Monday, April 17, 2006

A witch-hunt by the anti-white forces that rule America has been undertaken against the Duke lacrosse team

No "innocent until proved guilty", it would seem

"I am angry and outraged. As one of the few people on the planet that regularly writes a column commenting on issues that effect the white “community” I will take the liberty to speak for the people whose views I represent and say that I (we) feel extremely angry and outraged at the high tech lynching being performed on the white members of the Duke University lacrosse team.

There has been a concerted effort by the anti-white elite and their enablers in the media to try and convict these fine young men for a crime they did not commit. It is beyond outrageous to see the treatment they are getting from the university staff, the student body and the local and national media. In a country that values its legal tradition and the concept of innocent until proven guilty, the behavior of these people has been contemptible.

It's no secret that the media has a decidedly biased viewpoint on racial matters. They have a strong desire to promote diversity and multiculturism, which ensures that they will line up squarely on the side of any non-white “victim” in a high profile criminal case. This often leads to them being easily manipulated, such as in the “Tawana Brawley” hoax of years ago which ruined the lives of several white men but made Al Sharpton a national figure. Which means it was a disaster by any measure.

The Duke lacrosse team is made up of some of the best of our young men. They are student athletes in the truest sense of the word. They play for the love of the game, not fame or fortune. They are good students and good citizens. It’s only through the poisonous effects of our modern culture that they have been made to think that it would be entertaining to invite strippers to one of their parties.

The media would try to insult these men by indicating that they are “privileged” or “well-to-do,” as if these qualities were insults. What "privileged" means is that their parents, grandparents, and other ancestors worked hard to provide for their offspring. It is through the sweat and toil of their families that the Duke players are fortunate enough to be able to afford a first class education. Many of them will be the future captains of our industries (should any be left) and leaders of our society (if it still exists). All due to the hard work of their family.

Yet our sympathies are supposed to be with the black stripper. She is a single mother who has chosen to support her offspring by taking her clothes off and putting her naked body against the bodies of strangers for money. Only in America circa 2006 where good is bad, and ugly is beautiful can the life choices of a stripper be looked upon more favorably than that of high achieving students and athletes.

The woman in question has made allegations of rape. Her allegations have been accepted as true with little doubt by the media and the public. Thus we have young men who come from good families, families that have a long history of lawful behavior, and they are automatically assumed to be the bad guys in this tragic farce.

However, despite the full-court assault on these young men, the case is unraveling faster than a cheap sweater. There are pictures of the stripper/victim just before the incident with many of the signs of injury that she indicated to authorities came from the alleged rape. A gang rape is sure to leave behind copious amounts of DNA by the perpetrators yet DNA testing has been announced that completely exonerates the “suspects.”

But the local DA, Mike Nifong (spit when you say his name), will not let up. He still insists that a crime has been committed even in the total absence thus far of any evidence. He has vowed to see this through to court. It is unbelievable that in America a wife-beating murderer like O.J. Simpson, who is black, can leave his DNA all over a crime scene and it’s not enough to convict him; but the complete absence of the DNA of 40+ white men accused of a gang rape is not enough to cause a “reasonable doubt” in the eyes of the legal system.

Not only is it quite possible that this hoax has ruined the lives of these men, but the coach of the lacrosse team has resigned, Duke’s nationally ranked team has forfeited all it’s games, and one player has been expelled for writing an email that is typical of the stuff kids write nowadays but since it is violent in nature — he’s gone.

Also thrown into the mix is a 911 call from that night by a white girl and her black female friend complaining that someone was yelling racial insults at them. While this appears to be part of the hoax it’s another example of the ridiculous and terribly frustrating thinking of the modern world. How many people would ever think that being called names amounted to an offense great enough to be considered an emergency?

The women in question should be cited for improper use of the 911 system. How in heavens name can any adult alive in America think that the apparatus of the police and legal system exists to protect them from being called names? Reminder: the use of the word “n-word,” like the use of the words “honkey”, “redneck”, or “cracker”, does not constitute a crime, and if it did there would be even more black people in jail than there are now because black people use the word all the time.

There has not been one official organization that has been impartial, let alone taken the side of these young men. All of them, the Duke University staff, the DA’s office, ESPN, other TV and the print media, have chimed in on the condemnation of these men who by any rational measure are innocent of wrongdoing. That is how it is in the US of A, relentless attacks on all things white, no exceptions.

The only reason this story could possibly be noteworthy is because it brings up the possibility of a crime that is so rare as to be almost unheard of: white gang rape of black women. Yet the opposite situation, the black gang rape of white women is so common that it gathers little news attention.

The actual truth about the danger of interracial rape is not prejudice; it is reality. Every year there are about 15,000 black-on-white rapes, but fewer than 900 white-on-black rapes. Each year there are 3,000 gang rapes of whites by blacks and too few white gang rapes of blacks to show up in the statistics. That is 8 gang rapes of white women PER DAY!!!!! Eight!!! Compared to nearly ZERO by white men annually. That means that if there is any truth to this fabrication at Duke then we are talking about an incident that is so rare that it can be of no significance to anyone but the people involved.

Another addendum to this absurd incident is the constant complaining by blacks and their apologists that if this was about black men raping white woman there would be more attention paid to it, as if there could possibly be any more attention than it is now getting.

And would someone please pay attention to those 15,000 rapes!!!! 15,000! Annually! That is over 40 rapes committed by black men against white women each day. And these numbers only reflect those crimes that are reported. That means there are many, many, more that actually occur and certainly go unpunished. This means that black men are effectively waging a war on white people by raping our women. And it doesn’t stop there.

Everybody already knows that blacks make up over 60% of the nation's prison population but only about 12% of the general population. But did you also know that blacks kill about 12 white people each day? How about the fact that blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more dangerous than women? Or that blacks commit violent crimes at four to eight times the white rate? And there is more black-on-white than black-on-black violent crime. Blacks even commit more HATE crimes then white people.

For God’s sake why is everyone so interested in what happened at a Frat house on a university campus when white people are being ethnically cleansed across the country? Can anyone imagine the sheer terror of being gang raped by a group of thugs? What about the safety of our wives, girlfriends, sisters, mothers and daughters? It’s as if the nation were stuck in some strange episode of the “Twilight Zone” where everything that was true was disbelieved and everything that is a lie was treated as truth. There is hardly any other explanation for it.

Clearly the enemy has taken over the reins of power. When there is no public or privately voiced support for your people and your causes you may be assured that you have lost control of your country. How sad it is to know that so many of those that have deserted our race are in fact people of our own blood. Can there be any pain greater than to be put under attack by your enemies and all with the help of people that make up your extended family?

Why would white Southerners, kith and kin to these young men, be so quick to attack and condemn them? Have these people no children themselves? Do they see a brighter future for their own offspring growing up in a country where they too will be under attack and considered guilty in all cases just because they are white? Why such self-hate by a people who have such a wonderful history and otherwise have so much to be proud of?

These are difficult questions to consider let alone try to answer. That it happens so often is even more distressing but rest assured as they sow so shall they reap. You may decide for yourself what are the causes of this distressing racial abrogation of duty. You can also assign blame, cause, and guilt. It is all there in front of you. It is only necessary for you to honestly look and you will see what others have seen before and what we must all someday acknowledge and confront together".



Nearly ninety years ago, when divorce liberalization was being advocated by feminists, G.K. Chesterton warned in The Superstition of Divorce that undermining the family would imperil civic freedom. His warning was vindicated recently when Massachusetts family court judge Mary Manzi outlawed a book that criticizes government officials. Manzi herself is sharply criticized in the book but obviously did not recuse herself from the proceeding.

On March 24, Kevin Thompson received an order prohibiting distribution of his book, Exposing the Corruption in the Massachusetts Family Courts. The court also impounded the records of Thompson's custody case, reinforcing the secrecy in which family courts like to operate.

The standard justification for secret courts is the one Judge Manzi now extends to censorship: "privacy interests of the parties' minor child." Thompson's son has already been forcibly separated from his father, and his life is now under the total control of state officials. What "privacy" does this child have left? Thompson understands that the true reason for the secrecy and censorship is not to protect privacy but to invade it with impunity: "The only interests that are protected are the interests of the racketeers and hypocrites who invade 'family privacy' by removing loving fathers from the lives of their children against their will and without just cause to fill their pockets."

Many people have trouble believing the harrowing tales of human rights abuses now taking place in American family courts and wonder why, if they are true, we do not hear more about it. Perhaps because in many jurisdictions it is a crime to criticize family court judges or otherwise discuss family law cases publicly. In other words, censorship works. Thompson's case is not isolated. Under the pretext of "family privacy," parents are gagged and arrested for criticizing the courts:

* Alice Tulanowksi of New Brunswick, New Jersey, was placed under a gag rule in 2000, though judges and the New Jersey Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts were left "free to discuss the intimate details of Alice's case" in public.

* Stanley Rains of Victoria, Texas, in 2001 was gagged "from speaking, writing, or publishing his opinions" about why he was cut off from his daughter for more than two years, according to court documents. The order covers private conversations and discussions with mental health professionals and his minister. Issued with no evidentiary hearing, the order followed an article Rains published in Fathering Magazine. He was also prohibited from criticizing a city council candidate who was a divorce lawyer. The order precluded Rains from photographing death threats written on his mother's car.

* The former husband of singer Wynonna Judd was arrested and jailed for talking to reporters about his divorce.

* A California judge shut down the web site of the Committee to Expose Dishonest and Incompetent Attorneys and Judges in 2001.

* In 2005, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott formally asked a federal court to punish Charles Edward Lincoln, for criticizing the state's family courts. Abbott termed the criticism, which consisted in filing some court papers, "bloodless terrorism."

Outright censorship is only the start, since judges usually prefer more subtle methods for stopping the mouths of their critics. Thompson is also being forced to pay the attorneys who advocated the book ban. This practice has the marvelous double effect of providing booty for the judge's cronies and justifying incarceration of critics who cannot pay the instant "debt." Following his criticism of the family courts in testimony to Congress, Jim Wagner of the Georgia Council for Children's Rights was stripped of custody of his two children and ordered to pay $6,000 in fees of attorneys he had not hired. He was soon after arrested for nonpayment.

Censorship of speech and press is only the tip of the iceberg and serves to cloak even more serious constitutional and human rights violations. Writing in the Rutgers Law Review, David Heleniak recently revealed the "due process fiasco" of family law. Calling family courts "an area of law mired in intellectual dishonesty and injustice," Heleniak identifies six major denials of due process by which courts seize children and railroad innocent parents into jail: denial of trial by jury, denial of poor defendants to free counsel, denial of right to take depositions, lack of evidentiary hearings, lack of notice, and improper standard of proof. In family law, "the burden of proof may be shifted to the defendant," according to a handbook for local officials published by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Dean Roscoe Pound writes that "the powers of the Star Chamber were a trifle in comparison with those of our juvenile court and courts of domestic relations."

In fact, even this only scratches the surface. One can run point-by-point down the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections, and there is hardly a clause that is not routinely ignored or violated in family law, where practices include mass incarcerations without trial, summary expropriations, presumption of guilt, coerced confessions, ex post facto provisions, bills of attainder, and more. Family courts and their hangers-on are by far the greatest violators of constitutional rights in America today.

Journalists of both the left and right studiously ignore these violations, as do "human rights" groups, even when shown undeniable evidence. It will be interesting to see if they can ignore censorship that touches their own profession.

For his part, Thompson says he intends to ignore the censorship. "Everything that I am doing right now is for my son," he declares. "I will not be shut up."


Cheerleaders ordered to cover up

Incorrect midriffs! Do any of these gals look "anorexic"??

Scantily-clad cheerleaders have been ordered to cover up because of fears they may be encouraging schoolgirl anorexia. Cheerleading's governing body Gymnastics Australia is banning teams from baring their midriffs and has given them until the end of the year to find new uniforms. The organisation believes the revealing costumes make sensitive teenagers feel uncomfortable about their weight and "affect the self-esteem of others". It is also keen for cheerleaders to be seen as athletes in sports wear, rather than bimbos in bikinis.

This has angered cheerleading squads who say audiences don't want a cover-up. Brisbane Broncos cheerleaders' manager Anthony Ikin, whose squad is not affected by the ban, described it as "ridiculous and way too extreme". "The midriff is not an area to be concerned about exposing ... no one wants to go to a game and see people in tracksuits and baggy clothes, it's not appealing ."

Broncos cheerleader Angeli Chupungco, 21, said she was happy wearing the uniform of a sports top and shorts with stockings. "The outfits are appropriate for what we're doing and we look the way people want us to look as cheerleaders." The ban, which has already been imposed in the United States, will affect teams which are registered with Gymnastics Australia or compete at their events.

More here

No comments: