativism, she demonstrated, allowed the U.S. to tolerate the Soviets and their murderous totalitarian r'egime in the Red Decade, and then become an "ally" with it to crush a rival totalitarian r'egime, that of the Nazis. It inoculated Roosevelt, a political pragmatist with strong left-wing premises, against knowledge of the terrible and freedom-destroying nature of Communism, while, au contraire , at the same time allowed him and his agents to decry the terrible and freedom-destroying nature of Nazism. West's book initially began as an enquiry into why 9/11 was met with the government's ambivalence and delusions about the nature of Islam. Observing the inroads Islam and Sharia law were making in the U.S., she was certain that Islam was not so much a primitive religion as an all-encompassing totalitarian ideology, one as committed to conquest and slavery as had been Nazism, Communism, and Shintoism. If the government had raised the hue and cry about the evils of Nazism, why not about the evils of Islam? Because Roosevelt, Hopkins, and their allies in the State Department and other government entities practiced their own brand of uncritical "outreach" to Communism and the Soviet Union. Her search for an answer led her to discover and uncover, as far as the surviving records permitted her, all the lies and truths about Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins, Stalin, Communism, and the real reasons why the U.S. was drawn into a war whose only real victor was the Soviet Union. No hue and cry was ever raised by anyone in power about the evils of Communism, she discovered. Why not? And those few who did raise the hue and cry were mocked, smeared, marginalized, discredited, ignored, and banished from serious discussion. Why? What would permit our government, the leader of the "free world," to participate in and perpetuate the suppression of the truth about Communism and the Soviet Union, and to enlarge the area of the unfree world with an insouciant cry of C'est la vie ? What would motivate it to con Americans year after year and throughout a devastating war? If our national character is defined as one of incorrigible individualism and freedom from fiat or arbitrary coercion, what had happened to it? These were the questions she sought answers to. One answer she learned was that by 1933, our government had indeed reached another kind of "convergence," one in which truth and liberty met power-lust at a vector point and were demolished by a craving for power over men as a means of having power over reality, and that such power-lust would readily discard all principles and all commitment to upholding not just the Constitution, but the value of freedom. West does not go into the history of that growing power, which can be traced back to certain ideas and actions taken by men in government in the 19th and early 20th centuries to implement those ideas, and advocated by numerous groups, the most prominent of which were the Progressives. On one hand, the culprits did not value the truth. On the other, they feared its power and went to extraordinary lengths to suppress it, erected ideological barricades to block it from public knowledge, and punished those who spoke the truth or threatened to tell the truth. It's all here in American Betrayal . Read it at your own risk. West's lesson to Americans: Reality can't be redacted, buried, fabricated, falsified, or omitted. Her book is eloquent proof of it. * American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character, by Diana West. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2013. http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2013/06/our-enemy-inside-gates.html http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=81f_1371330063 Detroit Iron Our Enemy Inside the Gates Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin Thu, 13 Jun 2013 07:36:39 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d5f_1371122788 english-patriot33 http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/06/13/tennessee-a-victory-in-the-war-against-the-muslim-brotherhood/ A Defeat for the Muslim Brotherhood. A Model for Winning. Political Islam by Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam The Muslim Brotherhood was handed a tactical defeat on June 4, 2013 in Manchester, TN. The FBI and DOJ (Department of Justice) appeared at a meeting called by AMAC (American Muslim Advisory Council - Muslim Brotherhood) in Manchester, TN. It was to include a talk by a US Assistant Attorney General and an FBI agent in charge. The meeting was due to a joke posted by a Coffee County Commissioner on Face Book. The DOJ Assistant Attorney General Killian said in a newspaper interview that the joke might be in the category of a hate crime. Over 1200 people came from all over the US to a meeting in a town of 10,000. The web had buzzed about free speech in Manchester and talk radio chimed in. In the course of the presentation by Killian, several in the audience began to shout our retorts to him. At first some in audience tried to shush them, but the momentum began to build and the shouted challenges increased in numbers and volume. It should be noted that the shouts were factual and knowledgeable. An example: when it was mentioned how hard it was to be a Muslim refugee: "Free medical care, welfare and scholarships tough to take?" When Killian said that DOJ protected voter rights, the shouts were to the tune of: "You mean like protecting the Panthers in Philadelphia?" There were also knowledgeable shouts about Islam: "We don't care about the religion, it's the politics. No Sharia." When Killian mentioned Eric Holder, the room erupted with thunderous boos. People were angry about the Feds. The FBI agent presented a better face, but he got blow back as well. Chants of "Ruby Ridge" and "Waco" rang out. This was a "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" attitude. There has been both praise and condemnation of the crowd. But to understand it, you had to be there. There was a palpable pent up anger about a long string of corruption out of the Obama White House: the IRS scandals; Major Nidal Hassan's jihad called "work place violence"; vacuuming up everybody's phone records; and more. They felt that the Feds were here to talk down to them, not to answer questions. The Feds came to talk down to them since they are considered rednecks. Those rural white people who are not politically correct are called rednecks. Rednecks are the only under-class who have no protection or advocacy. They are the only group that can be mocked, ridiculed and made the butt of jokes. The worst of the ghetto blacks are forbidden to be called the equivalent of redneck, the N word. There is no RN word. Nope, they are rednecks, trailer trash, crackers, white trash and worse. Another measure of society's hatred of rednecks it this: if the shouters in the audience had been black, the media would have said that they were: "Speaking truth to power". They would be reported as victims against oppression and fighters for social justice. But rednecks are called bigots and ignorant haters. Why did the rednecks have to come and oppose political Islam? Simple, our leaders will not do the job. The leaders in the pulpits of America are professionally ignorant cowards. Ministers and rabbis go to Family of Abraham events with Muslims and tip toe around any criticism. They cry over the Crusades and believe whatever they are told by Muslims. Over 100,000 Christians were murdered last year and there is an ongoing jihad against Israel, but not a word will be spoken to the Muslims about the Islamic crimes. Tears will be shed over graffiti on a mosque, but not one mention of Christians being machine gunned at Christmas services in Egypt. What university has ever held an event where the jihad doctrine of Islam is discussed? Critical thought and fact-based reasoning are not allowed in their forums and curricula. The history of the deaths of 270 million Kafirs has no place in history departments. Sharia cruelty is not taught in feminist studies. No word about Islam may be spoken without approval from the MSA (Muslim Students Association, a Muslim Brotherhood front.) Will law enforcement and the military protect us against political Islam? They do not even recognize the existence of an Islamic threat doctrine. All information about Islam in terrorism training must be approved by the Muslim Brotherhood. Will the media protect our civilization in a civilizational jihad? Not just no, but hell no! The media is Islam's mouthpiece and a savage opponent of everyone who opposes Sharia law. What about American business? Islamic business fuels civilizational war with unlimited funds, just as the Koran commands. As an 11 year veteran counter-jihadist, I am unaware of American business support for the counter-jihadists. There may be small donations, but no systemic funding. Muslims get billions, and our fighters get a thousand. How will that work out? Well, if the preachers, rabbis, professors, reporters, military, politicians, law enforcement and business are absent in a civilizational war, who shows up? Isolated warriors such as Spencer, Geller, Bostom, and others are the front line fighters. Oh, and Tennessee rednecks. The Tea Party types and conservatives say that we should always be polite. My personal experience is that I have presented talks about political Islam that are very civil and polite for years. It doesn't make any difference. I am still called a bigot, hater, Islamophobe, racist and merchant of hate. I have been told by community leaders that it is people like me that stir up the terror. They say I am an unpleasant man who frightens people. The Southern Poverty Law Center says that I am one of America's top 10 bigots. "Doing it right" is judged to be immoral. Being nicer may not be the way to win a civilizational war. Our society has become so wimpy and politically correct that there is no longer any righteous anger. We have become a nation of pleasant liars who are never angered at society's outrages. We are ever so polite to those who destroy our civilization. We are a nation of zombies, but polite zombies. There have been over 20,000 jihad attacks since September 11, 2001, but you don't want to mention that since someone might become uncomfortable or be offended. For years we have watched as Muslims and dhimmis (apologists) have put on a multicultural love fest with Islam. In every case Islam has dominated. This was the first time in 11 years that the Kafirs dominated the information battle space in Tennessee - the first time. How do we dominate the information battle space without shouting? Analyze what went right at Manchester. Here is what we and the rednecks did right: o We showed up. Now is in this case we had 1500 show up, but we cannot use massive attendance as a usual tactic. However, a normal AMAC event would have put out chairs for a 100 people. We don't need but a dozen people to dominate the meeting with information. o We knew the doctrine of political Islam. We knew when people were lying or telling a half-truth. o We knew the event was happening. We had intelligence and knew who the players were. o We opposed the lies by voice, leaflet and signs. This is what rednecks bring to the party-rednecks are not politically correct and speak their minds. (That is part of the reason that they are hated.) They don't give a hoot what the media/government/church types think. This spirit must be carried into every meeting. We must speak up and speak out. This is hard for those who are ruled by being "nice." We must learn how to co-opt the events without shouting. We must be organized and show up at every public event where Muslims come together with their ignorant dhimmi (apologist) partners. All of these events should become information battles. We should show up with signs and leaflets. If they will not allow signs, then bring cloth banners which can be put into bags and backpacks. We must do these things politely, but with authority like a warrior. And forget about the question and answer session for scoring points - the Q and A is always: write down your questions and we will select the ones we want to answer. We must invite the Muslim Brotherhood and all of their supporters, such as government agencies and ministers, to our own events to explain their position to us, not in their power position of speaking down to us, but in a round table event centered on fact based reasoning. The Manchester event was a rough hewn victory. We must learn lessons from it and then show up for every battle against this civilizational jihad. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d5f_1371122788 english-patriot33 TENNESSEE: A victory in the war against the Muslim Brotherhood islam, muslims, terrorists, pedophiles, what enrichment has islam ever brought your country?, Fri, 07 Jun 2013 04:59:39 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bf3_1370595104 ramotyis A white supremacist who burned down a black family's southwest suburban home in a racist attack was told by a judge on Monday to be thankful for the black lawyer who defended him. Brian James Moudry - who has the phrase "Blue Eyed Devil" tattooed on the back of his shaved head - was sentenced to 10 years in prison by U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman on Wednesday for the June 17, 2007, arson that left a Joliet family of eight, including several young children, terrified and homeless.Gettleman told the 36-year-old he should use his time behind bars to get treatment for his mental health problems and to change his bigoted thinking.Gesturing toward MiAngel Cody, the African-American federal defender appointed to represent Moudry, Gettleman said that "just looking at this lady next to you . . . who has represented you so ably and compassionately" should teach Moudry that "race doesn't matter.""Everyone who comes into this room is of the same race -- the human race that we try to treat equally under the law," the judge said.Moudry declined to speak at the sentencing hearing, but he nodded vigorously when Gettleman told him he was lucky the fire he sparked at a black neighbor's home did not kill anybody."It could have been a lot worse," the judge said, adding that he believed that, in his better moments, Moudry was also glad nobody was hurt.Cody had argued that Moudry's unmedicated schizophrenia, his history of childhood abuse at the hands of his father, and the fact that he was "extremely intoxicated" had all played a role in his decision to attack his neighbors.Wearing an orange prison-issue jumpsuit, Moudry laughed and appeared to share a joke with the lawyer, who put her hand on his shoulder in a gesture of support as he was led back to his cell.Still, hopes that Moudry will change his racist and violent ways were tempered by two recent fights he had inside the Metropolitan Correctional Center, including one in which he hit an African-American inmate with a lock inside a sock, yelling "Yeah, I'm a white m*********** from Chicago, m***********," according to court papers.Urging a 10-year sentence, which Moudry agreed to under a plea deal, prosecutor Nancy DePodesta said Moudry committed an "exceptionally despicable crime motivated by hate."She added that while Moudry's "views are certainly protected, his violent actions are not," saying the sentence should send the signal that "if you threaten someone because of their race, you forfeit your right to live in a free society."http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/22513387/brian-james-moudry-white-supremacist-gets-10-years-for-torching-black-familys-home http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bf3_1370595104 ramotyis White supremacist gets 10 years for torching black family`s home. arson,blueeyeddevil,irony Thu, 30 May 2013 13:14:58 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=028_1369933772 Detroit Iron By KEVIN ROBILLARD 5/30/13 8:42 AM EDT Updated: 5/30/13 10:29 AM EDT Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) on Wednesday called Sen. Mark Kirk's proposal to arrest Chicago gang members en masse to deal with the city's crime problems an "upper middle-class, elitist, white boy solution to a problem he knows nothing about," according to a report. Rush's comments came in a phone interview with the Chicago Sun-Times. Kirk, a Republican, had suggested the federal government spend $30 million to battle gangs and use part of that money to "crush a major urban gang" like the Gangster Disciples, the largest gang in the Chicago area. "It's a sensational, headline-grabbing, empty, simplistic, unworkable approach," Rush told the paper, adding that the $30 million would be better spent on job training and creation. "I am really very upset with Mark," Rush said, adding that Kirk's approach was an "upper middle-class, elitist, white boy solution to a problem he knows nothing about." Rush said he hoped to speak to Kirk and "get him to see the big picture." Later, Rush backed off some of his harshest language in an e-mail to the newspaper. Kirk's "current plan does not include the option to create jobs, provide affordable and safe housing, quality health care and improve schools in urban areas, BUT certainly a plan to incarcerate 18,000 black men is elitist," he wrote in an e-mailed statement. "Why is incarceration the sole option instead of rehabilitation which is proven to work and not locking young men up?" "The senator will continue to work with Sen. Durbin, Mayor Emanuel, law enforcement and the entire congressional delegation to keep Illinois families safe," a Kirk spokesman told the paper in response to Rush's comments. The Republican is pushing ahead with his mass arrest plan and intends to ask the Senate Appropriations Committee for the $30 million. He's also met with the Chicago chiefs of the FBI, ATF and DEA. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/bobby-rush-mark-kirk-chicago-crime-92027.html#ixzz2UnTM9lHz http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=028_1369933772 Detroit Iron Bobby Rush hits Mark Kirk's 'white boy' gang plan Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), Sen. Mark Kirk, Sen. Durbin, Mayor Emanuel Mon, 27 May 2013 15:56:40 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=732_1369667111 dirtytrainers For weeks we have been talking about immigration. The government ratings are at an all-time low. The U.K government is slipping towards the Ultra-Right and is a fascist entity. The country is being sold off. The corrupt banks and City of London own the Government. Then this happens: Woolwich attack: The EDL will seek to exploit this evil crime for their own evil ends http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/woolwich-attack-the-edl-will-seek-to-exploit-this-evil-crime-for-their-own-evil-ends-8628100.html Woolwich: EDL Protests As Mosques Targeted http://news.sky.com/story/1094547/woolwich-edl-protests-as-mosques-targeted Divide and conquer anyone? Well ..... It just so happened that on the 20th of this month prince William & Harry opened a new "Help For Heroes" center. In addition they called for increased public support for the cause. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22593036 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-22593184 Obviously the psychological seed was well and truly planted with that little gem. Could it be a startling coincidence the victim was a serving soldier was wearing a "Help For Heroes" t-shirt as reported by the MSM? Media "sources" describe the men shouting "allahu akbar" whilst performing their dastardly deeds. No eyewitnesses can confirm this at this time. Currently their are two versions of the black gent with the knifes giving his rather eloquent speech doing the rounds, the first I saw was what appears to be the original shows him without blood stained hands, the second with what appears to be a woeful attempt at blood covering his hands and weapons. There is some suggestion that the quality of the footage and colour depth could account for the discrepancy in both videos. Personally I'm not convinced. The obvious lack of blood upon the guys clothing including his trainers or white socks. There are no bloodied footprints to be found anywhere upon the crime scene. Also there are anomalies regarding the blood surrounding the crashed car and it's lack of appearance in later pictures (both sets of pictures are post mortem). If this was indeed a frenzied, maniacal attack would we not see at least some arterial spray/blood upon the assailant? Having seen the extent of the damage on the front of the car would you say that it's consistent with an individual being hit at speed? Yes? Then how do we explain the car breaking within less than 12 inches from the street sign? Do you see any evidence to support sudden breaking before impacting with the sign post? Any tyre marks on the pavement? No. Were they such expert drivers they managed to strike a pedestrian on the pavement at speed with sufficient force to cause such damage to the car and stop dead within such a short distance from the sign post? Maybe the extent of the damage seems excessive, maybe the car collided with the sign post and the damage wasn't caused by the impact of the pedestrian, if that's the case why isn't the sign post showing any signs of damage? No bending, no scrapes, nothing. The three women surrounding the headless corpse, walking around casually. Shock? It's a possibility, but all three women in such close proximity to such a ghastly scene and no reactions of grief, shock, distress? Is it a fair assumption that you would want to distance yourself from the victim? The apparent lack of concern from the surrounding public watching these men hacking this guy up? Not one person attempted to fight them off, no attempt was made to do anything apart from film the incident post mortem. There is at this point no footage showing the act being committed ( can you believe that in this day and age with the availability of phones) Who was the balls of steel camera man who stood still and filmed the six foot black guy walking towards him with bloodied hands and cleaver in hand? Would you be stood there at that precise moment in time capturing his words for posterity? Ingrid Loyan Kenett the heroine of the hour ..... categorically stating that the attackers were not under the influence of drugs, drink or any other substance. Very similar to the guy after the world trade centers were hit offering his "theory" regarding the jet fuel melting the internal structures. Waiting for the armed response to turn up and hanging around the crime scene for twenty minutes? Is that consistent with a jihadist? What hasn't made it's way into the public arena yet is the attempted shot one of the guys tried to get off at the police. I saw on Twitter yesterday a guy stating that they had an old rusty .45 on them and it backfired on him. This is a tried and tested method of the patsy set up, arming them with fake or dysfunctional equipment. Admittedly it's spurious at best but it is very consistent with their methods of operation. Analysis Via The Captive State https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCaptiveState Additional links: BBC website Woolwich attack: Footage shows man with bloodied hands http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22633269 (NOW NOT WORKING) WOOLWICH: MICHAEL'S BEST FRIEND WAS A SOLDIER KILLED IN IRAQhttp://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/woolwich-michaels-best-friend-was.html WOOLWICH SUSPECT 'PROTECTED BY MI5'http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/woolwich-suspect-protected-by-mi5.html STOP. STEP BACK... AND THINK http://www.chrisspivey.co.uk/?p=12025 Former British prime minister confirms media manipulation of government http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=2794 Something odd about Woolwich incident http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/something-odd-about-woolwich-incident.html WOOLWICH: FALSE FLAG: INSIDE JOB: FAKE http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/woolwich-false-flag-inside-job-fake.html Was the London killing of a British soldier 'terrorism'? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback?CMP=twt_gu http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=732_1369667111 dirtytrainers Woolwich Knife Attack - The Missing Blood on the ground False Flag, MI5 Pawn or Lone Wolf London Woolwich Knife Attack May 2013 Missing Blood MI5 Pawn Lone Wolf False Flag EDL BBC ITV David Cameron France Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:08:14 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=341_1370358341 SvenVonErick Destroying the family unit, population control, winning the minds through control, and Agenda 21, the elite UN policy to end independence, self-sufficiency, and self-employment globally. Spy agencies like the CIA aren't tools of the government. They are the government. Crossing the Rubicon is having CIA operate domestically conducting Black Ops and having Military check points inside a country. Citizens are being conditioned to be inmates, not citizens. Yes, the TSA molests children right in your face. In Alaska, remote Russia, and other points on the globe, some populations are dependent on seals to live remotely. Should all citizens, using any excuse be kettled in cities which will become prisons. There is 100% trapping of all cell calls and internet usage. Surveillance cameras are strung up everywhere. Police are under no obligation to protect and serve you, they are guards for international organized crime, bankers, the cabal of lawyers, and the government. "Cow Sharing" or providing others with raw milk is a crime. International corporations are out to control all farming, all land, all business, all government, all resources, all energy. We have been invaded by a country without borders. The UN is international corporate organized crime. The elite have long used and filled the ranks of the CIA and other organizations. I was told by Tolland Troop C Connecticut State Police Sgt., now Lieutenant, that I was a target of police for being a contractor, as all contractors are drunks, and for being a landlord, because all landlords are slumlords. I broke no laws. Pre-9/11 in Stafford Springs, Connecticut, and in other test cities there was allegedly 100% tapping of phone, 100% official trolling of internet usage, and 100% looking at what you own, what you have, and if there are any young hot women or girls. Police were taking inventory, going after potential leaders, illegally confiscating guns, property, and assets, and were financially wrecking small business owners and the self-employed who are not mafia, police, lawyer, or government affiliated, pre-9/11. It has only gotten worse. my saga ] Target on the Secret Police arrest on sight, Enemies List for blogging critical of a governor ] Getting Made in the Police Mafia ] Corbett Report: Jan Irvin on CIA, MK-Ultra, LSD and more ] RT America, Baby Seal Documentary, source ] It has only gotten worse after the elite almost eradicated the family farmer. Agenda 21 is killing off populations, jailing us in new city "living", sterilizing us, dumbing us down, making us sick, killing us, and robbing all that can be taken. Hail, Hail our masters in the UN. What happens to the US economy when the Fed quits just printing 85 billion dollars a month to prop up the economy? What is already happening in Europe? What is happening in China? ames Corbett of the Corbett Report and Dr. Stan take your questions ] History of the banking elite ripping you off, video here ] http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=341_1370358341 SvenVonErick Defending the practice of beating baby seals in head? UN, US, Agenda 21, Bilderberg, OWS, Patriot Act, Martial Law, Connecticut, State, Police, brutality, Sandyhook, Schoolyard, shooting, hoax, gun, ban, confiscation, Boston, Bombing, NYC, false flag, 9/11 Wed, 29 May 2013 13:43:02 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2a1_1369849170 2cr51 29 May 2013 Last updated at 05:44 Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22698668 Papua New Guinea has repealed its controversial Sorcery Act but has expanded its use of the death penalty. Under legislation passed in parliament on Tuesday, killings linked to allegations of witchcraft will now be treated as murder. The death penalty will be applied to more crimes, including rape, and more methods of execution have been approved. Amnesty International condemned the move to toughen penalties. "Papua New Guinea has taken one step forward in protecting women from violence by repealing the Sorcery Act, but several giant steps back by moving closer to executions," Amnesty's deputy director for the Asia-Pacific Isabelle Arradon said in a statement. 'State-sanctioned violence'In parts of Papua New Guinea, deaths and mysterious illnesses are sometimes blamed on suspected sorcerers, usually women. But officials say accusations of witchcraft are used to justify violence. The repeal of the 1971 Sorcery Act, which acknowledged the accusation of sorcery as a plausible defence in murder cases, came after a series of brutal public killings. In February, a 20-year-old mother accused of sorcery was burned alive in a village market. Two months later, a woman accused of black magic was beheaded. Sorcery-related killings will now be treated as murder and the death penalty will be applicable, local media said. Ms Arradon called the repeal of the act "long overdue" but accused the government of "attempting to end one of form of violence by perpetrating state-sanctioned violence". Lawmakers have also approved legislation allowing the death penalty to be applied to aggravated rape - gang-rape, the use of a weapon, or rape of a child - and armed robbery, PNG's The National reported. Parliament approved several methods for applying the death penalty, the Post Courier reported, including hanging, lethal injection, firing squad and electrocution. Penalties for kidnapping, theft and white-collar crime were also toughened, with longer jail terms prescribed. The laws were tough but reflected crime levels and community demands, The National quoted Justice and Attorney General Kerenga Kua as saying. Papua New Guinea has not carried out an execution since 1954, despite parliament's decision to reintroduce the death penalty for murder in 1991. At least 10 people are currently on death row, Amnesty said. PNG Prime Minister Peter O'Neil announced plans to begin implementing the death penalty and to increase prison sentences for violent crimes last month, saying "draconian" measures were needed. His move followed a number of high-profile crimes in the Pacific nation, including the gang-rape of a US academic in April. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2a1_1369849170 2cr51 Papua New Guinea (PNG) repeals sorcery law and expands death penalty Execution, death, penalty, reinstated, Tue, 28 May 2013 13:36:27 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a6_1369762142 novixus This past Thursday, George Zimmerman's attorneys released new evidence relevant to the upcoming trial of their client on a second-degree murder charge for the shooting of Trayvon Martin. The Martin family attorneys say the evidence is irrelevant. They are wrong. It is damning. The text messages and photos from Martin's cell phone tell a story wildly at odds with the one the State of Florida and the media have been peddling for more than a year, but one altogether truer and sadder. In the way of recap, in February 2012, Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain in Sanford, Florida, shot and killed the seventeen-year-old Martin. Taking their cue from the Martin family's attorneys, Reuters ran the first national article on the shooting ten days after it happened. Zimmerman was a "loose cannon." He profiled Martin, stalked him, and shot him, disregarding police instructions. Martin, by contrast, was a "good kid." He had hoped to be a pilot. He was simply bringing the soon-to-be iconic iced tea and Skittles home to his "little brother." This story was pure fable from the beginning, and the attorneys knew it. Even before going public, they moved to seal Martin's school records, and with good reason. Consider this exchange between Martin and a female friend on November 21, three months before his death. After he told her he was "tired and sore" from a fight, she asked him why he fought. "Bae" is shorthand for "babe." MARTIN: Cause man dat nigga snitched on me FRIEND: Bae y you always fightinqq man, you got suspended? MARTIN: Naw we thumped afta skool in a duckd off spot FRIEND: Ohh, Well Damee MARTIN: I lost da 1st round :( but won da 2nd nd 3rd . . . . FRIEND: Ohhh So It Wass 3 Rounds? Damn well at least yu wonn lol but yuu needa stop fighting bae Forreal MARTIN: Nay im not done with fool..... he gone hav 2 see me again FRIEND: Nooo... Stop, yuu waint gonn bee satisified till yuh suspended again, huh? MARTIN: Naw but he aint breed nuff 4 me, only his nose As his social media accounts show, Martin was a student of mixed martial arts. The fight followed the MMA format. A day later, he would tell a friend that his opponent "got mo hits cause in da 1st round he had me on da ground nd I couldn't do ntn." As his girlfriend complained, Martin was "always" fighting. He was also something of a sadist. His opponent, after all, did not bleed enough. Why might this be relevant? Witness #6, the best of the eyewitnesses to the shooting, told the Sanford PD that a there was a "black man in a black hoodie on top of either a white guy ... or an Hispanic guy in a red sweater on the ground yelling out help," and that black man on top was "throwing down blows on the guy MMA style." Martin was not the innocent little boy that the media relentlessly and corruptly portrayed him to be. At the time of his death, he was five feet, eleven inches and weighed 158 pounds. To put this in perspective, legendary boxer Tommy "The Hitman" Hearns was six feet, one inch and 145 pounds when he first won the world welterweight title as a twenty-one-year-old. Before leaving for Orlando on February 21, 2012, Martin had already missed 53 days of school that year and been suspended three times, most recently for possessing drug paraphernalia, the time before that for getting caught with women's jewelry and a burglary tool. Why might this be relevant? When George Zimmerman first spotted Martin near the shortcut into a community plagued by burglaries and home invasions, he told the dispatcher, "This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something." Zimmerman might have been right on both counts. Had the school district police not been ordered to suppress crime statistics, especially for black males, Martin would likely have been arrested at least twice, and that might have snapped his parents out of their fog. Instead, as the new evidence reveals, he was allowed to live out his increasingly angry, aberrant life as though he were merely a bit mischievous. On November 22, the day after the MMA-style fight, Martin told a friend that his mother "just kicked me out" and that he had to move in with his father. When the friend asked why, Martin answered, "Da police caught me outta skool." "U a hoodlum," said the friend. "Naw," said Martin. "I'm a gangsta." Incredibly, his death would transform this wannabe gangster into a saintly little boy, or, in the words of Florida State Attorney Angela Corey, a "precious victim." On December 21, 2011, Martin told a friend, "dam I just got in trouble 4 sum sh** I aint even do." His mother, Sybrina Fulton, was dismayed. "Pack up your clothes now," she texted him. "I love u but I think u being w/ ur Dad is best." Martin lived with his mother only intermittently and spent even less time with his father, who was then living with a sister in the Miami area. On December 22, Martin confided to a girlfriend, "I got in trouble." She asked, "What did you do now." As was typical, Martin took no responsibility. "I aint do ntn . . . . call me." The friend had other priorities: "I'm about to get my nails done so you gotta wait a few." On the day before Christmas, Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton, texted him: "I'm concerned about u but I'm praying for u and I want U to pray for yourself EVERYDAY, ok." She was texting the son she used to know. The Trayvon who was about to turn seventeen, she knew next to nothing about. On January 6, 2012, Martin got into trouble at school again. When asked why, he told a friend, "Caus I was watcn a fight nd a teacher say I hit em." Said the friend, "Idk how u be getting in trouble an sh**." By this time, Martin's mother had thrown him out of the house for "fightn," and he had moved in with his aunt and uncle. The multiple texts about "weed" and the photos of marijuana plants confirmed his interests in drugs -- a friend called him "weedhead" -- but the new photos pointed to an even more dangerous new hobby -- namely, guns. Indeed, one of the photos of Martin's showed a hand, likely Martin's own, on a pistol. On February 21, 2012, Martin took the bus for Orlando to stay with his father's girlfriend, Brandy Green. He was free to travel because his school had suspended him for marijuana. The bust did little to sober him up. "I hid m weed," he confided to a female friend, afraid that they might have searched him on the bus. He texted later that day, "I got weed nd I get money Friday." The saddest messages among these texts come from the parents who indulged him. They had all but lost control of their son but chose not to see how far out of control he had spun. Like so many divorced parents, they were torn between punishing him and appeasing him. The father, Tracy Martin, texted his son during this trip to Orlando. "Show much respect to and adjust to my Lady & . Show them you a good kid and you want positive things aroud you." His mother texted him as well: "R u comfortable on the bus?? Go to sleep n u will be there soon." In between these texts, Martin was negotiating to buy a handgun with a friend. "U wanna share a .380?" he asked. Guns excited him. "U got heat??" he enthused earlier upon learning that a friend had access to a gun. Upon leaving Miami, Martin seemed to be growing angrier. On February 21, he texted a girlfriend who was pouting about another girl, presumably in Sanford. Wrote Martin, "f*** u cuz I neva text ha 2 day I made dat sh** up so u leav me df alone bout it." Two days later on February 23, a friend tried to warn Martin off some behavior that troubled even the friend. "I ain't ya parent," he texted him, "but gsh** thro it away." Martin was not in the mood to be lectured to. "Y u gotta knock my hustle??" he shot back. On February 26, bored and likely high, Martin was in no mood to be challenged by some small "white" guy who was trying to maintain a visual on him until the police arrived. "As I headed back to my vehicle the suspect emerged from the darkness and said, 'You got a problem?'" Zimmerman would tell the Sanford PD. When Zimmerman answered, "No," Martin said, "You do now." As it turned out, both of them had a problem. Martin's proved fatal. Martin's parents failed him. The school system failed him. The sad vestiges of the civil rights movement betrayed him, and the media betrayed America. This all comes at a cost, and the piper has yet to be paid. http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/new_evidence_shows_trayvons_life_unraveling.html http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a6_1369762142 novixus New Evidence Shows Trayvon's Life Unraveling New Evidence Shows Trayvon's Life Unraveling Mon, 27 May 2013 11:19:48 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c9e_1369667398 Detroit Iron The whitewashing of the Weather Underground JUN 3, 2013, VOL. 18, NO. 36 o BY PETER COLLIER At one point in The Company You Keep, Robert Redford's new film about the residue of the Weather Underground, a character named Sharon Solarz is captured by the FBI after living under a series of aliases since her involvement in a Michigan bank robbery decades earlier in which a security guard was killed. Ruminating in her cell, she describes for a young journalist the moral dilemma people like her faced back then. They could either sit by and watch as America destroyed the innocent peasant culture of Vietnam or take arms against atrocity. She says decisively of her group's decision to go all-in against the war in Vietnam, "We made mistakes, but we were right," and then, after a beat, "I'd do it again." SOMEDAY, THEY'LL ALL BE HANGING OUT IN FACULTY LOUNGES. At about the same time that The Company You Keep was being previewed, New York University announced that it was appointing Kathy Boudin, real-life model for the Solarz character, as a 2013 scholar-in-residence at the law school. It might have been called a harmonic convergence back when the Weatherpeople first made news with their Days of Rage, but since then the college campus has been well established as a rehab center for members of the sect looking to reenter the mainstream. Before Boudin (who, in addition to the NYU gig, has an assistant professorship at the Columbia University School of Social Work), Mark Rudd, Howie Machtingter, and, of course, Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers, Weatherman's Bonnie and Clyde, all used university jobs to regain their footing as they resumed their pursuit of the revolution they once thought would be created by propaganda of the deed but concluded, after a few years of paranoid anonymity in the underground, might better be pursued through propaganda of the word. Kathy Boudin was the hardest case. Still underground after the others had come up, she'd been the getaway driver in the notorious 1981 Brink's robbery in which one guard was murdered. After her getaway vehicle was stopped, she lured four Nyack policemen who arrived on the scene into an ambush where they were cut down by the other gang members' automatic weapons; two policemen were killed (including Waverly Brown, first black officer on the force). When she resurfaced after serving part of her murder sentence, she couldn't very well use the defense of other Weather Underground members that they had, after all, engaged only in victimless crime, or that they were just antiwar protesters, America having fled in ignominy from the Saigon embassy six years before Brink's. But the universities that brought her aboard not only offered respectability and a paycheck, but also, as writer Michael Moynihan has noted, purged her curriculum vitae of all its pungent factuality. NYU's press release announcing her appointment merely certifies that Boudin has been "dedicated to community involvement in social change since the 1960's." Social change, in fact, is also what Weatherman is all about in The Company You Keep . Redford's character, Jim Grant, a former member of Solarz's cell who has long since said goodbye to all that and made a new life (under a false identity) as a public interest lawyer and single father to his 11-year-old daughter, is outed by her capture. He then goes on a quest to find Mimi Lurie (Julie Christie), his lover from the underground days who also was part of the Michigan bank job and has been hiding out ever since. She is the only person who can prove that he wasn't even there on the day the crime went down and thus help him keep the FBI from separating him from his child. Grant's quest takes him into the gauzy world inhabited by comrades from 40 years ago-one of them a lumber yard owner still guarding the secrets of the old gang with the fierce loyalty that the film sees as a sign of the group's moral character; another is now a professor Grant finds in an Ann Arbor lecture hall discussing Marx ( quelle surprise !) and then assigning Frantz Fanon for the next class session. With their help, Grant finally meets with Mimi in a cabin in Upper Michigan, a love shack from their past. She is still committed to the cause and has no sympathy for his timorous second thoughts. They bicker about the way they were and the way they ought to be, and then, in a climactic scene, Mimi fiercely rebukes Grant's bourgeois obsession about what will befall his daughter if he is arrested. She ends her little tirade by saying, as if she has stumbled on something profound, "I still believe in change!" So when it comes right down to it, Weatherman didn't really have anything to do with bomb factories, bruising criticism/self-criticism sessions (Maoist "gut checks"), draconian intercourse assignments to break down the bourgeois possessiveness of monogamy, wool gathering sessions about which cop to kill or politician to kidnap, or fantasies about imprisoning capitalists in vast political reeducation centers in the Southwest when America was finally conquered and liquidating them if they refused to recant. No, it was about change-premature Obamaism. In a promo for the film with the New York Times 's David Carr, Redford says that he was "sympathetic" to the Weather Underground at the time, and understood its reasons for doing what it did, although he adds densely that he was also against their "turn to violence"-as if this group's ends and means were ever divisible. He says that like them he too had paid a price for his beliefs. No wonder then that he portrays them as Weather-beaten martyrs in this film. No wonder that he sees them as idealists who might have been driven temporarily insane by an obscene war but have managed somehow to recover their ideals during the gray ambiguity that has enshrouded them ever since. Weatherman was always radical, but how did it become chic? How did this group-proudly totalitarian in its day-get mainstreamed without ever having to undergo denazification? Why has it been allowed a rehabilitation without evincing at least a token of remorse? The group has profited greatly from the time-lapse atonement our culture offers free of charge to those who simply hang on. Weatherman has no doubt also benefited from the leftward drift of our political world over the last 40 years, especially the etymological waterboarding of the term "liberal" to make it describe the radicals who killed authentic liberalism in the '60s and then inhabited its corpse and claimed that it had always been them anyhow. But it is also true that this sect, which was about nothing if not the triumph of the will, has created its own redemptive myth. Forty years ago, it might have been expected that the central architect of Weather revisionism would have been Bernardine Dohrn, the sensual face of the group from the moment it became news; the queen bee who maintained internal power by adroitly dispensing her royal jelly among all the jostling males of the group; the group's sayer of the unsayable, as in her infamous reaction to the Manson murders: "Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate their dinner in the same room with them, then they even stuck a fork into the pig Tate's stomach. Wild!" But today, while Bernardine is the lawyer, it's her husband Bill Ayers who has successfully constructed, over time, the brief accepted by Redford and others that argues, all facts to the contrary, that Weatherman was not a terror group at all, but the last of the just. Ayers was the first to understand that the universities, dominated in the 1980s by those who had failed to burn them down in the 1960s, could provide a rat line back to the real world. Weatherman had already pioneered the ideology about race, class, gender, and national evil that was finally taking over the academy, and when he surfaced in 1980 (unprosecuted because of irregularities in federal surveillance), he saw that someone like him could use that ideology as protective coloration when resuming the long march. Briefly a teacher in a Summerhill-like school in his early radical years, Ayers enrolled at Columbia University's Teachers College in 1984 and embraced the "critical pedagogy" that was just then taking over the formation of teachers. This movement, as Sol Stern has pointed out in City Journal , charges that public schools reinforce the "oppressive hegemony" of the capitalist order, creating a sinister ideological tape loop that can only be destroyed by a "transformative" curriculum of "social justice." With gurus such as Brazilian Marxist Paolo Freire urging on a radicalism that "does not conceal but proclaims its own political character," critical pedagogy slowly infiltrated leftist ideas into every aspect of classroom teaching, including science and math, and created a prime hitchhiking opportunity for someone like Ayers, who already spoke the lingo. He got his Ed.D., peewee version of the Ph.D., which led to a teaching job at the University of Illinois, where he began to pursue his old ideas by other means. He began writing and became general editor of a series of teaching-for-social-justice texts (a couple of them bestsellers) that were regarded as cutting edge by his new colleagues. By the mid-1990s he had established himself as an "education reformer" whose academic credibility, combined with his family connections, helped root him in the rich political humus of Chicago's bien-pensant left. But all this was just prologue for Ayers's Big Project-constructing a counter-narrative about Weatherman that provided the script Sharon Solarz is reading from when she says in The Company You Keep that her cell of criminal revolutionaries was right, whatever mistakes it might have made. Having spent years practicing on his students, Ayers makes the case with hyperthyroid fervor in his 2001 memoir Fugitive Days . He dramatizes himself as born in the U.S.A., a resident of white-bread America whose father was CEO of Commonwealth Edison in Chicago. He was a jock and a girl chaser and a frat boy in the making. But like others of his generation, he also had existential appetites and sensed the allure of alienation. Like them, he heard a beguiling voice in films such as The Wild One (where Marlon Brando, leader of a motorcycle gang terrorizing a small California city, announces the advent of the '60s when a girl asks him what he's rebelling against and he answers, "Whaddaya got?"). Finding authenticity in the civil rights and antiwar movements, Ayers tells how "Become who you are" was his credo and "Never let your life become a mockery of your values" his commitment. Fugitive Days has other such moments of self-dramatization. Assuming his new occupation of activist, Ayers enthuses: "I bounced out of bed most mornings wondering how I could . . . embody justice and enact democracy." And in anticipation of one of the early street actions where violence was in the air: "I was about to personally disrupt this war, and I tingled all over." He also expresses, in moist prose, a generation's narcissistic certainty of its own world historical "specialness, the exceptional good luck at being young and eager to take on the waiting world. . . . So much was in such desperate need of repair, after all, and here we were, expectant, intent, hot with a desire to know and to do. To live." He and his comrades were ready to begin the reconstruction project, but the politicians continued on their murderous course in Vietnam, which left the radicals no alternative but to go from The Wild One to The Wild Bunch . In 1969, a small core committed to the idea of "doing it" formed Weatherman, which both epitomized and euthanized the New Left, and resolved not to draw back from the brink of revolutionary violence where the rest of the Movement had halted. They went to war against Amerikkka without a second thought: "I was already a rebel and I would now become a freedom fighter." Embracing the identity of "vandals in the mother country," Weatherman intended to slough off "white skin privilege" and open up "a front behind enemy lines and fight side by side with Black people." But only a handful of black criminals joined them, and in any case, their plans ran afoul of the Greenwich Village Townhouse Explosion in the spring of 1970, in which three Weatherpeople died while building a nail bomb meant for a dance at Fort Dix for 18-year-old draftees headed ultimately to Vietnam. Among the dead was Ayers's then-girlfriend Diana Oughton, identified by the fingertip that was all that was left of her; one of the two survivors was Kathy Boudin, who fled naked from the blast, never looking back on the journey that would lead her to solidarity with the mad dog Black Liberation Army a decade later and a murder rap for the Brink's job that her father, Leonard Boudin, Communist consigliere to the old and new left for four decades, got his attorney friend Leonard Weinglass to whittle down to second-degree and 20 years. The Townhouse established their street cred as people whose acts were consequential. (In Fugitive Days , Ayers visits the haunting void where the building once stood and allows it to summon up for him the hallowed dead, a Weather version of Arlington.) But it also was a cautionary tale. The group's internal dynamics had always been based on the gut check, but in the explosion they had gut checked themselves. Without the emotional impediment of the Townhouse, they might have taken the course of their continental cousins-the Red Brigades in Italy and the Baader-Meinhof Gang in Germany. But instead, they decided that the prudent course was to stay put in the toy department of terrorism. Although Ayers ostentatiously mourns his loss, the tragedy provided him an important arguing point: The group only killed its own. He also threw the dead martyrs under the bus by implying that the bomb-makers were a faction; them, not us. Following the Townhouse was the Underground-years of bombing runs, minimum wage jobs, cheesy disguises, and shabby apartments filled with the sour odor of fermented Vietnamese fish sauce which Ayers romanticizes as the time they learned to love their country again by discovering the real America of John Brown, Crazy Horse, and Denmark Vesey: "We disappeared then not from the world, but into a world, a world of invention and improvisation, a romance of space and distance and time, an outpost on the horizon of our imagination." Brent Staples was one of the few reviewers not to fall for it. Writing in the New York Times , which otherwise has been a megaphone for Ayers and Dohrn over the years (most egregiously in a 1993 article showing Bernardine as just another harried soccer mom, making healthy snacks and ferrying the kids Zayd Osceola-named for the Black Liberation Army soldier Zayd Shakur and the Seminole insurgent-and Malik Cochise-named for Malcolm X and the Apache guerrilla fighter-to all their events in a battered used car while also keeping up the fight against sexism), Staples nailed Fugitive Days as "partial telling reaches fraudulence." Yet he misses the point. While Ayers is a mythomaniac in love with his own story, his intention is never to see his life steadily and see it whole. (He states puckishly in the text that his memory is fuzzy on how and where they set their bombs and certain other matters.) The book's real purpose is to establish the talking points that would provide a second coming for Weatherman. First, however "excessive" some of the things they did might have been, the body count in Southeast Asia made their actions penny ante by comparison. Six thousand Vietnamese died every week, Ayers repeats over and over in the book and in all the public statements since. In his chop logic, Weatherman could have had a body count of 5,999 and still been morally ahead. (That more people were killed in Southeast Asia in the first 3 years of the Communist peace than in all 13 years of the anti-Communist war goes unmentioned.) Vietnam is for him as God is to Voltaire: If it hadn't existed he would have had to invent it, because in comparison to the napalmed villages, the families destroyed, and the bodies mutilated, what he and his comrades did was child's play. Second, in their days in the Underground, they behaved with restraint, destroying only property, not people. ("Even with justifiable rage we simply didn't have it in us to harm others, especially innocents, no matter how tough we talked.") But it was not for lack of trying that there was no body count. As Emory professor Harvey Klehr has said, this argument makes a virtue of incompetence. Third, and contingent on the other two, they were never terrorists but rather activists engaged in symbolic acts. ("Terrorists destroy randomly, while our actions bore, we hoped, the precise stamp of a cut diamond. Terrorists intimidate while we only hoped to educate.") This would be education by any means necessary . Finally and most audaciously, they were no different from everyone else in the New Left, wanting only "to create a society more equal, more fair, more just, more caring"; if they were guilty of anything, it was a "grandiose innocence" in their delusive hope that they might actually help this heaven on earth come to be. But in fact, the rest of the '60s left was deeply suspicious or outright hostile to Weatherman, which is why it remained a cult instead of becoming a movement. Yet Ayers always wants to give free rein to his imp of the perverse, even if it means undermining the truth he is trying to manufacture. (Not long after emerging from the underground, he said to me and my friend David Horowitz, when asked how he felt about escaping prosecution, "Guilty as hell, free as a bird, America's a great country.") And so, at the end of Fugitive Days , after writing his brief, he dedicates it to H. Rap Brown, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Leonard Peltier, etc. Different in their wickedness, these individuals were all cop killers. And Ayers himself had tendencies in this direction back in the bad old days, if we are to believe Bringing Down America , a little-noticed book written in 1976 (and recently reissued) by Larry Grathwohl, who infiltrated Weatherman for the FBI. (He was eagerly accepted at first because he was a Vietnam vet and from a working-class family and therefore the authentic "other.") Assigned to one of its "affinity groups," he saw action in the streets and met many members of the Weather Bureau, Weatherman's ruling junta, notably Ayers himself. In this unpolished book, Grathwohl describes the brain-dwarfing regimen-karate workouts, struggle sessions, bad meals, and sweaty spycraft to combat presumed surveillance. His cell aspired to be in the mold of the Uruguayan Tupamaros and used The Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla as its guide. Other hard-edged parts of the Movement might romanticize the example of Nguyen Van Troi, the Viet Cong cadre who tried to assassinate Robert McNamara in 1963 (Tom Hayden named his son Troy after him), but Weatherman, always willing to step further into the abyss, fixated on the obscure Marion Delgado, a 5-year-old Italian with an Alfred E. Newman smile who set a concrete block on railroad ties in the 1940s and derailed a freight train. Their war whoop was "Marion Delgado: Live like him!" Writing about Ayers before he became a public figure, Grathwohl portrays him as one part twerp and one part thug, a mephitic presence who blew through town every once in a while to browbeat the cadre into becoming sharper tools of necessity. Grathwohl says that Ayers himself conceived the idea of blowing up the Detroit Police Affairs Association building the week before the Townhouse because this group was defending the three cops involved in the "Algiers Motel incident." He quotes Ayers: "We'll blast that f-ing building to hell and we do it when the place is crowded." When a couple dozen sticks of dynamite had been gathered, Grathwohl points out timorously that the patrons of the restaurant next to the building, many of whom were black, might be collateral damage. Ayers replies contemptuously, "We can't protect all the innocent people in the world. Some will get killed." (The bomb failed to go off.) Ayers was always urging them to break on through to the other side: "Anybody can firebomb a police car, but we have to go beyond that stage." These were the heady months before the Townhouse, when they were still ready to go all the way. At one point, according to Grathwohl, Ayers reproaches members of the cell for their lack of initiative: "It's a shame when someone like Bernardine has to make all the plans, make the bomb and then place it herself." This may refer to the February 1970 bombing of the Park Police station in San Francisco, where one cop was killed and another injured by an especially vicious bomb filled with nails and construction staples. It is still an open case. According to a detailed investigative report by the San Francisco Weekly , Ayers and Dohrn were targets of a secret 2003 federal grand jury investigation of the bombing, and in 2009 the San Francisco Police Officers union formally accused them of being involved in the attack. Grathwohl's book unravels in advance the account Ayers wove in Fugitive Days 25 years later. Ayers's argument that the sect never killed anyone (except its own) is shown to hinge on accident, not intention, and has a rancid odor. While Fugitive Days was celebrated, Bringing Down America quickly disappeared down the memory hole. Today Grathwohl speaks to small gatherings of ultra-right groups. Ayers speaks to the New York Times . It was exceptionally bad timing, it seemed, when Bill Ayers, on the promotion tour for his memoir, was quoted in the paper's early edition on 9/11 as saying, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." Apparently worried that Ayers would appear louche, the paper sent another reporter for a follow-up five days later. The growing acceptance of Ayers's apologia for Weatherman was indicated by a 2002 PBS documentary on the Weather Underground that featured and flattered him and the others. He and his comrades had first had a starring role back in 1976, when Emile de Antonio made a documentary that didn't show them but recorded their self-obsessed voiceovers from an undisclosed location. The producers of the PBS show didn't have to bother with such huggermugger and showed a more mature version of Ayers and the others, while also noting on the program's website that they viewed this group as "filled with righteous anger" and driven by "the idealist passions that transformed them from college activists into the FBI's Most Wanted." The rehabilitation project got a huge boost a year later from Neil Gordon, author of the surprisingly well-received novel on which the Redford film is based. Gordon used a cloud of witnesses to present a revisionist view of the Weather Underground and in his author's note thanks Ayers, whose intellectual fingerprints are all over the book. One character says, for instance, that the Weathermen were "some of the biggest hearts and best minds of the times put everything they believed into it" but were confronted by such illicit government power that it is natural they became "impatient." Others utter exculpating vacuities such as, "She might have believed in the wrong thing, but at least she believed," apparently unaware that the same might be said of Pol Pot. The Bank of Michigan job, where a guard was killed (by a mysterious Weather member, who, suspiciously like Larry Grathwohl, had been in Vietnam before joining the group and never fit in), is described as not one of the "normal" Weather actions in which "only property was destroyed." Although Weather Bureau members Billy and Bernardine and Jeff Jones had made it clear in their 1974 underground manifesto Prairie Fire , dedicated to assassin Sirhan Sirhan and others, that the group was for "the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie and establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat," Gordon portrays them as the moral equivalent of Minutemen. His protagonist says, "In the '70s, for the second time since 1776, white Americans defending the ideals of democracy took up arms against our government." Another character associates the group with the country's most fundamental identity: "We came to partake of the American myth of the maverick, the last wild horses roaming free along a western frontier." Barack Obama, who left Ayers twisting slowly in the wind along with Jeremiah Wright in 2008, also offered him a unique opportunity to complete his mission. Initially, the revelations about their relationship raised questions about Ayers's status as a mover and shaker in Chicagoland politics, although Mayor Richard Daley Jr. (whose father a younger Billy wanted to kill) let him off the hook by saying, "You judge a person by his whole life." Even so, having the media harrowing the old ground of bombs and bloodthirsty rhetoric that Ayers thought he had put behind him was not a good thing. But Obama sidestepped his relationship with Ayers. The two had worked together in the Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Fund-in the first, Ayers helped Obama get the job of giving away $50 million for education in Chicago, and in the second, he sat with Obama on a blue-ribbon board making large and telegenic grants to the downtrodden-and Bill and Bernardine had staged one of Obama's first fundraisers when he made a serious bid for power. When the president-to-be dismissed Ayers during the presidential campaign, despite all these links, as just "a guy in the neighborhood," probably an anodyne Alinskyite at this stage of the game, but in any case someone whose walk on the wild side had occurred when Obama himself was 8 years old, it created a new opening for Bill. If the true nature of Ayers's activities during the 1960s was seen as an academic question by the man about to be president, why should it matter to anyone else? If the future leader of the free world regarded him as worth knowing, why shouldn't Ayers's arguments about the true meaning of things be taken seriously? The association with Obama gave him a platform to make his case again-at a time of his choosing-to an audience that was now paying attention. Soon after the votes were counted, Ayers was invited to write an op-ed for the Times in which his talking points, purged of worrisome details, are compressed into a form as canonical as the Nicene Creed: I never killed or injured anyone. I did join the civil rights movement in the mid-1960s and later resisted the draft and was arrested in nonviolent demonstrations. . . . In 1970, I co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that was created after the accidental explosion that claimed the lives of three of our comrades in Greenwich Village . . . took responsibility for placing several small bombs in empty offices-the ones at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol were the most notorious-as an illegal and unpopular war consumed the nation. . . . It was not terrorism; we were not engaged in a campaign to kill and injure people indiscriminately. . . . We-the broad "we"-wrote letters, marched, talked to young men at induction centers, surrounded the Pentagon and lay down in front of troop trains. Yet we were inadequate to end the killing of three million Vietnamese and almost 60,000 Americans during a 10-year war. It was a more serious tone than he had taken in the 9/11 interview, where, when asked if he'd do it all again, he said he didn't want to "discount the possibility." In this final version he makes himself a Where's Waldo somewhere among "the broad 'we.' " He and the other members of the Weather Underground were merely fish swimming in the sea of these people. Ayers felt confident enough that he even ended the piece with a little lecture on the dangers McCarthyism posed to the democratic process: "Demonization, guilt by association and the politics of fear did not triumph, not this time. Let's hope they never will again." The Times approached Ayers again for a Q&A in 2009, in which the interviewer (who identifies herself as the daughter of a couple who were part of Weatherman) refers to him as someone who has engaged in a "long struggle against racism and social injustice." He jocularly accepts the compliment and says that indeed he remains a radical in the sense that he is always inclined "to go to the root of things." After badinage about the unpalatable Sarah Palin and what his children are doing, he tells the interviewer that he continues to be "a work in progress . . . living in a dynamic history that's still in the making." Giving flip and witty answers to the questions, he is, for the Times interviewer, quite a character. And then came The Company You Keep , cherry on the whipped cream. The Daily Beast celebrated the opening by doing an interview with Ayers, as if he were part of the movie, noting the "parallels" between him and the character played by Redford. Bill is allowed to blithely distance himself from some of the things he and his comrades did when they were "stupid, na"ive and young," and then to go on the attack against the Obama administration for its overreaction to North Korea. Having delivered his opinions on the continuing sickness of U.S. foreign and domestic policy, Ayers looks back with satisfaction at the past he has worked so hard to reconfigure: "People want me to say I really regret being in extreme opposition to the war, and I don't regret that. I'm happy for every cringing politician, every restrained bombing mission, and every piece of destroyed military property. I think it's all worthwhile." The Redford film and this je ne regrette rien comprise his victory lap. Largely because of Bill Ayers, Weatherman, having had its cake, now forces the rest of us to eat it. Like Sharon Solarz in Redford's movie, Bill would do it all again, even though he and his comrades, in his own version, never did it in the first place. Thanks to his perseverance, his little cult of violence has been reimagined as citizen activism in a legendary time when it was bliss to be alive and very heaven to be locked and loaded; veterans of a foreign war in which they functioned as a postmodern version of the Lincoln Brigade; lone survivors of a brave Thermopylae that sought to stop American imperialism in its tracks. Having finally come home in the age of Obama, the Weatherpeople, it now turns out, were never really revolutionary criminals like Che, Huey, Ho, and all the other political riffraff they still heroize and name their children after, but merely progressives in a hurry. Peter Collier works at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is coauthor, with David Horowitz, of Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the Sixties . http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/progressives-bombs_729026.html?page=1 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c9e_1369667398 Detroit Iron Progressives with Bombs Robert Redford, Weather Underground Sun, 24 Mar 2013 00:45:51 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=876_1364099790 star53 Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson were not available for comment because the infant had a different complexion than Saint Skittles. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=876_1364099790 star53 Mother of Baby Shot Dead Speaks Out in Heartbreaking Interview: 'He Must Have Died Instantly' Baby Shot Dead,Mother Speaks Out,black on white, crime Thu, 02 May 2013 16:24:17 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=acc_1367525985 ConspiracyTardLL Sources: Collection of articles in reverse chronological order MSM's Unabashed Censorship - World Net Daily Media continues to censor black on white crime Newark Star-Ledger admits censoring race in savage mob attacks Media censored seven hate crime mob attacks in Grand Rapids Censoring black on white crime in the liberal media Should race play a role in how the media reports crime http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=acc_1367525985 ConspiracyTardLL Introduction to the media censorship of black crime media, bias, race relations, msnbc, cnn