Lemming Report

The Cult Of Victimhood

2010-03-26T04:56:00.000-07:00

The following is submitted by political prisoner and LibRA associate member Michael Nelson,who may be contacted at:
Michael Nelson, 908546
Stafford Creek Correctional Center
191 Constantine Way
Aberdeen, WA 98520
Some of those who have been on this e-mail list for awhile may notice this is a revision or update of a previously submitted report. Further commentary follow's Mike's article--JWG

------------------------------------------------

The Cult of Victimhood

Why People Should Oppose "Offender Change" Programs Like "Victim Awareness"

by Michael Nelson

Notes

The first version of this report was turned in as a class final paper along with New Century Foundation's The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Violence in America. Another copy was served on the head of Washington Dept of Corrections (WDOC) Joseph Lehman.

Due to numerous complaints about the as-taught curriculum, a video version was produced shortly after this report was circulated. WSP continued to teach its marxist version of "Victim Awareness" until the author obtained the controlling contract between WDOC and the State Board of Community and Technical Colleges. (Marxist community college teachers taught the class in WSP/Walla Walla.)

After the contract was used to identify and challenge parts of the course that violated law, policy, and the contract itself, the class was finally cancelled statewide.

The author bears sole responsibility for the content and his views do not necessarily reflect those of Liberty Rights Advocates or any of the sources used in this report.

About the Author

Nichael Nelson is a prisoner in the Washington State Deparment of Corrections (WDOC) serving a twenty-five year term in the 1998 shooting death of an Everett man. Since that time Nelson has sought to reform and educate himself through participation in our representative government. Nelson is a member of Liberty Rights Advocates (LibRA) and promotes social reforms through activitism.

Nelson is a "White Nationalist" in his political, religious and cultural perspectives--holding these in a single cohesive worldview. In retaliation for his views, Nelson was held in WDOC "close custody" confinement for nearly twice the term dictated by policy, despite a glowing conduct history. Nelson has spent over a year in solitary confinement assignments over allegations that prison administrators knew to be false, even months after overturning these charges in legal proceedings.

Nelson promotes the idea of "ethnic self-determination" for all peoples loyal to their Folk, with freedom from forced assimilation and association, and the understanding that no people has the right to support from any other. Because Eurofolk are forced to support and "celebrate" the cultures of people that hate them, he anticipates the rise of "Ethnostates" after a second civil war in America.

Based on analysis of several prison education programs, Nelson suggests we should end unverisal public education in the United States because academe has been infiltrated by anti-Eurofolk leftists who impose their hateful views on their students. Until education returns to academics Eurofolk must refuse to participate financially or otehrwise.

Nelson encourages dialogue between readers of his reports and their elected representatives and can be contacted by mail [at the address listed above].

The Cult of Victimhood

Before beign allowed on mailine at Washington State Penitentiary (WSP / Walla Walla) I was hauled before a tribunal of prison staff and questioned about my lawful, free-world associations. Though initially screened by the FBI at WDOC's Shelton Reception Center in 1999, and officially found not to pose any threat to prison securitym WSP's jewish Program Manager, Carla Schettlr, thought otherwise). She forced me to sign a "Security Threat Group (STG) contact" which required I undergo "re-education" in, among other classes, "Victim Awareness."

The public was led to believe that "Victim Awareness" gave prisoners a healthy respect for the impact of their crimes on society. But this class, and others like it, are used to indoctrinate prisoners with a marxist, anti-Eurofolk worldview. Because mutlicultural ideas and policies have never worked when applied, they can be said to comprise a sort of state "religion" with a strictly enforced orthodoxy requiring dogmatic faith in obvious falsehood. It is my hope that this thoughtful critique of "Victim Awareness" curriculum will give the average person a good look at this wierd religion.

I've traced the change in public educaton from academics to behavior modification, on a federal policy level, to the pasage of the "Elementary and Secondary Education Act" (ESEA) in 1965. Since that time public education hs become a sort of brainwash program for indoctrinating "students" with marxism. I believe that our social and economic problems are directly linked to the application of marxist theory. Many of you will recognize this in my evaluation of "Victim Awareness" curriculum.

As stated in the "Victim Awareness" workbook, cobbled together from various sources, "the goals of Victim Awareness Education Program are: 1, to understand the short and long-term impact of crime in victims and co-victims; 2, to increase pro-social attitudes and feelings."

For prisoners who don't understand the impacts of crime on society, this is a laudable goal. However, the vast majority of prisoners harden toward incorrigibility due to deliberate cruelty by corrupt prison staff who seem impervious to redress. This makes it doubtful that the desire to forcibily obtain from the convict a genuine respect for the impact of his crimes can be realized:

"If there is a genuine conflict of cultural standards as to what is right and lawful, he handling of the prisoner in terms of a group norma which he does not accept may be useless as far as prevention or reformation is concerned. Only when the individual internalizes the norm of the punishing group will he make, ordinarily, any serious effort to change his ideas, attitudes and habits as they concern his alleged criminal activity." Personality and Problems of Adjustment, Kimball Young, pp 626-27 (1952).

The increasing of "pro-social attitudes and feelings" is more troubling. This is an ideologically charged term which can accurately be translated as "politically correct delusions." These ideas are so obviously stupid that only very intelligent people could have thought them up. (Taylor, 1998.) There is no stronger antidote for these stupid ideas than time servied in America's 21st Century gulags. Truly pro-social attitudes and feelings (though sane persons wouldn't call them that) can only be cultivated in an atmosphere of fair treatment, and through participation in representative government. They cannot be imposed by force.

As an example of how the "Victim Awareness" class gave prisoners stupid ideas, here's Exercise 1A from the workbook:

"Jackie's friends don't understand why she gets so frightened when Phil is late coming home from night school. Jackie reads the papers and knows what can happen to a young black man walking through the local neighborhood at night, especially if the police are looking for a suspect in some kind of crime."

It's a good thing Jackie doesn't know what can happen to a young White man walking through the local neighborhood at night, she might be even more frightened, but nmot for "Phil"." Real trouble beings where "Jackie reads the papers and knows" thereby that black men "are singled out for mistreatment"--and the implication is--due solely to their race. The ugly truth is that blacks commit many times more crimes than Eurofolk, and they're the perpetrators in 90% of interracial violence. When the victim says his or her attacker was black, these people cry foul when police properly "profile" their search for a black suspect. The book's analogy was misleading because American blacks are a privileged class enjoying preferences in employment, education, special rights not afforded Eurofolk, and special sympathy when "victimized" by Whites in any way, real or imagined (adapted from Levin, 1998).

Exercise 4A in the "Victim Awareness" workbook described a crack dealer named "Bobby." A the end of this missive I was asked to identify the victims and co-victims. Curiously, the teacher insisted those who used drugs were "victims." That seemed troublesome to me. When asked to list how the characters were "victimized," my answers revovled around dysgenics and multi-culturalism. I carefully counterpoised personal responsibility to needy, blaming victimhood.

While correcting my assignment, the teacher wrote that the characters in Exercise 4A wee "victimized" through "drug use/abuse." She deliberately gave all of us the impression that we "victims" if we wre drug abuses. "Victim" status was promoted as desirable and people were somehow specially deserving of solicitude for their own poor choices to use drugs. I disagree and so should you.

I believe that to promote special exaltation of "victim status" itself if very, very damaging. It disempowers people by encouraging them to believe that they are not personally responsible for their own misconduct, thus discouraging personal initiative towards reform. Washington's Legislature, faithfully representing the will of the people, intends or prisons do the exact opposite of this:

"It is the intent of the Legislature to establish a comprehensive system of corrections for convicted law violators within the State of Washington to accomplish the following objectives:...The system should positively impact offenders by stressing personal responsibility and accountability." RCW. 72.09.010(3) Legislative Intent

For those who buy into the tempting proposition that they are "victims," the next logical question is: "Who, then, was I victimized by, if not by mself?" For those unfamiliar with the pathos, this dependancy mindset requires the action of others to remedy one's inadequacies. "Whitey is keeping me down!" is the perfect example.

These teachers jump at the chance to steer the focus of the "victim's" newly fabricated resentment in a "politically correct," "progressive" direction. ["Progressive," in Leftist acedeme, means anything that tends toward the dispossession and genocide of homogenous Eurofolk.] Before you think this is just a coincidence, remember: the stock-in-trade of Marxism is the stirring up of unfounded resentment, then agitation of the begrudged, by imposing upon them perspectives of envy, jealousy, and, yes, "victimhood."

As students we were encouraged to give vent to our newly discovered "vicimization" where Exercise 4D asked: "Who do you want to tell this to?" I wrote: "Mr. Ed, Toucan Sam, Rocky and Bullwinkle, and the Parole Board, consisting of the above, respectively." Just think what the "correct" answers might have been.

Exercise 7B required I describe a crime scenario involving vehicular homicde/assault. Driven by a desire to pen a more plausible vignette than the Phil and Jackie story in Exercise 1A, I responded with the following acerbic tome:

"NAFTA allows unlicensed Mexican driver into Texas where his dilapidated 'Beverly Hillbillies' style truck spontaneously explodes killing dozens of neabry negroes who are looting the downtown stores during a power outage."

I'm pretty sure I saw scenes like the above during reports on the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Here, I was asked to list three impacts of the crime in each of the following categories: physical, emotional, financian and spiritual. Am I out of ine for being annoyed at "spiritual" questions by the government? Iconoclast that I am, my answers here were not the usal fare, and probably funnier than the story itself. After reading my answers, the teacher gave up her attempts to "correct" them.

By Exercise 7C, on drinking and driving, when asked "who do you want to tell this to?", I couldn't resist answering: "Absolutely no one. If he Therapeutic State coddles us from the cradle to the grave, incompetents will multiply who'd otherwise die by natural selection."

My observation is obviously much too late.

Sections 8 and 9 of the "Victim Awareness" workbook dealt with the horrific topics of child abuse, sexual abuse, and various conmbinations thereof. Page 103 of the workbook boldly proclaimed to shed some light on The Color of Rape. National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) statitistics used in this section noted that 82.5% of rape victims are White, and 13.3% are black. In claiming blacks were 10% more likely to be raped, it gave us the vague impression that blaks were raped most often. Though rape perpetrator statistcs were given here, "the color of rape perpetrators" was just too "politically incorrect" to mention. They weren't counting on one of the students having this same data in their possession, so fortunately I can provice you with a real education.

Ninety percent of violent crimes between blacks and Eurofolk are committed by blacks against Eurofolk. When blacks commit violent crimes they choose White victims more than half the time, which means there is more black on White crime than even th emuch lamented black on black. Statistically, White criminals choose black victims onoy 2.5% of the time! Misrepresentation of these facts is subversive to the public interest because it gives Eurofolk a false sense of security around blacks. For every black mugged by a White, 24 Whites are are mugged by blacks! The color of rape is black on White: for every black woman raped by a White man, 200 White women are raped by blacks!

While sexual assault statistics were dealt with in purported detail in "Victim Awareness" class, on pages 101 through 104 of the workbook, none of the above--critical for victim awareness about the color of rape--was included. Statistics like these carry an alarming message. There are violent consequences when social programs like "Victim Awareness" promote hositility towards Eurofolk by insisting that victimization by Whites is the cause of non-White overty, disease and criminality (adapted from Taylor, 1998.)

As will become even more clear below, the "Victim Awareness" class promotes violent consequences by putting the stupid idea that "Whitey is victimizing you!" into the heads of non-Whites. The public should know that America's prisons are recruting grounds in a movement to enlist an underclass of begrudged minorities in a War Against Whites.

Section 11 dealt with "hate crimes." On page 108 of the workbook it proffers that "the ['hate crinme'] offender acts because of what the victim is, an African America, a Mexican, a Jew." Once again, this promotes a belief squarely opposite of reality: that the listed minorities are the ongoing "victims of White violence." Blacks are even twice as likely as Whites to commit "hate crimes!"

In all the examples of criminal conduct written for the "Victim Awareness" "Hate Crimes" section, all implicitly represented perpetrators who would be classified as "White" in the FBI's "hate crime" documentation schema in which hispanics can be the "victims of hate crimes," but when they're the perpetrators, they are mysteriously transformed into "White" to boster the surprisingly low White offense rates. Eurofolk make less to-do about their victimization, so minimizing it here might be understandable. But obviously, after the endless race-baiting hee, Eurofolk victimization doesn't count and teaching the truth about it does not advance the social goals of those who developed "Victim Awareness" curriculum.

The first story represented the torching of a mosque. The second, a synagogue. In the third, an elderly "African American" man was accosted by "four Caucasian young people." The fourth depicted "gay" bashing. In the fifth, an hispanic girl was verbally intimidated by six hispanic youths who'd be counted as "White" "hate crime" perpetrators for statistical purposes.

Exercise 11F instructed me to write my ow :hate crime" story which I omit for brevity, and frankly because it wasn't very nice. 11G ended the section in asking I define "hate crimes," which I now know are "crimes" our media propagandizes as being frequently committed by "typically" nefarious Whites against "noble" and "chosen" "minorities" who are more equal than I am. When asked how these are different than other crimes I realized that "hate crinmes" charges seem intended only for Eurofolk. When asked what I can do about then, my outrage demaded I expose their hyposcrisy in application by writing this. When asked what I'dlearned, I realized that a War Against Whites is being waged in American prisons:

"In its ["hate's"] most extreme form--genocide--concerted efforts are made to annihilate the group physically...In its less extreme forms hatred can be expressed in subtle forms of bias that inflict psychological harm, making victims feel angry, unwanted, inferior, and so forth." Victim Awareness Handbook, Hate Crime Section, Introduction.

When you think about the above quote in the context of the class curriculum you realize those who developed the course are revealing to the studejts that they know full well their class is anti-Eurofolk. The "infliction of psychological harm," "feeling angry," "inferior," and accepting this without objection, was what they intended for Eurofolk in the class.

The only plausible explanation for all these accumulated coincidences is that anti-White marxist agitators are marketing the hurt and anxiety of crime victims so they can profit--socially and economically--from browbeating Eurofolk prisoners and setting all other prisoners against the Eurofok community. If this still sounds farfetched, think about it this way. If you actively sought to reinforce notions that Eurofolk, primarily, are "victimizers" and that their "victimization" not only means less than that of others but is justly deserved, then you could not have done a better job than with this curriculum. It is, therefore, impossible to believe that this was just a coincidence.

To have prisoners forcibly subjected to grisly accounts of mayhem in a "victim awareness" class is an ironic twist reminiscent of the movie A Clockwork Orange. America's prisons, under the guise of Orwellian "offender change programming" have become systemic, controlled environments for the advancing of "politically correct" perspectives (adapted from Glidden, 2001) that prison managers know are false, but at their best maintain for the purposes of enriching themselves with scare tax dollars. At their worst, infiltrators in prison management are using these programs to create a society very different from one which honors real diversity of peopes and opinions.

Works Cited

Glidden, P.E., 2001, Parents Should Oppose Holocaust Education - Barnes Review, Vol. VII, No. 1, pp 17-19.

Levin, M., 1998, Recent Fallacies in Discussion of Race - In The Real American Dilemma: Race, Immigration, and the Future of America, ed. J. Taylor, 69-87, Oaktan, VA: New Century Books.

Taylor, J., 1998, Introduction. In The Real American Dilemma: Race, Immigratio, and the Future of America, ed. J. Taylor, 1-10, Oakton, VA: New Century Books.

---------------------------------------

This report by Michael Nelson is an update of an earlier version. After we circulated it online, some outside inquiries were generated, which in turn prompted some state legislators to make inquiries. The program was temporarily shut down, partially because it was set up in a way that it violated Washington state law and original contracts.

The neo-marxist thought cops who style themselves with the Orwellian phrase "politically correct" are obsessed with imposing their warped view upon others. Perverted school curriculums some of those on this list are aware of. Some of these characters realized that priosners can be, quite literally, captive audiences upon whom brainwashing and indoctrination can be coercively imposed. The way "pc" thought cops operate, some times a ruse is used of taking a valid, legitimate or worthwhile program and perverting it into one which ignores original purpose but instead focuses on coercively imposing their own warped outlook upon others. The original "victim awareness" program, or the concept of it, isa sinister example of this ruse in action. The original idea and purpose of this program by those who first forumulated it, had been to enable those convicted of real offenses to be made aware of the impact of their crimes upon real victims. Once the program was set up, original textbooks and instructors werediscarded and replaced with ones advancing the "pc" agenda. Thus came the aberration Michael writes about, by those wanting to instill "white guilt" in Eurofolk prisoners and racial hatred of Eurofolk by non-whites. By bleating about the imaginary "victims" of "white racism," among the various special people classes, the effect also is to rationalize the crimes committed by non-whites as excusable--which of course contradicts the original intended purpose of instilling awareness of the effect of real crime upon real victims.

Such programs can and should be exposed and fought. Legitimate rehabilitation efforts for legitimate reasons, yes, we are in favor of these. Bogus thought control brainwashing programs for neo-marxists with their Orwellian corruption of language, no.

John W Gerhardt, Chief Advocate
Liberty Rights Advocates
PO Box 713
Johntown, OH 43031
brushfires@gmail.com

--------------------------------------------------------------

The name of our e-newsletter, Brush Fires Online, is taken from our membership newsletter, Brush Fires, which was inspired by the Sam Adams quote you often see us use. We give our political prisoners a forum for their own articles and reports, and this forum is also available to other prisoners who are also LibRA members who are taking a stand against tyranny. In addition to reports on LibRA activities, articles and reports by "free world" LibRA activists and advocates are shared with those on this list. As we grow in strength and resources, we will also address other civil liberties, civil rights, and constitutional rights issues effecting our Eurofolk people outside America's gulags. Those not on this list can be added upon request by contacting us at brushfires@gmail.com. Better yet, if you are finally ready to actively participate in something positive and effective, become an associate member of LibRA and be part of a growing network of active advocates.

A EUROFOLK

CIVIL RIGHTS ASSOCIATION

VOICE OF OUR POLITICAL PRISONERS

support

Liberty Rights Advocates

P.O. Box 713

Johnstown, OH 43031

brushfires@gmail.com

or donate online

Liberty Rights Advocates

SPLC Plays Politics with Hate, Smears Americans For Truth as ‘Hate Site’

2010-03-25T07:12:00.000-07:00

SPLC Plays Politics with Hate, Smears Americans For Truth as ‘Hate Site’

Mass Resistance update

2010-03-24T13:46:00.001-07:00

March 24, 2010

MassResistance Update

Pro-family activism

"In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
- George Orwell

Home Page

Blog

FIGHT BACK!

Please DONATE

1. In unanimous vote Mass. House caves in to gay lobby on "anti-bully" bill. Adds GLSEN homosexual school guidelines; requires diversity training to school staff; extends bill to include private schools; fines and jail terms for kids; and more.

2. ADL and radical homosexual groups worked with House members to craft anti-bullying bill. Includes two groups that terrorized a church in downtown Boston!

3. What should be done about bullying in schools?

In an extraordinary move, the Massachusetts House of Representatives added language to the "anti-bully" bill to align it with the goals of a major homosexual activist group. (Luckily, it does NOT include the "hate speech" language that was in the original version -- which we got removed.)

At the center of this bill is GLSEN, the "Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network". GLSEN is an aggressive and militant homosexual national activist group which targets children in the public schools. GLSEN's goal is to normalize homosexual behavior to school children, often in a very graphic manner. Here in Massachusetts, they were involved with Fistgate, The Little Black Book, and other horrible events. They organize homosexual "gay-straight alliance" clubs in high schools and middle schools across the country, etc.

GLSEN is behind a recent push across the country to use state "anti-bullying" legislation as a vehicle to force homosexual diversity training into public schools (including staff training), and punish anyone who voices criticism of homosexual behavior. A large part of their website is devoted to this.

	Is it really a problem? School posters for GLSEN's "No Name Calling" program focus on intimidating kids who say "that's so gay" to mean dumb or uncool:

The House bill is patterned after GLSEN's "Model State Anti-Bullying and Harassment Legislation". It also includes language similar to GLSEN's "Model school anti-bullying and harassment policy" and GLSEN's guidelines for schools. These were designed with GLSEN's goals in mind: to use anti-bullying legislation as an entrée for enforcing the homosexual agenda in schools. It's very clear that whoever wrote (and amended) the Massachusetts House bill relied on these documents.

Some of the highlights of the bill include:

"No Name Calling Day" will be mandatory throughout Massachusetts. This is part of GLSEN's national "No Name Calling Week", which they started in 2003 as a method of intimidating middle school kids who use the word "gay" to mean "dumb" or "uncool", which infuriates the homosexual movement. GLSEN is all ready to go with their school programs for this. (GLSEN now has a separate website for this campaign.)

A comprehensive "bullying prevention and intervention" plan is required for every school or school district -- another GLSEN idea. The bill includes a long list of requirements, must be updated every two years, and strictly adhered to.

Mandatory reporting by school staff of all known or suspected bullying or retaliation incidents. This covers most employees, including but not limited to "an educator, administrator, school nurse, cafeteria worker, custodian, bus driver and paraprofessional" -- another GLSEN idea. (Will this cause overreaction?)

Some private schools and parochial schools are now included in the law in the House. GLSEN's literature encourages this. (Technically, their legal connection is "schools with whom a school committee has provided or arranged to provide alternative or special education services.") The Senate version only included public and charter schools.

Every grade must have an anti-bullying curriculum. Another GLSEN idea. Guess who is all set to provide those curricula -- probably at no cost to the schools.

Mandatory annual training for all school staff "to prevent, identify and respond to bullying." This includes: "all members of school staff including, but not limited to, educators, administrators, school nurses, cafeteria workers, custodians, bus drivers and paraprofessionals." The bill has a comprehensive list of requirements for this. Another GLSEN recommendation.

Likely GLSEN training for staff. The bill says that the state must have an "alternative" method of fulfilling the mandatory staff training requirement that will be of no cost to the schools. That will most likely be training from GLSEN, which raises millions from corporate America and has such programs ready to go. ALSO: This training must include "research findings on bullying, including information about specific categories of students who have been shown to be particularly at risk for bullying in the school environment." GLSEN specializes in "climate surveys" and other research methods to "prove" that GLBT students are being victimized.
Fines and jail time for kids who make crank or harassing, phone calls, emails, web pages, videos, and other "annoying" acts. We understand that's often a big problem. But we wonder if this is this is the best way to deal with it. We've seen students punished severely for fairly innocent things. And we've seen others (especially whose victims are conservatives, people with traditional values, etc.) not punished at all. This potentially criminalizes a lot of interactions between children that would otherwise be seen as normal, though not necessarily positive.

[This is particularly dangerous because it seems to give the Department of Youth Services (DYS) the opportunity to get involved with the younger offenders and possibly and even take kids from their families.]

Encourages schools to set up special diversity training based on a person's membership in a legally protected category (i.e., sexual orientation; also gender identity or expression). This is a major GLSEN thing and a big goal of the Mass. homosexual lobby - but MassResistance fought it pretty hard. This bill makes it optional . . . for now.

Includes illegal immigrants as a new protected class (" . . . shall afford all students the same protection regardless of their status under the law.") We're not sure where this language came from. It was in the original Senate bill, but got taken out, and is now back in. It's clearly the beginning of incorporating illegal immigrants into other parts of the law as a protected class.

READ FULL TEXT OF HOUSE BILL H4571 HERE

During the Nov. 17 public hearing at the State House, the Boston Globe reporter carried a GLSEN press release/fact sheet. (And the Globe articles pretty much reflected that.)

In addition, the mother from Springfield who's been the main face of the bill, Sirdeaner Walker, has been traveling around the country for GLSEN, using the tragic (and complicated) death of her son to promote GLSEN's homosexual anti-bullying legislation.

As we saw over the past several months, this was done with an incredible PR campaign of emotional bullying-related articles that just "happened" to show up in the media every few days.

An expensive sham

Given the breakdown of society, bullying has unfortunately become a bigger problem in the schools. Kids really are being victimized. But is the answer a long, comprehensive, and onerous new state law? We don't think so. Especially one designed by GLSEN, a poisonous organization that preys on innocent children and whose only interest is in pushing a radical sexual agenda. Isn't there a better way to handle this?

Unfortunately, Republicans are all on board

It's hard to imagine that a bill this obnoxious would be unanimously passed 148-0. Doesn't anybody think for themselves anymore? Well, if you talk to people connected with the State House, you'll find out pretty quickly that the fear of (1) the Boston Globe and (2) the homosexual lobby (and the hysteria they can enflame) trumps everything these days, even common sense.

In addition, the state Republican party has made it very clear that they're abandoning the so-called "social issues." But does that mean caving in to this?

Here are the House Republicans who voted for this bill:
Reps. Brad Jones, George Peterson, Brad Hill, Elizabeth Porier, Jay Barrows, Vinnie deMacedo, Lew Evangelidis, Paul Frost, Susan Gifford, Robert Hargraves, Donald Humason, Jeffrey Perry, Karyn Polito, Richard Ross, Todd Smola, Daniel Webster.
You can contact them HERE.

And to add insult to injury, after the vote Sen. Richard Tisei, (R-Wakefield), who is running for Lt. Governor this November (and who recently announced he is "gay") praised the bill in the homosexual news site EdgeBoston.

What's next . . .

This bill (H4517) along with the one passed by the Senate on March 11 (S2323) are going to a "conference committee" which will create a compromise bill, although they have lots of leeway on what they can include. State House News reported that the Senate members of that committee are: Sen. Robert O'Leary (D-Barnstable) who is Senate chairman of the Education Committee, Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton), and Sen. Michael Knapik (R-Westfield). There will also be three House members, who have not been named yet. (We will let you know when that happens.

There is no deadline for the conference committee to finish its work. After that, each branch votes again on the compromise bill. So it's not over yet. But this is pretty frightening.

We will keep you up to date on what happens -- and what you can do regarding the conference committee.

P.S. The decision to go to conference committee was made in one of the Senate's infamous "informal sessions" with only two senators (Rosenberg and Tarr) in the room. As we've pointed out before, the Massachusetts Constitution requires a quorum of 20 to conduct any business. But with a wink and a nod, they "pretend" there's a quorum and go on from there. That's your Legislature at work.

2. ADL and radical homosexual groups worked with House members to craft anti-bullying bill. Includes two groups that terrorized a church in downtown Boston!

When the House first put together its version of the "anti-bully" bill, it did not include many of the radical aspects. This angered the ADL and the homosexual activists. They put on the full-court lobbying press. On the morning of the debate and vote by the full House, both the Globe and Herald had articles about it. By the afternoon, the bill was passed and they got most of what they wanted. That's power.

	Hardcore PR. The morning of the House debate and vote, both the Boston Globe (left) and Boston Herald had articles describing how the pro-homosexual coalition was unhappy with the preliminary changes and demanded much more. Their pressure continued and proved fruitful.

Although GLSEN itself has purposefully stayed in the background, the House leadership has worked very closely with a coalition that included some of the most radical and heinous homosexual groups to craft their anti-bullying bill. It includes two groups that terrorized the Park Street Church in Boston last year in a hideous incident involving bullhorns, screaming, and desecration of an historic cemetery.

The coalition was organized by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which acted as the lead group before the media, put on the press conferences, and orchestrated the emotional PR campaign in the media. But when it came to interacting with the politicians, such as in the November 17 State House public hearing, the homosexual and transgender groups apparently did most of the work.

Among the groups in the ADL's "anti-bullying" coalition (who are working with your legislators on this bill):

Join the Impact MA. This is the group that organized a hideous attack on Park Street Church in downtown Boston last spring during a religious conference on homosexuality. The goal was to terrorize the participants and shut down the event. Among other things, they used a bullhorn to blast angry epithets into the church, passed out "Jesus is gay" pamphlets, marched around the church screaming, and trampled through the historic Granary Burial Ground next door. See photos and video here of the Park Street Church attack.

Anti-Violence Project. This group also participated in the attack on Park Street Church (above). Despite their name, they seem bent on inciting violence rather than stopping it.

Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition. A bizarre group that pushes cross-dressing and transgender behavior, and was recently involved with a public parade of shirtless women who had amputated their breasts to "become" men. The group works with schoolchildren as part of the Mass. Commission for GLBT Youth.

Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus (MGLPC). This is the major homosexual lobbying group in the Massachusetts State House. They also paid for an ad bragging that they "sponsored" the attack on Park Street Church.

MassEquality. The main homosexual political organizing group in Massachusetts that pushed gay marriage. They also paid for the ad bragging that they "sponsored" the attack on the Park Street Church.

Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA). The teachers' union, which regularly sponsors the annual GLSEN conferences and promotes homosexual programs in the public schools.

Fenway Health Center which specializes in GLBT medical services.

The complete coalition list on the ADL website is here. It also includes left-wing churches, politicians, political groups, and others the ADL cobbled together for the occasion. Notably, GLSEN is left off the list (to stay under the radar).

As the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows reported, homosexual groups in this coalition were in the thick of the fight to get their language into this bill from the beginning.

Why is the ADL doing this?

The ADL, a Jewish organization founded to fight anti-Semitism, has been harshly criticized by many in the Boston Jewish community and others in recent years for taking up causes offensive to traditional Judaism. Largely as a result of their far-left donor base, they have drifted from their mission and gone in a radical anti-family direction. Their "No Place for Hate" campaign in public schools and towns a few years back, which demonized traditional values, was strongly detested by Jews and Christians alike.

But for the ADL (and our lawmakers!) to work with disgusting groups that terrorize churches is beyond the pale. We have tried to dialogue with the ADL for many years, but with no success.

The morning after the unanimous House vote the Boston Globe was absolutely giddy!

3. What should be done about bullying in schools?

We have never seen a GLSEN-based "safety" program anywhere that had any level of success - except to promote homosexuality and transgenderism to children. If the Massachusetts Legislature were to act responsibly instead of reacting to hysteria (we realize that's asking a lot) they would look around to see what works.

For example, a few weeks ago the Wall Street Journal posted a very thought-provoking article titled Bullying: Declining or just moving online.

According to studies cited in the article, bullying in schools is actually declining, largely because of programs by groups such as the Olweus Foundation, CASEL, and others which are very effective -- and have very little resemblance to GLSEN or what the Massachusetts House just passed. The new challenge is online bullying. They take a different approach and look at the psychological causes of bullying rather than just reacting to the symptoms.

And they've found they can make a lot of progress without onerous state laws micromanaging the process. Our lawmakers need to step back and take a second look at the whole thing.

This is your movement! Our funding comes from individuals. Please donate - invest in MassResistance's efforts!
Better yet - become a monthly donor (email us back to get set up)!

Donations can also be mailed to: MassResistance, PO Box 1612, Waltham, MA 02454
ALL donations are confidential. MassResistance does not sell or lend any of its lists.

Contact us if you want to get involved.

Also, check out the MassResistance blog (for even more in-depth coverage)!

30 Little Known Facts About the Terrorist State of Israel

2010-03-19T05:44:00.000-07:00

1. Did you know that non-Jewish Israelis cannot buy or lease land in Israel? A Jew from any country in the world is guaranteed citizenship in Israel, while the Palestinians who have been there for centuries are oppressed and persecuted.

2. Did you know that instead of sewing an insignia on clothing to distinguish race (like the Germans did to the Jews before WW2), Palestinian license plates in Israel are color coded to distinguish Jews from non-Jews?

3. Did you know that East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights are all considered by the entire world community, including the United States and the United Nations, to be occupied territory and NOT part of the State of Israel?

4. Did you know that Israel allots 85% of the water resources for Jews, and the remaining 15% is divided among all Palestinians in the territories? For example in Hebron, 85% of the water is set aside for about 400 Jewish settlers, while the remaining 15% is distributed among Hebron's 120, 000 Palestinians?

5. Did you know that the United States awards Israel $5 billion in aid each year from American tax dollars?

6. Did you know that US aid to Israel ($1.8 billion annually in military aid alone) exceeds the aid the US grants to the entire African continent? This aid is used both to buy American weaponry and to buy arms made in Israel.

7. Did you know that Israel is awaiting an additional $4 billion worth of American military hardware, including new F-16s and Apache and Blackhawk helicopters. As Israel's main ally and supporter internationally, the United States is committed to maintaining the Jewish state's "qualitative edge" in weapons over its neighbours.

8. Did you know that the U.S. administration has notified Congress on numerous occasions that Israel has violated the rules on how US-supplied weapons are used? (In 1978, 1979 and 1982 during fighting in Lebanon, and once after Israel's bombing of an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.)

9. Did you know that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections from its sites?

10. Did you know that high-ranking military officers in the Israeli Defence Forces have admitted publicly that unarmed prisoners of war have been summarily executed by the Israeli forces?

11. Did you know that Israel blew up an American diplomatic facility in Egypt and attacked a US warship in international waters (the USS Liberty), killing 33 and wounding 177 American sailors and the US did nothing about it? (Imagine if an Islamic country like Iraq did this!)

12. Did you know that Israel stands in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council Resolutions?

13. Did you know that Israel is explicitly dedicated to the policy of maintaining a distinct Jewish character?

14. Did you know that Israel's current Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, was found by an Israeli court to be "personally and directly responsible" for the Sabra and Shatilla massacre in Lebanon where more than a thousand innocent Palestinian men, women, and children were axed to death or lined up and shot in cold blood?

15. Did you know that on May 20, 1990, a group of unarmed Palestinian labourers were lined up and murdered by an Israeli solider as they sat waiting for transportation back to Gaza? The terrified labourers who gathered in an area of southern Israel known as Rishon Lezion (known to Palestinians by its Arabic name Oyon Qara) handed their ID cards to the Israeli soldier. The soldiers ordered the distressed labourers to kneel down and face the ground and unexpectedly showered them with a barrage of bullets, killing seven and wounding many others. Needless to say, the soldier was not charged with any crime.

16. Did you know that until as recently as 1988, Israelis were permitted to run "Jews Only" job ads?

17. Did you know that the Israeli Foreign Ministry pays six US public relations firms to promote a "positive image" of Israel to the American public?

18. Did you know that Sharon's coalition government includes a party--Molodet--which advocates ethnic cleansing by openly calling for the forced expulsion of all Palestinians from the occupied territories?

19. Did you know that recently-declassified documents indicate that David Ben-Gurion approved of the forced expulsion of Arabs from all Palestinian territory in 1948?

20. Did you know that the former chief rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Ovadia Yossef, who is also a founder and spiritual leader of the religious Shas party (Israel's third largest political party) openly advocates a 'Final Solution' to annihilate the Palestinians? Speaking at the widely broadcast sermon marking the last Passover, he declared of the Palestinians: "The Lord shall return their deeds on their own heads, waste their seed and exterminate them, devastate them and vanish them from this world. It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable."

21. Did you know that Palestinian refugees make up the largest portion of the refugee population in the world?

22. Did you know that Palestinian Christians are considered the "living stones" of Christianity because they are the direct descendants of the disciples of Jesus Christ? And the Palestinian Christians stand united with their Muslim brethren in the struggle against the Israeli occupation.

23. Did you know that despite a ban on torture by Israel's High Court of Justice, torture has continued unabated by Shin Bet interrogators on Palestinian prisoners?

24. Did you know that despite every Israeli attempt to disrupt Palestinian education, Palestinians have the highest ratio of PhDs per capita in the world?

25. Did you know that the right of self-determination is guaranteed to every human being under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [December, 1948], yet Palestinians were/are expected to negotiate for this right under the Oslo Accords?

26. Did you know that despite what is widely perpetuated and written in the history books that the Arabs attacked Israel in the 1967 war, it was Israel who attacked the Arab countries first, capturing Jerusalem and the West Bank, and called the attack a pre-emptive strike?

27. Did you know that, as an occupying power, Israel has a particular responsibility under the Geneva Conventions to protect Palestinian civilians?

28. Did you know that, despite Ariel Sharon's public call for a unilateral ceasefire, Israeli soldiers have not stopped shooting, killing or bulldozing Palestinian homes?

29. Did you know that the Zionists have been trying to destroy Masjid al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock for the last 50 years by digging underground tunnels beneath the sites to weaken its foundation causing it to collapse?

30. Nelson Mandela called the Israeli government an apartheid regime, just like South Africa used to be.

My New Best Faggot Buddy, Benny

2010-03-16T12:44:00.000-07:00

14!

I don't know if any of you have a Face Book page or not. Personally, it's relaxing and stressing at the same time. don't get sucked into Mafia Wars or Farmville unles you want to get bombarded daily with gifts from all your friends and have to send them back another gift which puts you into the spiraling Spam of Death. Don't get me wrong. I love all my FB pals, some more than others but that's just because they show tits. but that's beside the point. It takes 40 minutes to send and gift back 12 friends and I sure as shit don't know if they need a fucking duck or a gott damn board for their barn. You'll meet all kinds of folks and get massive numbers of folks whom YOU don't know but because they know a friend of a friend, YOU can be THEIR buddy too.
One such "friend" I found was little Benny Bowden. Now evidently Benny is one of those insecure, pussy bitch-types. No sense of humor and a real desire to act like a loud-mouthed cyber eunuch. You know. The kind of fucking pussy who hides behind a keyboard, running ooff at the cockholster, talking shit, being a cunt.
Now seeing as I just LOVE to take little cocksuckers like Benny "Big Mouth" Bowden behind the barn and whoop the shit out of them, in this case, I can't. Now I have a really nice security program/peopple finder. Benny Bowden, according to the email he sent me, is 8917 NE 105th St. Vancouver, WA. 98604. There's no such address and no where in my search of WA does widdle Benny "Baby-Butt-Banger" Bowden show up. Benny is a fucking cunt LIAR!
This is what I get from Benny in form of emails All shitty and whining like a bitch because his account got deleted:

March 15 at 4:26pm Report

no response? better get a couple of your faggot military butt buddies together, maybe with three or four of you you could come up with something witty...dance puppet dance!

Notice how little Benny is such a fucking CUNT, PUSSY Commie faggot BITCH, he even stoops so low as to degrade the troops! OUR military is DYING over there, for whatever political reason under ZOG influence, yet BENNY wants to attack OUR guys calling them faggots when in reality, it is BENNY who is too much of a cunt, pussy, FAGGOT to even SERVE our country! Here's some more from the little shit licker:

March 15 at 4:29pm Report

belittling you has become one of the high points of my day. . . ( Ahh yes! Simple minds are SO easily amused! )i think i'll do this indefinitely. ( well, or until your account gets deleted, neh? fag boy??)its free entertainment, plus it keeps me on my toes for anyone that should come along that actually has 2 brain cells to rub together. . . ( That's funny, buh buh buh Benny Butt-Poker, but coming from some guy who keeps emailing ME after I told you to piss off, well, I think you're acting like a spurned lover. Sorry Benny "The Turd Tapper", I know you're just jealous because I don't have hemorroids!) you're like a sparring partner, not nearly good enough to be a pro, but good enough to be a punching bag. dance puppet dance! (I'd be more than happy to step into the ring with you Benny. Full contact, pads of course. I wouldn't want a leg kick to your thigh to break your femur or an elbow to your face to give you another gash on your cocksucker. Hell, If I broke your jaw you'd lose 1/2 your income. )

March 15 at 8:04pm Report i should have been a puppeteer. ( Or at least something other then the clown voice at the local Taco Shitface stand drive thru. I heard you lost your last job for not double-checking the condiments) i can pull your strings and make you do whatever i want! ha ha ha ( Really Benny? You can pull a tampon out of your ass but you can't pull your HEAD out of your ass? Bummer. The world is so much brighter when not obscured by the walls of your gerbil-infested rectum.

So, you see what kinds of lame-ass fucking douchebags you could meet in FB. Now, little Benny "Face Book Fag" Bowden will sooner or later screw up. I'll get a real addy or a real phone number and then he's going to be fucked. I'm going to devote my spare time to making his life a living hell. don't know when it'll happen, but it will. Who knows? Maybe his face will show up on a police brutality poster or as a NAMBLA representative coming to YOUR town. who knows. I'd subscribe him to some faggot beastiality magazines but he'd enjoy them too much.

At any rate, just remember Benny when you get on FaceBook! He may know some of YOUR friends!

kikes STILL Trying to Pass Faggot Pervert Adoption

2010-03-15T06:07:00.000-07:00

'SODOMITE ADOPTION RIGHTS' IN CONGRESS

By Harmony Grant Daws and Rev. Ted Pike
15 Mar 10

A new bill has been introduced into Congress, attractively named the “Every Child Deserves a Family Act.” The goal of HR 3827 is “to prohibit discrimination in adoption or foster care placements based on the sexual orientation, gender identification, or marital status of any prospective adoptive or foster parent.”

The bill reports that “one-third of child welfare agencies in the United States currently reject gay, lesbian, and bisexual applicants, citing a conflict with the religious beliefs associated with the agency, State law prohibiting placement with gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents, or a policy of placing children with married-heterosexual only couples.” It says as many as two million homosexuals may be interested in adopting children and may be rejected because of their orientation. The bill will remove federal funding from any placement agency that “discriminates” on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity of marital status.

This means Christian adoption agencies will be unable to operate according to their founders’ consciences. It means closure of Catholic or Christian agencies which refuse to violate their moral principles of placing children with heterosexual or nuclear families only. Ultimately, this will mean fewer children adopted! After a similar law was passed in Britain, multiple adoption agencies closed. The Catholic Children’s Rescue Service was the first to do so. Rather than allowing the free market to potentially create homosexual-friendly adoption agencies (should there really be such demand), this law strong-arms benevolent religious organizations into violating their own principles in favor of a political agenda.

This bill would not only limit freedom of religion for adoption agencies but also for birth parents. A teen mother won’t be able to find agencies which screen for nuclear, Christian families if those are the qualities she wants for her unborn child.

Inevitably, such agenda-driven legislation is used as a force of discrimination itself. In Britain, pro-homosexual adoption laws were passed and are now used against traditional, religious people seeking to rescue children! In 2008, Daily Mail reported a story of a Christian couple told, “You can’t foster if you think it’s wrong to be gay.” Eunice and Owen Johns, a black couple who have cared for almost 20 children and raised four of their own, would not submit to a new hate law requiring them to condone homosexuality in order to continue rescuing needy kids. Eunice explains that she was told she would have to tell foster children that it’s okay to be homosexual.

“But I couldn’t do that because my Christian beliefs won’t let me,” she says, “Morally I couldn’t do that, spiritually I couldn’t do that.” Her husband says, “I would love any child, black or white, gay or straight. But I cannot understand why sexuality is an issue when we are talking about boys and girls under the age of ten.” Because of their traditional values, the Johns were denied the opportunity to continue saving needy kids.

In 2007, a British woman named Sonia Maples wrote for the UK Telegraph about being denied adoption because of the religious “idealism” she shares with her husband. Maples says their home is not “overtly religious” and they have homosexual friends, but this wasn’t enough to make up for their belief that a nuclear family is best for children.

“Long before the current row over whether church-based adoption agencies should be allowed to set their own rules about accepting homosexual couples on to their books, my husband and I felt the cold breath of discrimination,” says Maples. “It wasn't because of our sexual orientation…we were found wanting because we were Christians and because we hold strong views about the importance of children having both a father and a mother.”

Maples and her husband were investigated for 18 months by social workers full of questions about their religious convictions. They were then refused by the adoption panel because of their religious objection to homosexuality. Maples said, “We later received a letter saying that we had been turned down as adoptive parents, that we were not suitable for any of the children they had to place and that we would have to reconsider our views on homosexuality…We appealed, but in vain. We have since spoken to a fostering agency, which told us that only one or two heterosexual couples get approved by them.”

This anti-heterosexual agenda affects even birth parents who want to keep their own children. In Vermont, ex-lesbian Lisa Miller is currently running from the law with her seven-year-old biological daughter Isabella because custody has been awarded to her previous same-sex partner, who is not legally or biologically related to the child! Miller has become an evangelical Christian and her advocates say this is clearly a case of hard-line “progressives” pushing for pro-homosexual custody rights. Talk show host Wiley Drake, who is familiar with the case, said that after the first court ordered weekend visitation of six-year-old Isabella to her lesbian “mother,” the child returned home to her real mother proudly fondling herself. She related matter-of-factly that she and the lesbian had taken a bath together and watched pornographic movies. She had even been taught how to urinate standing up. Adoptive rights for homosexuals? Such corruption of children by aggressive sodomites will only be expanded to millions of society’s youngest, most vulnerable members if this bill becomes law.

End of Normal Adoptions in America

In the US, the largest adoption agency has already had to pull out of multiple states because of “anti-discrimination” lawsuits. In 2003, Adoption.com was sued by two homosexual men, residents of California, who claim they faced illegal discrimination because the agency won’t serve homosexual couples. The homosexuals won the lawsuit and the agency no longer serves adoptive parents in California. The adoption agency argued it was governed by Arizona law and wasn’t required to violate its own conscience by advertising homosexual couples. But if HR 3827 becomes federal, all agencies will have to submit or close their doors.

To prevent this, one state was proactive. North Dakota, in 2008, passed the “Adoption Agency Freedom to Serve” Act which protects the right of adoption agencies to refuse adoptions that violate their moral or religious beliefs. When the bill was introduced there were six agencies provided licensed services, four of them affiliated with religious organizations. But if HR 3827 passes, this state law will be overturned and North Dakota’s citizens will lose the freedom they have chosen.

Protest to your House member now! Call 1-877-851-6437 toll free 202-225-3121 toll. Also call the crucial members of the House Ways and Means Committee (especially Republicans) demanding they stop the “Every Child Deserves a Family Act.” Names are available HERE at www.truthtellers.org.

Tell House members, “Please do not vote for the ‘Every Child Deserves a Family Act,’ HR 3827. It would force all US adoption agencies to place children with homosexual couples. Many homosexuals prey on children. And this bill would force religious adoption agencies to close. I and my friends will vote out any House member who supports this outrageous legislation.”

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules National Motto "In God We Trust" Is Constitutional

2010-03-12T08:50:00.000-08:00

Online version easier to read? Go to www.LC.org

March 12, 2010

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules National Motto In God We Trust Is Constitutional

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the national motto, “In God We Trust,” does not violate the United States Constitution. California atheist Michael Newdow had filed suit claiming that the national motto, “In God We Trust,” and the laws calling for the inscription of that motto on the nation’s coin and currency were unconstitutional. Newdow’s prior suit, filed on behalf of his daughter, to remove “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance was also unsuccessful.

Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief with the court to protect the national motto. In the ruling, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order dismissing Mr. Newdow’s claims. The Ninth Circuit agreed that Mr. Newdow technically had standing to bring the claims to court but that the claims did not have any merit, as the Ninth Circuit had already determined that the national motto did not violate the Establishment Clause. For the same reason, the Ninth Circuit found Mr. Newdow’s claim that the national motto violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not have merit.

“In God We Trust” made its first appearance on U.S. currency in 1865, when Congress passed an act placing the phrase on all coins. The motto has been used on all United States paper money since 1957. The constitutionality of the motto was challenged in 1970 in Aronow v. United States, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the phrase “has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion.” In 1979, atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair unsuccessfully challenged the motto in the case of O’Hair v. Blumenthal.

Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “The words ‘In God We Trust’ are part of our American heritage. Mr. Newdow’s baseless lawsuits have wasted thousands of dollars of the taxpayers’ money. His claims are wholly without merit, and we hope he will abstain from any additional frivolous lawsuits. America was founded upon religious principles and the belief in God. Mere expression of our heritage cannot establish a religion. A public acknowledgement of God is not an establishment of religion.”

Read our News Release for more details.

how many times does YOUR Congressman and Senators visit Israel at YOUR expense?

2010-03-09T05:44:00.004-08:00

Congressional Junket Front-Page News Unless It’s a Trip to Israel

The ongoing controversy regarding Representative Charles Rangel (D, NY-15) and trips to the Caribbean in 2007 and 2008 has refreshed the discourse on privately funded congressional travel. Following the Jack Abramoff scandal of 2006 stricter limits were adopted by the House in order to expose and prevent corporate-sponsored junkets. The new ethics rules stipulated that members could not accept trip funding from non-profits that had received corporate donations, which would constitute lobbying.

Rep. Rangel was investigated for having violated these rules by attending conferences in St. Maarten sponsored by the Carib News Foundation. Major corporations, including Citigroup and Pfizer, however, appear to have earmarked donations to Carib News specifically for the trips. Rep. Rangel’s staff was apparently aware of the connection between the corporations and Carib News, whereas Rep. Rangel maintains that he was never informed of such a link. Therein lies the debate: Is Rep. Rangel to be held accountable for the improper conduct of his staff?

The case, moreover, exposes the inconsistencies of the ethics rules constraining congressional behavior. The rules intend to restrict the influence of lobbyists; however, they do nothing to constrain so-called “educational” organizations. Under the current rules, a non-profit like the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF) is considered an independent entity from its parent group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which self-identifies as “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby.”

Under this arrangement we are to assume that AIPAC’s hard-line, rightist views of the Arab-Israeli conflict have not once influenced the “education” imparted on the 480 trips (at a cost of $4,024,845) sponsored by AIEF since Jan. 2000. Unfortunately, the link between AIEF’s “educational” efforts and AIPAC’s lobbying are as obvious as they appear. Members and staffers participating in the trips are bombarded by a one-sided distortion of reality. The perspectives generated by these “educational” sojourns rarely include moderate or left-leaning voices in Israel. When, if ever, was B’Tselem or Peace Now involved in the “education” process? Furthermore, the trips neglect the Palestinian perspective altogether.

A spade will always be a spade and a lobby will always be a lobby, whether or not it markets itself as an “educational” organization. Clearly, the ethics rules in place do not do enough to prevent the undue influence of lobbies on the legislative process.

For further information regarding trips sponsored by AIEF and similar groups please consult the following table:

Rank	Top Ten Members in Terms of Approved Trips Sponsored by Pro-Israel Groups	Pro-Israel Groups Funded Travel*	# of Trips Sponsored by Pro-Israel Groups*
1	Hoyer, Steny H (D, Maryland District 5 )	$142,426.02	17
2	Berkley, Shelley (D, Nevada District 1 )	$102,910.67	14
3	Blunt, Roy (R, Missouri District 7 )	$69,356.98	10
4	Kirk, Mark (R, Illinois District 10 )	$64,503.09	9
5	Green, Gene (D, Texas District 29 )	$50,527.94	4
6	Wexler, Robert (D, Florida District 19 )	$46,171.94	5
7	Pence, Mike (R, Indiana District 6 )	$45,288.05	5
8	Gohmert, Louis B Jr (R, Texas District 1 )	$44,753.60	3
9	Bachmann, Michele (R, Minnesota District 6 )	$44,381.14	3
10	Langevin, Jim (D, Rhode Island District 2 )	$43,302.15	7

Member	Pro-Israel Groups Funded Travel*	# of Trips Sponsored by Pro-Israel Groups*
* - Trips are those approved, which includes all trips from office both by members and by staffers

Abercrombie, Neil (D, Hawaii District 1 )	$0.00	0
Ackerman, Gary (D, New York District 5 )	$13,504.03	7
Aderholt, Robert B (R, Alabama District 4 )	$0.00	0
Adler, John H (D, New Jersey District 3 )	$18,235.00	1
Akaka, Daniel K (D, Hawaii Senate)	$4,610.00	1
Akin, Todd (R, Missouri District 2 )	$0.00	0
Alexander, Lamar (R, Tennessee Senate)	$3,650.85	1
Alexander, Rodney (R, Louisiana District 5 )	$15,763.13	2
Altmire, Jason (D, Pennsylvania District 4 )	$13,656.90	1
Andrews, Robert E (D, New Jersey District 1 )	$0.00	0
Arcuri, Michael (D, New York District 24 )	$16,811.00	1
Austria, Steve C (R, Ohio District 7 )	$7,325.84	1
Baca, Joe (D, California District 43 )	$0.00	0
Bachmann, Michele (R, Minnesota District 6 )	$44,381.14	3
Bachus, Spencer (R, Alabama District 6 )	$2,588.40	1
Baird, Brian (D, Washington District 3 )	$2,694.94	1
Baldwin, Tammy (D, Wisconsin District 2 )	$23,918.83	2
Barrasso, John A (R, Wyoming Senate)	$36,555.99	2
Barrett, Gresham (R, South Carolina District 3 )	$4,850.00	1
Barrow, John (D, Georgia District 12 )	$12,484.35	2
Bartlett, Roscoe G (R, Maryland District 6 )	$0.00	0
Barton, Joe (R, Texas District 6 )	$0.00	0
Baucus, Max (D, Montana Senate)	$0.00	0
Bayh, Evan (D, Indiana Senate)	$5,435.23	2
Bean, Melissa (D, Illinois District 8 )	$25,755.16	3
Becerra, Xavier (D, California District 31 )	$13,234.49	2
Begich, Mark (D, Alaska Senate)	$0.00	0
Bennet, Michael F (D, Colorado Senate)	$0.00	0
Bennett, Robert F (R, Utah Senate)	$5,201.99	3
Berkley, Shelley (D, Nevada District 1 )	$102,910.67	14
Berman, Howard L (D, California District 28 )	$7,595.58	7
Berry, Marion (D, Arkansas District 1 )	$0.00	0
Biden, Joseph R Jr (D, Delaware Senate)	$2,500.00	3
Biggert, Judy (R, Illinois District 13 )	$18,853.62	2
Bilbray, Brian P (R, California District 50 )	$0.00	0
Bilirakis, Gus (R, Florida District 9 )	$10,391.01	1
Bingaman, Jeff (D, New Mexico Senate)	$0.00	0
Bishop, Rob (R, Utah District 1 )	$14,376.98	1
Bishop, Sanford D Jr (D, Georgia District 2 )	$7,639.28	2
Bishop, Timothy H (D, New York District 1 )	$5,669.82	1
Blackburn, Marsha (R, Tennessee District 7 )	$0.00	0
Blumenauer, Earl (D, Oregon District 3 )	$0.00	0
Blunt, Roy (R, Missouri District 7 )	$69,356.98	10
Boccieri, John A (D, Ohio District 16 )	$0.00	0
Boehner, John (R, Ohio District 8 )	$17,096.91	2
Bond, Christopher "Kit" (R, Missouri Senate)	$13,043.19	2
Bonner, Jo (R, Alabama District 1 )	$17,297.85	2
Bono Mack, Mary (R, California District 45 )	$0.00	0
Boozman, John (R, Arkansas District 3 )	$13,746.69	2
Bordallo, Madeleine Z (D, Guam At Large)	$6,599.15	1
Boren, Dan (D, Oklahoma District 2 )	$0.00	0
Boswell, Leonard L (D, Iowa District 3 )	$8,690.55	1
Boucher, Rick (D, Virginia District 9 )	$0.00	0
Boustany, Charles W Jr (R, Louisiana District 7 )	$5,258.27	1
Boxer, Barbara (D, California Senate)	$5,422.96	2
Boyd, Allen (D, Florida District 2 )	$14,682.09	3
Brady, Kevin (R, Texas District 8 )	$0.00	0
Brady, Robert A (D, Pennsylvania District 1 )	$0.00	0
Braley, Bruce (D, Iowa District 1 )	$0.00	0
Bright, Bobby (D, Alabama District 2 )	$16,249.04	1
Broun, Paul Jr (R, Georgia District 10 )	$0.00	0
Brown, Corrine (D, Florida District 3 )	$2,823.98	1
Brown, Henry (R, South Carolina District 1 )	$0.00	0
Brown, Scott (R, Massachusetts Senate)	$0.00	0
Brown, Sherrod (D, Ohio Senate)	$0.00	0
Brown-Waite, Ginny (R, Florida District 5 )	$28,533.14	2
Brownback, Sam (R, Kansas Senate)	$15,275.43	4
Buchanan, Vernon (R, Florida District 13 )	$21,329.00	1
Bunning, Jim (R, Kentucky Senate)	$4,973.51	1
Burgess, Michael (R, Texas District 26 )	$0.00	0
Burr, Richard (R, North Carolina Senate)	$0.00	0
Burris, Roland (D, Illinois Senate)	$0.00	0
Burton, Dan (R, Indiana District 5 )	$3,161.50	1
Butterfield, G K (D, North Carolina District 1 )	$0.00	0
Buyer, Steve (R, Indiana District 4 )	$0.00	0
Byrd, Robert C (D, West Virginia Senate)	$0.00	0
Calvert, Ken (R, California District 44 )	$0.00	0
Camp, Dave (R, Michigan District 4 )	$5,537.60	1
Campbell, John (R, California District 48 )	$0.00	0
Cantor, Eric (R, Virginia District 7 )	$129,054.90	17
Cantwell, Maria (D, Washington Senate)	$7,493.74	2
Cao, Joseph (R, Louisiana District 2 )	$0.00	0
Capito, Shelley Moore (R, West Virginia District 2 )	$13,791.22	1
Capps, Lois (D, California District 23 )	$0.00	0
Capuano, Michael E (D, Massachusetts District 8 )	$9,271.80	2
Cardin, Ben (D, Maryland Senate)	$0.00	0
Cardoza, Dennis (D, California District 18 )	$13,849.45	3
Carnahan, Russ (D, Missouri District 3 )	$21,278.41	2
Carney, Chris (D, Pennsylvania District 10 )	$5,258.27	1
Carper, Tom (D, Delaware Senate)	$11,046.74	2
Carson, Andre (D, Indiana District 7 )	$0.00	0
Carter, John (R, Texas District 31 )	$20,859.13	2
Casey, Bob (D, Pennsylvania Senate)	$5,816.00	1
Cassidy, Bill (R, Louisiana District 6 )	$0.00	0
Castle, Michael N (R, Delaware District 1 )	$0.00	0
Castor, Kathy (D, Florida District 11 )	$0.00	0
Chaffetz, Jason (R, Utah District 3 )	$15,813.47	1
Chambliss, Saxby (R, Georgia Senate)	$6,999.91	2
Chandler, Ben (D, Kentucky District 6 )	$0.00	0
Childers, Travis W (D, Mississippi District 1 )	$15,449.04	1
Christian-Christensen, Donna (D, Virgin Islands At Large)	$0.00	0
Chu, Judy (D, California District 32 )	$0.00	0
Clarke, Yvette D (D, New York District 11 )	$0.00	0
Clay, William L Jr (D, Missouri District 1 )	$2,694.94	1
Cleaver, Emanuel (D, Missouri District 5 )	$0.00	0
Clyburn, James E (D, South Carolina District 6 )	$25,065.52	4
Coble, Howard (R, North Carolina District 6 )	$0.00	0
Coburn, Tom (R, Oklahoma Senate)	$0.00	0
Cochran, Thad (R, Mississippi Senate)	$8,364.76	2
Coffman, Mike (R, Colorado District 6 )	$14,624.33
Cohen, Stephen Ira (D, Tennessee District 9 )	$10,444.86	1
Cole, Tom (R, Oklahoma District 4 )	$7,705.02	2
Collins, Susan M (R, Maine Senate)	$8,387.92	3
Conaway, Mike (R, Texas District 11 )	$21,495.70	1
Connolly, Gerry (D, Virginia District 11 )
Conrad, Kent (D, North Dakota Senate)	$0.00	0
Conyers, John Jr (D, Michigan District 14 )	$0.00	0
Cooper, Jim (D, Tennessee District 5 )	$0.00	0
Corker, Bob (R, Tennessee Senate)	$0.00	0
Cornyn, John (R, Texas Senate)	$11,922.83	4
Costa, Jim (D, California District 20 )	$14,623.94	2
Costello, Jerry F (D, Illinois District 12 )	$3,877.00	2
Courtney, Joe (D, Connecticut District 2 )	$0.00	0
Crapo, Mike (R, Idaho Senate)	$8,690.62	1
Crenshaw, Ander (R, Florida District 4 )	$0.00	0
Crowley, Joseph (D, New York District 7 )	$37,670.20	10
Cuellar, Henry (D, Texas District 28 )	$0.00	0
Culberson, John (R, Texas District 7 )	$0.00	0
Cummings, Elijah E (D, Maryland District 7 )	$3,151.25	1
Dahlkemper, Kathleen (D, Pennsylvania District 3 )	$0.00	0
Davis, Artur (D, Alabama District 7 )	$12,499.46	10
Davis, Danny K (D, Illinois District 7 )	$14,838.20	3
Davis, Geoff (R, Kentucky District 4 )	$24,626.40	1
Davis, Lincoln (D, Tennessee District 4 )	$15,446.04	1
Davis, Susan A (D, California District 53 )	$14,039.70	2
Deal, Nathan (R, Georgia District 9 )	$0.00	0
DeFazio, Peter (D, Oregon District 4 )	$0.00	0
DeGette, Diana (D, Colorado District 1 )	$8,646.81	1
Delahunt, Bill (D, Massachusetts District 10 )	$2,587.90	1
DeLauro, Rosa L (D, Connecticut District 3 )	$3,292.00	1
DeMint, James W (R, South Carolina Senate)	$18,324.36	2
Dent, Charlie (R, Pennsylvania District 15 )	$17,112.40	1
Diaz-Balart, Lincoln (R, Florida District 21 )	$0.00	0
Diaz-Balart, Mario (R, Florida District 25 )	$3,761.56	1
Dicks, Norm (D, Washington District 6 )	$2,131.06	1
Dingell, John D (D, Michigan District 15 )	$0.00	0
Dodd, Chris (D, Connecticut Senate)	$2,323.04	2
Doggett, Lloyd (D, Texas District 25 )	$0.00	0
Donnelly, Joe (D, Indiana District 2 )	$0.00	0
Dorgan, Byron L (D, North Dakota Senate)	$0.00	0
Doyle, Mike (D, Pennsylvania District 14 )	$2,131.00	1
Dreier, David (R, California District 26 )	$7,680.99	1
Driehaus, Steve (D, Ohio District 1 )	$9,401.02	1
Duncan, John J (Jimmy) Jr (R, Tennessee District 2 )	$0.00	0
Durbin, Dick (D, Illinois Senate)	$5,459.45	3
Edwards, Chet (D, Texas District 17 )	$0.00	0
Edwards, Donna (D, Maryland District 4 )	$0.00	0
Ehlers, Vernon J (R, Michigan District 3 )	$0.00	0
Ellison, Keith (D, Minnesota District 5 )	$22,023.89	2
Ellsworth, Brad (D, Indiana District 8 )	$15,437.04	1
Emerson, Jo Ann (R, Missouri District 8 )	$0.00	0
Engel, Eliot L (D, New York District 17 )	$28,854.98	9
Ensign, John (R, Nevada Senate)	$2,828.98	1
Enzi, Mike (R, Wyoming Senate)	$0.00	0
Eshoo, Anna (D, California District 14 )	$0.00	0
Etheridge, Bob (D, North Carolina District 2 )	$0.00	0
Faleomavaega, Eni F H (D, American Samoa At Large)	$32,598.15	2
Fallin, Mary (R, Oklahoma District 5 )	$23,937.93	2
Farr, Sam (D, California District 17 )	$6,340.72	1
Fattah, Chaka (D, Pennsylvania District 2 )	$4,973.84	1
Feingold, Russ (D, Wisconsin Senate)	$0.00	0
Feinstein, Dianne (D, California Senate)	$2,694.95	1
Filner, Bob (D, California District 51 )	$0.00	0
Flake, Jeff (R, Arizona District 6 )	$11,584.20	1
Fleming, John Calvin Jr (R, Louisiana District 4 )	$21,134.56	2
Forbes, J Randy (R, Virginia District 4 )	$11,780.00	1
Fortenberry, Jeffrey Lane (R, Nebraska District 1 )	$0.00	0
Foster, Bill (D, Illinois District 14 )	$18,955.50	1
Foxx, Virginia (R, North Carolina District 5 )	$18,291.52	2
Frank, Barney (D, Massachusetts District 4 )	$7,146.82	5
Franken, Al (D, Minnesota Senate)
Franks, Trent (R, Arizona District 2 )	$21,359.70	1
Frelinghuysen, Rodney (R, New Jersey District 11 )	$0.00	0
Fudge, Marcia L (D, Ohio District 11 )	$0.00	0
Gallegly, Elton (R, California District 24 )	$0.00	0
Garamendi, John (D, California District 10 )
Garrett, Scott (R, New Jersey District 5 )	$9,559.62	1
Gerlach, Jim (R, Pennsylvania District 6 )	$7,942.00	1
Giffords, Gabrielle (D, Arizona District 8 )	$15,049.12	2
Gillibrand, Kirsten (D, New York Senate)
Gingrey, Phil (R, Georgia District 11 )	$9,716.84	1
Gohmert, Louis B Jr (R, Texas District 1 )	$44,753.60	3
Gonzalez, Charlie A (D, Texas District 20 )	$3,570.29	1
Goodlatte, Bob (R, Virginia District 6 )	$14,589.49	1
Gordon, Bart (D, Tennessee District 6 )	$0.00	0
Graham, Lindsey (R, South Carolina Senate)	$14,360.74	2
Granger, Kay (R, Texas District 12 )	$0.00	0
Grassley, Chuck (R, Iowa Senate)	$4,352.28	1
Graves, Sam (R, Missouri District 6 )	$0.00	0
Grayson, Alan (D, Florida District 8 )	$0.00	0
Green, Al (D, Texas District 9 )	$5,452.47	1
Green, Gene (D, Texas District 29 )	$50,527.94	4
Gregg, Judd (R, New Hampshire Senate)	$0.00	0
Griffith, Parker (D, Alabama District 5 )	$15,449.04	1
Grijalva, Raul M (D, Arizona District 7 )	$0.00	0
Guthrie, Steven Brett (R, Kentucky District 2 )	$0.00	0
Gutierrez, Luis V (D, Illinois District 4 )	$10,906.00	1
Hagan, Kay R (D, North Carolina Senate)	$0.00	0
Hall, John (D, New York District 19 )	$3,200.00	1
Hall, Ralph M (R, Texas District 4 )	$0.00	0
Halvorson, Deborah (D, Illinois District 11 )	$24,850.27	2
Hare, Phil (D, Illinois District 17 )	$15,586.41	2
Harkin, Tom (D, Iowa Senate)	$0.00	0
Harman, Jane (D, California District 36 )	$5,293.60	1
Harper, Gregg (R, Mississippi District 3 )	$22,230.53	2
Hastings, Alcee L (D, Florida District 23 )	$4,490.28	1
Hastings, Doc (R, Washington District 4 )	$24,753.40	2
Hatch, Orrin G (R, Utah Senate)	$0.00	0
Heinrich, Martin (D, New Mexico District 1 )	$0.00	0
Heller, Dean (R, Nevada District 2 )	$0.00	0
Hensarling, Jeb (R, Texas District 5 )	$7,358.99	1
Herger, Wally (R, California District 2 )	$0.00	0
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (D, South Dakota District 1 )	$0.00	0
Higgins, Brian M (D, New York District 27 )	$7,607.37	2
Hill, Baron (D, Indiana District 9 )	$12,077.03	3
Himes, Jim (D, Connecticut District 4 )	$18,131.04	1
Hinchey, Maurice (D, New York District 22 )	$9,219.00	3
Hinojosa, Ruben (D, Texas District 15 )	$0.00	0
Hirono, Mazie K (D, Hawaii District 2 )	$12,258.26	1
Hodes, Paul W (D, New Hampshire District 2 )	$19,159.40	1
Hoekstra, Peter (R, Michigan District 2 )	$10,214.00	1
Holden, Tim (D, Pennsylvania District 17 )	$0.00	0
Holt, Rush (D, New Jersey District 12 )	$0.00	0
Honda, Mike (D, California District 15 )	$9,185.43	2
Hoyer, Steny H (D, Maryland District 5 )	$142,426.02	17
Hunter, Duncan D (R, California District 52 )
Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R, Texas Senate)	$0.00	0
Inglis, Bob (R, South Carolina District 4 )	$0.00	0
Inhofe, James M (R, Oklahoma Senate)	$0.00	0
Inouye, Daniel K (D, Hawaii Senate)	$0.00	0
Inslee, Jay R (D, Washington District 1 )	$0.00	0
Isakson, Johnny (R, Georgia Senate)	$20,156.06	2
Israel, Steve (D, New York District 2 )	$40,263.08	10
Issa, Darrell (R, California District 49 )	$4,217.20	1
Jackson Lee, Sheila (D, Texas District 18 )
Jackson, Jesse Jr (D, Illinois District 2 )	$24,218.37	4
Jenkins, Lynn (R, Kansas District 2 )	$0.00	0
Johanns, Michael O (R, Nebraska Senate)	$0.00	0
Johnson, Eddie Bernice (D, Texas District 30 )	$0.00	0
Johnson, Hank (D, Georgia District 4 )	$5,452.47	1
Johnson, Sam (R, Texas District 3 )	$0.00	0
Johnson, Tim (D, South Dakota Senate)	$6,840.00	2
Johnson, Timothy V (R, Illinois District 15 )	$8,241.29	2
Jones, Walter B Jr (R, North Carolina District 3 )	$0.00	0
Jordan, James D (R, Ohio District 4 )	$14,757.74	1
Kagen, Steve (D, Wisconsin District 8 )	$0.00	0
Kanjorski, Paul E (D, Pennsylvania District 11 )	$0.00	0
Kaptur, Marcy (D, Ohio District 9 )	$0.00	0
Kennedy, Patrick J (D, Rhode Island District 1 )	$5,452.47	1
Kerry, John (D, Massachusetts Senate)	$0.00	0
Kildee, Dale E (D, Michigan District 5 )	$0.00	0
Kilpatrick, Carolyn Cheeks (D, Michigan District 13 )	$0.00	0
Kilroy, Mary Jo (D, Ohio District 15 )
Kind, Ron (D, Wisconsin District 3 )	$0.00	0
King, Pete (R, New York District 3 )	$11,156.84	2
King, Steven A (R, Iowa District 5 )	$14,140.69	2
Kingston, Jack (R, Georgia District 1 )	$20,347.00	1
Kirk, Mark (R, Illinois District 10 )	$64,503.09	9
Kirk, Paul (D, Massachusetts Senate)	$0.00	0
Kirkpatrick, Ann (D, Arizona District 1 )	$18,919.44	1
Kissell, Larry (D, North Carolina District 8 )	$0.00	0
Klein, Ron (D, Florida District 22 )	$0.00	0
Kline, John (R, Minnesota District 2 )	$8,378.65	2
Klobuchar, Amy (D, Minnesota Senate)
Kohl, Herb (D, Wisconsin Senate)	$0.00	0
Kosmas, Suzanne (D, Florida District 24 )	$10,075.72	1
Kratovil, Frank M Jr (D, Maryland District 1 )	$16,019.44	1
Kucinich, Dennis J (D, Ohio District 10 )	$0.00	0
Kyl, Jon (R, Arizona Senate)	$15,866.15	7
Lamborn, Douglas L (R, Colorado District 5 )	$22,394.72	1
Lance, Leonard (R, New Jersey District 7 )	$18,375.74	1
Landrieu, Mary L (D, Louisiana Senate)	$0.00	0
Langevin, Jim (D, Rhode Island District 2 )	$43,302.15	7
Larsen, Rick (D, Washington District 2 )	$6,598.55	1
Larson, John B (D, Connecticut District 1 )	$8,690.92	1
Latham, Tom (R, Iowa District 4 )	$0.00	0
LaTourette, Steven C (R, Ohio District 14 )	$0.00	0
Latta, Robert E (R, Ohio District 5 )	$19,003.74	1
Lautenberg, Frank R (D, New Jersey Senate)	$11,919.83	3
Leahy, Patrick (D, Vermont Senate)	$0.00	0
Lee, Barbara (D, California District 9 )	$5,968.63	2
Lee, Christopher J (R, New York District 26 )	$15,024.74	1
LeMieux, George S (R, Florida Senate)
Levin, Carl (D, Michigan Senate)	$0.00	0
Levin, Sander (D, Michigan District 12 )	$0.00	0
Lewis, Jerry (R, California District 41 )	$0.00	0
Lewis, John (D, Georgia District 5 )	$3,287.00	1
Lieberman, Joe (I, Connecticut Senate)	$32,443.97	9
Lincoln, Blanche (D, Arkansas Senate)	$3,657.00	1
Linder, John (R, Georgia District 7 )	$0.00	0
Lipinski, Daniel (D, Illinois District 3 )	$0.00	0
LoBiondo, Frank A (R, New Jersey District 2 )	$0.00	0
Loebsack, David (D, Iowa District 2 )	$0.00	0
Lofgren, Zoe (D, California District 16 )	$0.00	0
Lowey, Nita M (D, New York District 18 )	$21,821.70	5
Lucas, Frank D (R, Oklahoma District 3 )	$0.00	0
Luetkemeyer, Blaine (R, Missouri District 9 )	$14,464.36	1
Lugar, Richard G (R, Indiana Senate)	$0.00	0
Lujan, Ben R (D, New Mexico District 3 )
Lummis, Cynthia Marie (R, Wyoming District 1 )	$0.00	0
Lungren, Dan (R, California District 3 )	$14,665.04	2
Lynch, Stephen F (D, Massachusetts District 9 )	$4,170.70	1
Mack, Connie (R, Florida District 14 )	$0.00	1
Maffei, Dan (D, New York District 25 )
Maloney, Carolyn B (D, New York District 14 )	$14,131.30	2
Manzullo, Don (R, Illinois District 16 )	$0.00	0
Marchant, Kenny (R, Texas District 24 )	$8,578.52	1
Markey, Betsy (D, Colorado District 4 )	$19,069.94	1
Markey, Edward J (D, Massachusetts District 7 )	$0.00	0
Marshall, Jim (D, Georgia District 8 )	$11,629.00	1
Massa, Eric (D, New York District 29 )
Matheson, Jim (D, Utah District 2 )	$0.00	0
Matsui, Doris O (D, California District 5 )	$0.00	0
McCain, John (R, Arizona Senate)	$0.00	0
McCarthy, Carolyn (D, New York District 4 )	$2,493.00	1
McCarthy, Kevin (R, California District 22 )	$0.00	0
McCaskill, Claire (D, Missouri Senate)	$0.00	0
McCaul, Michael (R, Texas District 10 )	$0.00	0
McClintock, Tom (R, California District 4 )	$24,355.56	2
McCollum, Betty (D, Minnesota District 4 )	$0.00	0
McConnell, Mitch (R, Kentucky Senate)	$7,358.19	2
McCotter, Thad (R, Michigan District 11 )	$0.00	0
McDermott, Jim (D, Washington District 7 )	$10,522.00	1
McGovern, James P (D, Massachusetts District 3 )	$0.00	0
McHenry, Patrick (R, North Carolina District 10 )	$10,280.60	1
McIntyre, Mike (D, North Carolina District 7 )	$0.00	0
McKeon, Howard P (Buck) (R, California District 25 )	$0.00	0
McMahon, Michael E (D, New York District 13 )	$0.00	0
McMorris Rodgers, Cathy (R, Washington District 5 )	$0.00	0
McNerney, Jerry (D, California District 11 )	$17,387.90	1
Meek, Kendrick B (D, Florida District 17 )	$10,876.00	1
Meeks, Gregory W (D, New York District 6 )	$12,925.23	5
Melancon, Charles (D, Louisiana District 3 )	$9,453.07	2
Menendez, Robert (D, New Jersey Senate)	$0.00	0
Merkley, Jeff (D, Oregon Senate)	$0.00	0
Mica, John L (R, Florida District 7 )	$0.00	0
Michaud, Mike (D, Maine District 2 )	$10,103.33	2
Mikulski, Barbara A (D, Maryland Senate)	$4,508.24	2
Miller, Brad (D, North Carolina District 13 )	$12,073.02	2
Miller, Candice S (R, Michigan District 10 )	$0.00	0
Miller, Gary (R, California District 42 )	$12,132.00	1
Miller, George (D, California District 7 )	$0.00	0
Miller, Jeff (R, Florida District 1 )	$10,517.51	2
Minnick, Walter Clifford (D, Idaho District 1 )
Mitchell, Harry E (D, Arizona District 5 )	$16,275.44	1
Mollohan, Alan B (D, West Virginia District 1 )	$0.00	0
Moore, Dennis (D, Kansas District 3 )	$3,936.29	2
Moore, Gwen (D, Wisconsin District 4 )	$4,168.67	1
Moran, Jerry (R, Kansas District 1 )	$28,121.50	1
Moran, Jim (D, Virginia District 8 )	$0.00	0
Murkowski, Lisa (R, Alaska Senate)	$2,598.35	1
Murphy, Chris (D, Connecticut District 5 )	$0.00	0
Murphy, Patrick J (D, Pennsylvania District 8 )	$21,335.82	2
Murphy, Scott (D, New York District 20 )
Murphy, Tim (R, Pennsylvania District 18 )	$0.00	0
Murray, Patty (D, Washington Senate)	$0.00	0
Murtha, John P (D, Pennsylvania District 12 )	$0.00	0
Myrick, Sue (R, North Carolina District 9 )	$0.00	0
Nadler, Jerrold (D, New York District 8 )	$30,418.22	5
Napolitano, Grace (D, California District 38 )	$0.00	0
Neal, Richard E (D, Massachusetts District 2 )	$0.00	0
Nelson, Ben (D, Nebraska Senate)	$2,647.63	1
Nelson, Bill (D, Florida Senate)	$0.00	0
Neugebauer, Randy (R, Texas District 19 )	$9,213.84	1
Norton, Eleanor Holmes (D, District of Columbia At Large)	$0.00	0
Nunes, Devin Gerald (R, California District 21 )	$23,852.02	3
Nye, Glenn (D, Virginia District 2 )	$9,401.02	1
Oberstar, James L (D, Minnesota District 8 )	$0.00	0
Obey, David R (D, Wisconsin District 7 )	$0.00	0
Olson, Pete (R, Texas District 22 )	$23,295.91	2
Olver, John W (D, Massachusetts District 1 )	$0.00	0
Ortiz, Solomon P (D, Texas District 27 )	$0.00	0
Owens, Bill (D, New York District 23 )
Pallone, Frank Jr (D, New Jersey District 6 )	$15,587.50	3
Pascrell, Bill Jr (D, New Jersey District 8 )	$5,258.27	2
Pastor, Ed (D, Arizona District 4 )	$7,358.99	1
Paul, Ron (R, Texas District 14 )	$0.00	0
Paulsen, Erik (R, Minnesota District 3 )	$4,700.00	1
Payne, Donald M (D, New Jersey District 10 )	$0.00	0
Pelosi, Nancy (D, California District 8 )	$4,793.47	2
Pence, Mike (R, Indiana District 6 )	$45,288.05	5
Perlmutter, Edwin G (D, Colorado District 7 )
Perriello, Tom (D, Virginia District 5 )	$0.00	0
Peters, Gary (D, Michigan District 9 )	$18,971.42	1
Peterson, Collin C (D, Minnesota District 7 )	$0.00	0
Petri, Tom (R, Wisconsin District 6 )	$0.00	0
Pierluisi, Pedro (3, Puerto Rico At Large)	$0.00	0
Pingree, Chellie (D, Maine District 1 )
Pitts, Joe (R, Pennsylvania District 16 )	$10,584.85	3
Platts, Todd (R, Pennsylvania District 19 )	$0.00	0
Poe, Ted (R, Texas District 2 )	$0.00	0
Polis, Jared (D, Colorado District 2 )
Pomeroy, Earl (D, North Dakota District 1 )
Posey, Bill (R, Florida District 15 )	$5,452.47	1
Price, David (D, North Carolina District 4 )	$3,650.85	1
Price, Tom (R, Georgia District 6 )	$38,366.70	3
Pryor, Mark (D, Arkansas Senate)	$860.50	1
Putnam, Adam H (R, Florida District 12 )	$9,426.94	2
Quigley, Mike (D, Illinois District 5 )	$18,755.18	1
Radanovich, George (R, California District 19 )	$0.00	0
Rahall, Nick (D, West Virginia District 3 )	$0.00	0
Rangel, Charles B (D, New York District 15 )
Reed, Jack (D, Rhode Island Senate)	$806.70	1
Rehberg, Denny (R, Montana District 1 )	$4,168.67	1
Reichert, Dave (R, Washington District 8 )	$0.00	0
Reid, Harry (D, Nevada Senate)	$19,279.56	4
Reyes, Silvestre (D, Texas District 16 )	$0.00	0
Richardson, Laura (D, California District 37 )	$22,211.50	1
Risch, James E (R, Idaho Senate)	$0.00	0
Roberts, Pat (R, Kansas Senate)	$8,967.82	2
Rockefeller, Jay (D, West Virginia Senate)	$610.00	1
Rodriguez, Ciro D (D, Texas District 23 )	$3,570.89	1
Roe, Phil (R, Tennessee District 1 )	$15,917.74	1
Rogers, Hal (R, Kentucky District 5 )	$0.00	0
Rogers, Mike (R, Michigan District 8 )	$10,608.60	1
Rogers, Mike D (R, Alabama District 3 )	$0.00	0
Rohrabacher, Dana (R, California District 46 )	$0.00	0
Rooney, Tom (R, Florida District 16 )	$14,947.74	1
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R, Florida District 18 )	$36,314.16	6
Roskam, Peter (R, Illinois District 6 )	$0.00	0
Ross, Mike (D, Arkansas District 4 )	$20,185.79	2
Rothman, Steven R (D, New Jersey District 9 )	$7,821.15	2
Roybal-Allard, Lucille (D, California District 34 )	$0.00	0
Royce, Ed (R, California District 40 )	$8,739.47	2
Ruppersberger, Dutch (D, Maryland District 2 )	$16,374.78	1
Rush, Bobby L (D, Illinois District 1 )	$0.00	0
Ryan, Paul (R, Wisconsin District 1 )	$14,724.54	1
Ryan, Tim (D, Ohio District 17 )	$13,016.40	3
Salazar, John (D, Colorado District 3 )	$14,119.78	1
Sanchez, Linda (D, California District 39 )	$5,809.05	1
Sanchez, Loretta (D, California District 47 )	$21,004.85	6
Sanders, Bernie (I, Vermont Senate)	$0.00	0
Sarbanes, John (D, Maryland District 3 )	$0.00	0
Scalise, Steve (R, Louisiana District 1 )	$9,155.87	1
Schakowsky, Jan (D, Illinois District 9 )	$16,951.76	5
Schauer, Mark (D, Michigan District 7 )	$0.00	0
Schiff, Adam (D, California District 29 )	$5,573.93	2
Schmidt, Jean (R, Ohio District 2 )	$20,278.90	1
Schock, Aaron (R, Illinois District 18 )	$15,301.43	2
Schrader, Kurt (D, Oregon District 5 )
Schultz, Debbie Wasserman (D, Florida District 20 )	$10,881.27	7
Schumer, Charles E (D, New York Senate)	$18,035.36	4
Schwartz, Allyson (D, Pennsylvania District 13 )	$15,230.08	2
Scott, David (D, Georgia District 13 )	$20,273.45	2
Scott, Robert C (D, Virginia District 3 )	$0.00	0
Sensenbrenner, F James Jr (R, Wisconsin District 5 )	$0.00	0
Serrano, Jose E (D, New York District 16 )	$0.00	0
Sessions, Jeff (R, Alabama Senate)	$0.00	0
Sessions, Pete (R, Texas District 32 )	$0.00	0
Sestak, Joseph A Jr (D, Pennsylvania District 7 )	$0.00	0
Shadegg, John (R, Arizona District 3 )	$0.00	0
Shaheen, Jeanne (D, New Hampshire Senate)	$0.00	0
Shea-Porter, Carol (D, New Hampshire District 1 )	$0.00	0
Shelby, Richard C (R, Alabama Senate)	$456.59	1
Sherman, Brad (D, California District 27 )	$0.00	0
Shimkus, John M (R, Illinois District 19 )	$13,094.61	2
Shuler, Heath (D, North Carolina District 11 )	$8,472.80	2
Shuster, Bill (R, Pennsylvania District 9 )	$0.00	0
Simpson, Mike (R, Idaho District 2 )	$3,650.85	1
Sires, Albio (D, New Jersey District 13 )	$23,585.07	3
Skelton, Ike (D, Missouri District 4 )	$0.00	0
Slaughter, Louise M (D, New York District 28 )	$0.00	0
Smith, Adam (D, Washington District 9 )	$0.00	0
Smith, Adrian (R, Nebraska District 3 )	$12,842.10	1
Smith, Chris (R, New Jersey District 4 )	$0.00	0
Smith, Lamar (R, Texas District 21 )	$0.00	0
Snowe, Olympia J (R, Maine Senate)	$2,588.40	1
Snyder, Vic (D, Arkansas District 2 )	$2,588.40	1
Souder, Mark E (R, Indiana District 3 )	$21,469.70	1
Space, Zachary T (D, Ohio District 18 )	$0.00	0
Specter, Arlen (D, Pennsylvania Senate)	$0.00	0
Speier, Jackie (D, California District 12 )	$0.00	0
Spratt, John M Jr (D, South Carolina District 5 )	$0.00	0
Stabenow, Debbie (D, Michigan Senate)	$1,865.00	1
Stark, Pete (D, California District 13 )
Stearns, Cliff (R, Florida District 6 )	$1,480.49	2
Stupak, Bart (D, Michigan District 1 )	$4,352.28	1
Sullivan, John (R, Oklahoma District 1 )	$5,422.42	1
Sutton, Betty Sue (D, Ohio District 13 )
Tanner, John (D, Tennessee District 8 )	$25,390.71	2
Taylor, Gene (D, Mississippi District 4 )	$0.00	0
Teague, Harry (D, New Mexico District 2 )
Terry, Lee (R, Nebraska District 2 )	$5,744.00	1
Tester, Jon (D, Montana Senate)	$0.00	0
Thompson, Bennie G (D, Mississippi District 2 )	$7,922.99	1
Thompson, Glenn (R, Pennsylvania District 5 )	$16,629.92	1
Thompson, Mike (D, California District 1 )	$0.00	0
Thornberry, Mac (R, Texas District 13 )	$0.00	0
Thune, John (R, South Dakota Senate)	$0.00	0
Tiahrt, Todd (R, Kansas District 4 )	$0.00	0
Tiberi, Patrick J (R, Ohio District 12 )	$3,602.60	1
Tierney, John F (D, Massachusetts District 6 )	$0.00	0
Titus, Dina (D, Nevada District 3 )	$15,899.04	1
Tonko, Paul (D, New York District 21 )	$0.00	$0.00
Towns, Edolphus (D, New York District 10 )	$0.00	0
Tsongas, Niki (D, Massachusetts District 5 )
Turner, Michael R (R, Ohio District 3 )	$5,215.42	1
Udall, Mark (D, Colorado Senate)	$0.00	0
Udall, Tom (D, New Mexico Senate)	$0.00	0
Upton, Fred (R, Michigan District 6 )	$3,476.20	1
Van Hollen, Chris (D, Maryland District 8 )	$10,740.66	1
Velazquez, Nydia M (D, New York District 12 )	$0.00	0
Visclosky, Pete (D, Indiana District 1 )	$0.00	0
Vitter, David (R, Louisiana Senate)	$5,669.82	1
Voinovich, George V (R, Ohio Senate)	$2,588.40	1
Walden, Greg (R, Oregon District 2 )	$3,287.00	1
Walz, Timothy J (D, Minnesota District 1 )
Wamp, Zach (R, Tennessee District 3 )	$3,650.85	1
Warner, Mark (D, Virginia Senate)
Waters, Maxine (D, California District 35 )
Watson, Diane E (D, California District 33 )
Watt, Melvin L (D, North Carolina District 12 )	$0.00	0
Waxman, Henry A (D, California District 30 )	$33,467.72	4
Webb, James (D, Virginia Senate)	$0.00	0
Weiner, Anthony D (D, New York District 9 )	$26,345.79	7
Welch, Peter (D, Vermont District 1 )	$0.00	0
Westmoreland, Lynn A (R, Georgia District 3 )	$22,706.30	1
Wexler, Robert (D, Florida District 19 )	$46,171.94	5
Whitehouse, Sheldon (D, Rhode Island Senate)	$0.00	0
Whitfield, Ed (R, Kentucky District 1 )	$0.00	0
Wicker, Roger (R, Mississippi Senate)	$0.00	0
Wilson, Charlie (D, Ohio District 6 )	$9,402.52	1
Wilson, Joe (R, South Carolina District 2 )	$29,964.04	3
Wittman, Rob (R, Virginia District 1 )	$6,835.04	1
Wolf, Frank R (R, Virginia District 10 )	$0.00	0
Woolsey, Lynn (D, California District 6 )	$12,515.14	2
Wu, David (D, Oregon District 1 )	$0.00	0
Wyden, Ron (D, Oregon Senate)	$11,207.46	7
Yarmuth, John A (D, Kentucky District 3 )	$17,660.60	1
Young, C W Bill (R, Florida District 10 )
Young, Don (R, Alaska District 1 )	$0.00	0
	$4,079,240.58

ADL Kikes Attack Tea Partiers! They HATE Free Speech!

2010-03-08T06:49:00.000-08:00

JEWISH ATTACK GROUPS THREATEN TEA PARTY

By Rev. Ted Pike
8 Mar 10

Last November, the Anti-Defamation League vilified millions of anti-Obama and Tea Party protestors as “conspirators” — part of an unruly, violence-prone movement paranoid about government. The Southern Poverty Law Center, like the Anti-Defamation League, is a 100% Jewish “civil liberties” group dedicated to crushing any sign of Christian, conservative renewal. A year ago, these groups tried to convince Missouri state police to profile patriotic Americans as potential domestic terrorists. Now, SPLC has released a new Intelligence Report and video claiming that potentially violent militia and extremist groups are “cross-pollinating” the Tea Party.

The Tea Party is “shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism,” says SPLC editor Mark Potok. He claims current anti-government rage is “a tinderbox…much like the white-hot period just before [the bombing by Timothy McVeigh in] Oklahoma City.” He says “many in law enforcement are very worried that all it is going to take is some kind of spark to set this thing off.” (If a spark does ignite violence or terrorism, it may well be provided by these very Jewish groups who claim to oppose violence. America’s radical secular Jewish community has a long record of defacing their own synagogues, burning crosses, and covertly distributing “hate” literature to fabricate proof that hate and anti-Semitism are rampant in heartland America.)

SPLC’s report, “Rage on the Right,” is not as extensive or derisive of the Tea Party movement as ADL’s earlier “Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies.” But it is a cannonball across the bow of the explosively growing Tea Party movement. It warns leaders not to let the whole truth about international Zionist control and conspiracy take root, or these super powerful Jewish muscle groups will use their influence to inflame Jewish media, the Congress and law enforcement against them. (See Jews Confirm Big Media Is Jewish)

ADL and SPLC want the Tea Party movement to obediently follow the Democrat and Republican parties down the garden path they blindly enteredthree-fourths of a century ago. They want the Tea Party to accept big Jewish money and advisement and promote Israel-first potential candidates, particularly Sarah Palin. As Israel’s attack dogs, ADL and SPLCspecialize in keeping American conservatism in line. They are intent now on furthering a Tea Party platform that serves Israel and undermines America, favoring even more military intervention on behalf of Israel in the Mideast. Unfortunately, with 85 percent of Americans supporting Israel, their mission should be easily accomplished.

Unless lovers of the whole truth resist, leaders of the Tea Party from Glenn Beck down will cave to these powerful organizations and drive out original thought. Zionists can then co-opt the movement entirely.

At present, Jewish supremacists only fear Tea Party patriots because they could vote out the Democrat majority at midterms and end easy victories for ADL’s pro-homosexual legislation. But the Tea Party should aspire to make Jewish supremacists fear it for another reason: power to eventually forge a foreign policy that adamantly seeks American interests first. This policy would resist further enticement into war and loss of American lives to make the Mideast safe for Israel.

Saving the Tea Party

How can the Tea Party be rescued from inevitable Zionist takeover? Tea Party leaders and members must be educated. One of the best ways is for those who know the whole truth to join Tea Party chapters and begin to speak out. (Tea Party chapters in your area are listed at teapartypatriots.org.) Inform your local Tea Party members that Americans must have all the facts in order to win the war for national survival. If a soldier enters combat noteven knowing who his enemy is, he will become a battlefield statistic.

This is the case with the Tea Party.

The fastest way to begin crucial enlightenment is for Tea Party patriots to view my 60-minute documentary, The Other Israel (Watch it here!). This fast-moving, information-packed film has been viewed by countless lovers of freedom worldwide. It tells the whole truth about the conspiracy of Jewish supremacism. While it spares nothing, it is so Biblically oriented, moderate and documented that another Jewish-dominated attack group, the American Civil Liberties Union, can’t fault it. When The Other Israel was the epicenter of a heated cable-access TV controversy in Fairfax, Virginia, the ACLU was called in to arbitrate. Its verdict? “The Other Israel is not anti-Semitic.”

SPLC is right that a wave of anger is building on the right and prompting many to advocate violent revolution. If this rage is not sublimated by constructive political and legislative protest, then acts of violence like last week’s attack by an anti-government gunman at the Pentagon will undoubtedly increase. This will strengthen ADL/SPLC’s demand that rights to speak freely and bear arms be further restricted. Jewish dominated media will also whip up public revulsion at anti-government “extremism” to a degree unseen since it extinguished a similar Goldwater conservative awakening in the early 1960s.

It is vital now, in the formation of this potentially powerful movement, for patriots to energetically take King Solomon’s advice: “In all your getting, get wisdom.”

~~~~~~~~~

TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this subject. Call (503) 631-3808.

The freedom-saving outreach of Rev. Ted Pike and the National Prayer Network is solely supported by sale of books, videos and your financial support. All gifts are tax-deductible.

NATIONAL PRAYER NETWORK, P.O. Box 828, Clackamas, OR 97015
www.truthtellers.org

Gangs are coming To YOUR Nice, White Neighborhood!

2010-03-02T10:33:00.000-08:00

Diversity comes to Dixie.

Middle Tennessee's gangs are no longer just graffiti-spraying juvenile delinquents.
They are armed and dangerous criminal enterprises that recruit young people with the allure of fast money, street status and a sense of belonging — even if the group they join may get them killed or sent to prison.

"People don't understand there are drive-by shootings going on in Murfreesboro," said Ed Yarbrough, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee. "There are witness-elimination killings happening at (the) Hickory Hollow Mall (area). We've got this mindset that suburban areas don't have a gang problem, but we need to wake up to the fact that they do and drive them out."
As in Tennessee, gang activity has spiked nationwide.

Nearly 800,000 gang members and 27,000 gangs operate across the 50 states, a Justice Department survey shows. Some estimates have the figure at 2 million gang members.

While there are no statewide numbers, gangs are present in most of the state's 95 counties, including many communities in the Nashville area, a Tennessee Bureau of Investigation report says. Police have identified 5,000 gang members in Davidson County. Murfreesboro estimates 400 to 500. Columbia has 200.

Softsoap, liberal-whining type gang warning page:
http://www.tennessean.com/gangs/index.html

Epic Beard Man, the MSM and Niggers

2010-03-01T05:25:00.000-08:00

Epic Beard Man, The MSM, And Citizen Reportage

By Alexander Hart

Americans fed up with black on white crime have found an unlikely hero in Thomas Bruso, who has been dubbed “Epic Beard Man”. In a widely circulated YouTube video posted on February 16, Bruso defends himself against a black thug. [Bad language warning—YouTube may require you to sign in because of adult language or violence.]

Bruso is a 67 year-old Vietnam veteran, who apparently has some history of mental illness. While riding the bus in Oakland, he was talking to someone about getting his shoes shined for his mother’s funeral and a black man named Michael—whose last name is unknown—managed to get offended because the words “shoe shine”, “boy”, and “brother” were used in the same sentence. He confronted Bruso, who initially misinterpreted the man as offering to shine his shoes. Michael yelled “Why a brotha gotta spit-shine yo' shoes?” and “Why a white man can’t shine his shoes?”

Epic Beard Man responded by saying he wasn’t into prejudice, [VDARE.com note: Proving that Mr. Bruso has totally missed the Political Correctness memo he expressed his unwillingness to discriminate on grounds forbidden by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by saying "It could be a Chinaman--it don't matter. I ain't prejudiced." ] to which Michael said “You take your a-- back up there and get the f--- out mah face right now.”

Not wanting trouble, Bruso went to the front of the bus, but said “You ain’t scaring this white boy. I'm 67 years old”, as he walked away.

When Michael continues to harass Bruso, he tells him to “Sit your little black ass down.”

Needless to say, Michael does not leave him alone. Iyanna Washington, a black female college student (!) who taped the incident, egged Michael on calling Epic Beard Man “pinky”—a racial slur for Whites—and yelling, “Beat his white a--! F--- this bitch!”

Michael went to the front of the bus and sucker punched Bruso who was sitting down. But Epic Beard Man rose up and scored several clean shots to Michel's face. He was knocked to the ground and covered with blood.

Bruso then storms off the bus, yelling “He f------ hit me first! He hit me in the face! It was self defense! Don’t f--- with me boy! Don’t f--- with me!”

To tee it off, you can see a bench ad with the “keep our city clean and safe” and “I am a Motherf-----” printed on the back of Bruso’s shirt, as he walks off the bus.

Michael, who just got a bloody nose, is seen both whining to “call an amba-lamps [Ebonics for ambulance]” while at the same time saying “I will come back, I will kill dat n------[sic]”

Washington then videotapes herself going through Bruso’s bag, which he had left on the bus, yelling “Go through dat sh--!”

She tells Michael, “We can press charges, I got it on videotape”, apparently oblivious to the fact that Michael is clearly seen starting the fight and she videotaped herself stealing.

Later that day she posted the fight on YouTube, still oblivious to how bad it made her look. [Epic Beard Man, Encyclopedia Dramatica]

The video instantly became a hit. At one point, “Epic Beard Man” was the 16th most frequently searched term on Google. To date, over 3 million people have seen the original video entitled “AC TRANSIT BUS FIGHT I AM A MOTHERF*CKER.” At least another million people have seen it posted under other names like “OLD WHITE MAN BEATS THE SHIT OUT OF A WANNABE THUG ON THE BUS!” and “Epic beard old white guy beats the s*it out of *sshole black guy.”

The original video has over 50,000 comments. Virtually all of the comments praise Epic Beard Man, and many are even too politically incorrect for VDARE.COM. Some of the more sober ones include:

when will the black girls that yelled "beat his white ass" be brought up on racial hate crimes?
I try to see everyone as the same and not agree with stereotypes/ racist comments until they are proven by an individuals actions. But African Americans are always complaining that whites don't like or respect them......... Well... that stupid, ignorant man picking a fight with an old man is the reason we don't. So instead of getting angry at racist comments how about you try and prove us wrong.
I love the part where the lady filming says, "I got it on tape. We can sue his *ss!!"…Mmmmmhmmm....only in America can you assault someone, get your ass beat and sue.

Meanwhile, thousands of video responses and parodies are made such as making the fight look like the videogame Mortal Kombat, or animated versions imagining that Epic Beard Man was having a Vietnam Flashback.

Many videos make light of Michael’s Ebonic pronunciation of “ambulance” as either “amber lamps,” “m and ms” and “ambalamps.” There are even websites and videos devoted to an attractive girl who is sitting next to Michael on the bus, and is listening to music who manages to completely ignore the chaos a few feet away from her. She is dubbed “Amber Lamps.”

Many websites are even selling shirts with slogans like "Mess with Epic Beard Man...Go Home In An Amber-Lamps."

What should we make out of this internet phenomenon? It is easy to dismiss it as just some silly incident between two crazy people caught on tape that brings out a few racial slurs from immature anonymous internet posters.

While the crazy banter and Bruso’s colorful personality makes this video very amusing, and allows people to get away with more politically incorrect thoughts, it is the audacity of some blacks that really inspires most of the comments. It is not just that Michael picks a fight with an old man that makes people upset. It is that he starts it because he imagines a perfectly innocuous comment is racist. It is that after he starts the fight, both he and videotaper Iyanna Washington still think they are in the right. It is that the Washington thinks she can yell anti-white slurs and steal on tape without any repercussions.

They may have seen the video of a white student brutally beaten by blacks on a bus in Belleville, IL who does not even try to defend himself.

Americans are glad to see someone finally fight back.

Bruso clearly has a few screws loose. He had earlier been videotaped getting tasered by police at an Oakland A’s game for being belligerent. But given how self-defense against blacks is often criminalized, as in the Rodney King and Bernie Goetz cases, you need to be a little insane to stand up to the abuse.

Many commenters noted that had the situation been reversed and a white attacked an elderly black man with other whites yelling “Beat his black ass,” he would have been charged with a hate crime, which is obviously true. It is also true that had this not been caught on video tape, Epic Beard Man could very easily be charged with a hate crime himself--especially after staying “You ain’t scaring this White Boy” and “Sit your little black ass down”, even though he clearly was acting in self defense.

During the Rodney King trial, Lew Rockwell joked “Liberals talk about banning guns. As a libertarian, I can’t agree. I am, however, beginning to wonder about video cameras.”

But in 1992, no one could see videos that weren’t on the evening or cable news. The Main Stream Media selectively showed the police subduing King without the context of King violently attacking them.

No doubt if this fight were caught on tape ten years ago, the MSM would splice a video together with Epic Beard Man yelling “sit your little black ass down” and then hitting Michael, without any of the context.

Thanks to the internet, I’m willing to drop the campaign against video cameras.

Alexander Hart (email him) is a conservative journalist.

National Data-Wetback Criminal Rates

2010-03-01T05:12:00.000-08:00

National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein

Ron Unz Vanishes Hispanic Criminality…Not!

In a much-discussed recent article, our old friend Ron Unz presents his own tables, charts, and correlations in an effort to prove Hispanic immigrants are not the crime-crazed group that many Americans suspect they are. [Ron Unz, His-Panic, The American Conservative, March 2010.]

Matthew Roberts and Steve Burton have already published criticism of this piece in Chronicles, [Unzism, A Dangerous Doctrine, February 22nd, 2010] and Unz has already replied. His-Panic has also gotten a lot of attention from immigration enthusiasts, (Tyler Cowen, Radley Balko of Reason) and even from fairly recent convert to immigration enthusiasm Lew Rockwell.

Unfortunately, Unz’ analysis of the immigration/crime link suffers from the same ambiguities and inconsistencies as those he (rightly) dismisses.

More unfortunate still: Unz ignores reliable data showing that Hispanics are rapidly catching up to blacks as the most violent demographic in the U.S.

There is no smoking gun on Hispanic immigrant crime—because official crime and incarceration statistics do not distinguish between immigrant and native-born offenders of any race or ethnicity.

Several academic studies have tried to zero in on immigrant criminality using Census Bureau data. Those too have foundered, mainly because the small sample surveys on which they rely yield wild and unstable trends in immigrant population and incarceration growth.

So what is the crime rate for Hispanic immigrants? In its simplest form, it is the number of incarcerated Hispanic immigrants divided by the total Hispanic immigrant population. Ideally, we would compare this to corresponding rates for native-born whites, blacks, and Hispanics—to determine whether Hispanic immigration increases the overall crime rate.

It sounds simple. But there are big problems.

Most crimes are committed by individuals aged 15 to 44, with the 18 to 29 age range representing a sharp peak in criminal activity. The median age of U.S. Hispanics is around 27, near the peak of the top crime range. But the median for whites is over 40, putting nearly half beyond the range at which crime is likely.

In addition, male inmates outnumber females in U.S. prisons by a ratio of 14 to 1. Since immigrants are (somewhat) more likely to be male, there is a built-in gender bias in immigrant crime statistics.

Adjusting Hispanic and white incarceration rates for age differences reduces the gap by about one-third. Even age-adjusted figures are unreliable if they are restricted to prisoners in federal jurisdiction, where more than half are incarcerated for immigration-related offenses.

Ascertaining a convict’s immigration status is even more difficult. Not only are felons reluctant to reveal their county of origin and lack of citizenship, but many localities forbid their police and prison personnel from even asking such questions.

Federal data is not much help. For example, the Census lumps the prison population into a larger category—people living in “Group quarters”. But this category includes people in college dorms, nursing homes, and military bases.

Several crime studies confine their analysis to younger men in group quarters, assuming that this is reasonable proxy for those in jails and prisons. But the numbers make no sense: the 74,000 increase in incarcerated immigrants in seven years (2000 to 2007) is larger than the entire immigrant prison population in 2000.

The authors of one recent analysis observe that “If true, the national figures indicate we are in the midst of an immigrant crime wave,” warning, however, that “…actually, the recent change in the numbers reflects the enormous problems with the underlying data and almost certainly bears no relationship to reality.” [Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue, By Steven A. Camarota, Jessica Vaughan November 2009]

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report database records the race of all individuals arrested for crimes. Unfortunately, Hispanic arrestees can be reported as “white”, ”black”, or even “Asian”—rendering the crime data useless for our purpose.

Data on the prison population published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics is better: it carefully records ethnicity (Hispanic/non-Hispanic) as well as race. Accordingly, my go-to source for ethnic crime statistics is BJS’s annual analysis of data provided by federal and state correctional authorities.

The most recent such report, published in December 2008, finds that Hispanic males are about 2.5-times more likely to be incarcerated than white males, but only about one-third as likely as Blacks.

While the Hispanic/white differential shrinks somewhat in high-crime age brackets, it remains in the vicinity of two to one:

Sentenced male prisoners under state or federal jurisdiction, December 31, 2008
	White non-Hispanic	Black non-Hispanic	Hispanic
	Number
Total—all ages	477,500	562,800	295,000
Ages 25-29	66,000	102,800	60,000
Ages 30-34	70,700	96,800	54,400
Ages 35-39	75,200	90,500	45,900
	Rate per 100,000 U.S. residents
Total—all ages	487	3,161	1,200
Ages 25-29	1,017	7,130	2,612
Ages 30-34	1,217	8,032	2,411
Ages 35-39	1,171	7,392	2,263
Data Source: BJS, “Prisoners in 2008,” December 2009. Appendix Tables 13 and 14 Note: Imprisonment rates are per residents in each population group.

Mr. Unz takes notice: “So perhaps those fearful commentators are right and Hispanics commit crimes at roughly two-and-a half times the rate of whites in America.”

But then he demurs, citing extenuating circumstances of age, gender, and lastly, immigration status:

“…But even these lower figures may still be a bit misleading. As a recent front page New York Times story pointed out, over half of all federal prosecutions these days are for immigration-related offenses, and since a huge fraction of illegal immigrants are from south of the border, the 10 percent or so of U.S. prison inmates who are in federal custody might significantly distort our ethnic imprisonment statistics. Anyway, offenses such as robbery, rape, murder, burglary, assault, and theft are almost always prosecuted in state courts, so it makes sense to separate these street crimes from cases of illegal nannies convicted of illegal nannying.”

To which we say: Amen. Our concern with immigrant crime has nothing to do with visa overstayers or even illegal entry per se. We are worried about personal safety.

Surely Unz understands this. Yet he conveniently ignores data that confirms our worst fears regarding Hispanic criminality:

Sentenced Prisoners in State Prisons by race, Hispanic origin and offense, 2006 and 2006
	2000	2006	Change, 2000-06	% change
All inmates	1,206,400	1,331,100	124,700	10.3%
Violent	589,100	667,900	78,800	13.4%
non-violent(a)	617,300	663,200	45,900	7.4%
White, non Hispanic	436,700	474,200	37,500	8.6%
Violent	212,400	227,500	15,100	7.1%
non-violent(a)	224,300	246,700	22,400	10.0%
Black, non Hispanic	562,000	508,700	-53,300	-9.5%
Violent	273,400	267,900	-5,500	-2.0%
non-violent(a)	288,600	240,800	-47,800	-16.6%
Hispanic	178,500	248,900	70,400	39.4%
Violent	87,100	141,600	54,500	62.6%
non-violent(a)	91,400	107,300	15,900	17.4%
a. Property, drugs, and other non-violent crimes. Data Source: BJS, "Prisoners in 2008," December 2009. Table 7.

The number of Hispanics serving time for violent crimes increased by 63% in just six years, 2000 to 2006. Over the same period the number of whites incarcerated for such offenses rose by only 7.1%, while the corresponding number of Blacks actually fell by 2%.

Put differently, Hispanics account for more than half (56%) of the recent increase in violent crime. That is four times larger than their share of the adult population.

NB: Blacks are still far more likely to be incarcerated than Hispanics. There were nearly twice as many blacks in prison for violent crimes in 2006 as Hispanics. But Hispanics are obviously narrowing the gap. The marginal perpetrator of violence in the U.S. is far more likely to be Hispanic than black.

Unz suggests that murder statistics are the most reliable of all:

“A reasonable question arises: are all of these crime rates actual, or might they be statistical artifacts produced by widespread underreporting of crime in heavily Hispanic areas? We cannot absolutely eliminate this possibility, but for homicides the reporting rate is always close to 100 percent, and since for all these cities the homicide and other serious crime rates tend to follow very similar patterns, there is no evidence that any of these racial patterns were warped by substantial underreporting.”

But, in fact, nowhere is the Hispanicization of violent crime more evident than in homicides:

Prisoners Sentenced for Murder by Race and Hispanic Origin, 2000 and 2006
	2000	2006	Change, 2000-06	% change
Total	156,300	144,500	-11,800	-7.55%
White, non Hispanic	53,000	34,700	-18,300	-34.53%
Black, non Hispanic	77,200	61,400	-15,800	-20.47%
Hispanic	23,400	36,800	13,400	57.26%
Data source: BJS, Prisoners in 2008," December 2009. Table 12 (2006.); "Prisoners in 2001," July 2002, Table 17 (2000). PDF

Overall, the number of prisoners doing time for murder fell by nearly 8% during the 2000 to 2006 period. The number of whites fell by 35%, the number of Blacks fell about 20%. Only Hispanics bucked the trend: 13,400 more Hispanic murderers were in prison in 2006 than 2000—a whopping 57% increase. As far as murder is concerned, the new boys on the cell block are overwhelmingly Hispanic.

Why? At a time when violent crime is declining across the country, it is hard to imagine U.S.-born Hispanics are fueling the upsurge. But Hispanic immigrants, a group disproportionately composed of males in the high-crime age-brackets who come from a country where violent crime is on the upsurge, are the likely suspects. As Steve Sailer pointed out

"Incarceration rates aren’t exactly the same as crime rates. Hispanic immigrants who commit murder are a lot likelier to make a run for the border, on the other side of which are waiting friends and relatives, than are American-born homeboys, especially non-Hispanic blacks and whites.

You can see evidence of this at the Los Angeles Police Department’s Most Wanted website. A very large fraction of the LAPD’s Most Wanted have foreign first names, suggesting they were foreign-born. "

The Hispanic prisoner boom is a sticky point for immigration enthusiasts. Unz ignores it. Like any good debater, he diverts attention from inconvenient facts by focusing on other relationships which—at first glance—seem to support his thesis:

“Take five minutes to consider the list of America’s urban crime rates provided on Wikipedia, and you will notice an intriguing pattern. Nearly all of the most heavily Latino cities have low or even extremely low crime rates, and virtually none have rates much above the national average. Eighty percent Latino El Paso has the lowest homicide and robbery rates of any major city in the continental United States. This is not what we would expect to find if Hispanics had crime rates far higher than whites. Individual cities may certainly have anomalously low crime rates for a variety of reasons, but the overall trend of crime rates compared to ethnicity seems unmistakable.”

Get it? To keep America safe we need to flood our cities with Hispanics.

Tell that to the victims of those 13,400 Hispanics recently sentenced for murder.

Reality check: Cities with large Hispanic population shares may indeed have below average crime rates. But this result obtains not because Hispanics are paragons of virtue—but because they are not blacks. A city’s overall crime rate is a weighted average of rates for its white, black, and Hispanic residents—the weights being population shares of each group. A higher Hispanic population share usually means a lower Black population share—and a lower overall crime rate.

Blacks are still the main driver of urban crime rates. The incarceration rate of black non-Hispanic males in peak crime ages 18 to 39, for example, is about 16-times that of their foreign-born Mexican counterparts, and twice that of similar U.S.-born Mexicans. [Ruben G. Rumbaut, et al., “Debunking the Myth of Immigrant Criminality: Imprisonment Among First- and Second-Generation Young Men,” Migration Policy Institute, June 1, 2006. Table 1.]

So as Hispanics displace blacks in America’s largest cities, stable or slightly declining crime rates are not at all surprising. But correlation does not imply causality.

Unz knows this. Yet the main thrust of his article is that the negative correlation between Hispanic population shares and urban crime rates means that Hispanics are, statistically speaking, no different than whites:

“….Taken as a whole, the mass of statistical evidence constitutes strong support for the “null hypothesis,” namely that Hispanics have approximately the same crime rates as whites of the same age.”

At another place he hedges his bet:

“Admittedly, all of the arguments presented here are somewhat statistical and circumstantial. Correlation does not prove causality, and it might be possible to come up with a complex and detailed set of ad hoc theories and counter-arguments to explain away the vast mass of apparent evidence indicating relatively low Hispanic crime rates. But such an approach places the burden of proof on the wrong side.”

However, we do not need “complex and detailed” theories to debunk Ron Unz’s benign take on Hispanic criminality.

The simple, easy to understand prison statistics highlighted above do that. At the end of the day, Unz’s sophistcated analysis merely proves that Hispanics are not blacks.

He has a point. But it is not the point he wanted to make.

Edwin S. Rubenstein (email him) is President of ESR Research Economic Consultants in Indianapolis.

Is It Time For A Revolution?

2010-03-01T05:04:00.000-08:00

IS IT TIME FOR REVOLUTION?

By Rev. Ted Pike
1 Mar 10

Joseph Stack was an angry accountant who expressed his protest of the IRS by becoming an aerial firebomb, hurtling his plane into Austin's IRS building. His suicide note—“Violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer”— perfectly expressed the fiery sentiments of the majority of talk radio callers to whom I recently spoke. This past week I went back on the radio to try to stir up calls against the Anti-Defamation League’s new public school hate crimes bill, the Student Nondiscrimination Act, HR 4530. I encouraged tens of thousands to protest to the House Education and Labor Committee where this bill is being considered. I discovered a shocking new mood in heartland America: fury and widespread determination to end liberal tyranny in Washington but not by phoning Congress. Increasingly, violent revolution is the solution for some.

You can listen to my interview with Rick Adams. For an hour and a half, the phone lines are jammed largely by callers enthralled with the possibility of "watering the tree of liberty" through bloody revolution. They hope this might bring the national salvation which has eluded us. (Listen to the broadcast HERE)

I encountered the same mood on other programs. The common belief is that, since Washington will not heed the will of the people, we must “punish” the government by no longer talking to it (in other words, calling Congress in protest.) Since the government has mocked the will of the people, various forms of non-cooperation, isolation and even violent insurrection are all that is left for us.

As a result, out of my nearly eight hours of intense pleas for action, heard on at least 70 radio stations slanted to the right, fewer than 70 people came to our website www.truthtellers.org for the list of names to call! Evidently, even the perverse and frightening objective of the Student Nondiscrimination Act—to establish the federal government as the pro-homosexual educator and punisher of Christian opponents of homosexuality in American public schools—can’t rouse many people to call the politicians who will decide whether it goes forward.

Useless to call Congress?

Disheartened and desperate conservatives, largely in the tea party movement, think Congress is now impervious to the will of grassroots America. But an important clarification must be made. The government is not necessarily our enemy. America's primary adversary is the agenda of very powerful lobbying groups—primarily Zionist and secular Jewish groups led by the Anti-Defamation League and assisted by the homosexual lobby. These forcefully pressure and often work together with our leaders, from President Obama to members of the House and Senate.

Orthodox rabbi Nachum Shifren, in his unprecedented expose of the power and globalist aspirations of the ADL, confirms that secular Judaism, the dominant form of Judaism in America, spearheads this agenda. (See Shifren's article The ADL vs. Faith and Freedom) The red-button issues most promoted by the American secular Jewish community include homosexual rights, immigration and healthcare “reform,” abortion rights, national financial bailouts, support of Israel’s occupation of Gaza, and wars to make the Mideast safe for Israel—including possible attack of Iran. ADL epitomizes secular world Jewry and is a prolific and untiring fountain of freedom-destroying legislation, including state, federal, and international hate laws. We almost invariably find ever increasing numbers of Jewish Senators and House members either introducing or promoting the latest ADL-engendered legislative poison. Their ranks are vastly disproportionate to the 1-2% presence of Jews in the American population.

The problem of government "insensitivity" is thus largely synonymous with the fact that liberal, secular Jewish supremacy is deeply entrenched in our nation's capitol, promoting its anti-Christian, un-American agenda. Some Republicans, but especially Democrats, are overtly complicit with this Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG). All are heavily pressured to support issues of which the Zionists will admit no compromise. Dissent means political ruin by the vengeful, all powerful Jewish lobby, including Jewish-dominated big media (See Jews Confirm Big Media Is Jewish).

The focus of tea party and right-wing anger, demonizing “the government,” is thus both simplistic and misdirected.

It is foolish to “punish” Congress by refusing to talk to it! The secular Jews and liberals running Congress would actually be delighted to be left alone to create a dictatorship oppressing us all. Are we going to give them what they want? Or will we make their road to tyranny as rough as possible through incessant telephone criticism when and where it is needed? Rep. Steve King says the most effective way to hold back the liberal legislative agenda is by calling, at the critical moment, members of those pivotal committees that decide which legislation dies or advances. This is the critical moment to destroy the Student Nondiscrimination Act, HR 4530 in the House Education and Labor Committee. Find the names, especially of Republicans, of members of this committee (find them on our Action page here) and call toll-free 1-877-851-6437, toll 1-202-225-3121. Also read and widely circulate my recent article on HR 4530, “ADL’s New Public School Hate Bill.”

Victories for Freedom in 2009

Has the ability of the people to impact Congress really gone the way of the dinosaur? It’s true, concerning financial bailout and healthcare reform, the Democrat Congress has not revealed a sincerely listening ear. But even though the hate bill became law, the people scored several powerful victories against hate crime legislation in this Congress. Even though it took a lot of urging from National Prayer Network, calls of protest against the hate bill finally soared just before its passage, even exceeding calls about the Sotomayor hearings and healthcare. Democrats in the Senate were terrified and quickly added the previously rejected Brownback amendment to the present hate law, strengthening protection from possible federal prosecution for pastors, talk show hosts, and authors. Last fall, Americans’ phone calls did even more. They stopped dead in their tracks ADL’s cyber-bullying and AWARE bills, which would federalize prosecution of those who criticize homosexuality in American public schools and establish massive pro-homosexual public education. This happened because patriots, again alerted by the National Prayer Network, flooded the Judiciary committee with protest. This outpouring encouraged Rep. Louie Gohmert in particular to assemble a cast of top-flight Constitutional and conservative experts to argue against these bills.

Despite the big talk of revolution, there is little possibility for successful military insurrection for a long time to come. The real danger now is that through violence unstable people or groups may give ADL, the Department of Homeland Security, liberal media and Obama Democrats exactly what they want: confirmation that the tea party and far right are not only potential but actual domestic terrorists. The government response will be martial law, oppressive directives and legislation much further stripping us of freedom.

Today, the telephone remains our strongest weapon. Some in the right may vie for the honor of firing what they believe will be "the shot heard round the world," precipitating a revolution that will solve America’s problems. Actually, such violent fanaticism would give the most powerful enemies of freedom the opportunity they lust for. It would reverberate in the clang of thousands of prison cells throughout this land.

~~~~~~~~~

TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this subject. Call (503) 631-3808.

The freedom-saving outreach of Rev. Ted Pike and the National Prayer Network is solely supported by sale of books, videos and your financial support. All gifts are tax-deductible.

NATIONAL PRAYER NETWORK, P.O. Box 828, Clackamas, OR 97015
www.truthtellers.org

Hussein Shoving ACORN Socialism Where It Ain't Wanted!

2010-03-01T04:59:00.000-08:00

White House to push ACORN pet project

Critics warn plan will 'sneak socialism' into U.S., cause major economic loss

Posted: February 28, 2010
10:19 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

President Obama

The White House is considering a new policy that would give an advantage in bids for billions in government contracts to companies that pay workers "living wages" and offer generous benefits.

WND has learned the "living wage" campaign has long been pushed by the radical Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, and was largely initiated on a local level in the 1990s with the help of a socialist party of which evidence suggests Barack Obama was a member.

Critics warn a living wage advantage for more than $500 billion in government contracts could harm small companies, with case studies showing cities that enacted similar policies in the 1990s faced major financial losses. Business groups who oppose the plan say also it would increase government procurement costs.

The Associated Press obtained documents outlining the White House plan. The documents reportedly show the government would examine the wages and benefits – such as health insurance, retirement benefits and paid leave – a firm pays its employees as a factor in the process of awarding government contracts. Another factor would be whether a contract bidder is a repeat violator of labor and employment laws.

A Labor Department compliance office would compile a score on contract bidders based on the criteria and then determine which companies would get government contracts.

Writing about a similar policy that was being considered in Chicago in 2003, Steven Malanga of the City Journal stated the movement "sneaks socialism into cities."

Malanga notes the living wage movement got its start in mid-1990s Baltimore, when a coalition of left-leaning church leaders, unionists and community activists largely led by ACORN began to push for a "social compact" that included a hike in the minimum wage to $6.10 – 43 percent above the federal minimum wage at the time – for service workers in hotels and other businesses in the city's redeveloped Inner Harbor, a prime tourist area.

Baltimore's then-mayor Kurt Schmoke eventually signed a compromise bill that guaranteed the new $6.10 minimum for workers at any companies contracting with the city. Supporters hailed the increase as a costless victory for low-income workers.

But Baltimore's economy soon crashed, with 58,000 jobs disappearing, even as the rest of Maryland added 120,000 jobs and other cities across the country prospered.

"The living wage bill was just one expression of a fiercely anti-business climate that helped precipitate Baltimore's economic collapse," wrote Malanga.

Another locale that enacted a living wage bill soon to see its economy burn was Milwaukee County in Wisconsin, which passed a law increasing the minimum wage only for city-contracted janitors and security guards to $6.25 an hour.

That law was urged on by ACORN and the socialist New Party, which was also instrumental in lobby efforts in Baltimore. The living wage campaign was a main platform of the New Party.

The New Party sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.

The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral "fusion," which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party went defunct in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme Court.

The New Party worked closely with ACORN to promote its candidates. ACORN, convicted in massive, nationwide voter fraud cases, was a point of controversy for Obama during his campaign for president.

In August, a former top member of the New Party recounted in a WND e-mail interview Obama's participation with his organization.

"A subcommittee met with (Obama) to interview him to see if his stand on the living wage and similar reforms was the same as ours," recalled Marxist activist Carl Davidson.

"We determined that our views on these overlapped, and we could endorse his campaign in the Democratic Party," Davidson said.

Davidson was a Chicago member and activist within the New Party. He told WND he handled some of the New Party member databases and attending most of the party's meetings.

Davidson is also a notorious far-left activist and former radical national leader in the anti-Vietnam War movement. He served as national secretary for the infamous Students of a Democratic Society anti-war group, from which the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization later splintered.

Davidson remembers Obama attending a New Party meeting to thank attendees for voting for him.

Davidson said that to his knowledge Obama was not a member of the New Party "in any practical way" – using qualifying language.

Becoming a New Party member requires some effort on behalf of the politician. Candidates must be approved by the party's political committee and, once approved, must sign a contract mandating they will have a "visible and active relationship" with the party.

Asked whether Obama signed the New Party contract, Davidson replied there was "no need for him to do so."

"At the end of our session with him, we simply affirmed there was no need to do so, because on all the key points, the stand of his campaign and the New Party reform planks were practically the same," Davidson told WND.

Davidson denied the New Party was specifically a socialist party, claiming, "The vast majority of active members were low- and middle-income blacks in the inner city fighting for their immediate demands."

But the socialist-oriented goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.

Among the New Party's stated objectives were "full employment, a shorter work week and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal 'social wage' to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity."

The New Party stated it also sought "the democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets [and] community-controlled alternative financial institutions."

Many of the New Party's founding members were Democratic Socialists of America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA.

Obama attended several DSA events and meetings, including a DSA-sponsored town hall meeting Feb. 25, 1996, entitled "Employment and Survival in Urban America." He sought and received an endorsement from the DSA.

Asked by WND whether he thinks Obama has socialist leanings, Davidson stated, "The truth is that Obama was and is a liberal Democrat and an Alinskyist community organizer – which if you know much about Alinsky, is just militant liberalism."

"Obama was never a man of the left, either in his views or in being a member of an actual socialist organization," added Davidson.

While running for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 as a Democrat, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the New Party, according to confirmed reports during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Among New Party members was linguist and radical activist Noam Chomsky.

Obama listed as socialist party member

Obama's campaign in 2008 denied the then–presidential candidate was ever an actual member of the New Party.

But the New Zeal blog dug up print copies of the New Party News, the party's official newspaper, which show Obama posing with New Party leaders, listing him as a New Party member and printing quotes from him as a member.

The Party's spring 1996 newspaper boasted: "New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)."

The paper quoted Obama saying, "These victories prove that small 'd' democracy can work."

The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specifies Obama as a New Party member.

New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago's Democratic Socialists of America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group's support and "encouraged NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on voter education and voter registration."

With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott