Far be it from me to belittle the pain of bereaved parents. Call me selfish, but one of my greatest wishes is that none of my children precede me in death.

This is why I don’t want to be too hard on MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers). Even though they’ve been accused of promoting a gradual reinstatement of prohibition and of being dishonest, I think their intentions are noble. But you know what they say about good intentions

What strikes me about MADD is that their website makes no mention of black history month, Asian pride or Native American solidarity. It goes without saying that they don’t recognize the importance of white identity, even though MADD is implicitly white and their leadership and board of directors is entirely white.

MADDBut MADD gives special attention to Hispanics – an ethnic group (using the term loosely) with the some of the highest rates of drunk driving. As such, we might expect an attitude of indifference toward Hispanics, if not outright hostility.
In 1984, as the Hispanic population truly began to explode in the United States, MADD had a change of attitude:

In 1984, MADD changed its name from Mothers Against Drunk Drivers to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. This carefully considered change was made because MADD is opposed to the criminal act of drunk driving, not individuals.

Of course, I can’t possibly know what motivated them to make this change, but it looks suspiciously as if they had no problem condemning drunk drivers as evil incarnate as long as they were overwhelmingly white – but as soon as it became apparent that drunk drivers would be increasingly brown, MADD didn’t have the stomach to condemn them.

In true Stockholm fashion, MADD goes out of its way to coddle Hispanics, recognizing Hispanic Heritage Month. Since MADD stresses the importance of Hispanic culture, it’s not surprising that its shortcomings are interpreted as victimhood by MADD:

Driving drunk is a problem that affects people of all races.  According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Hispanics have the second highest rate of drinking and driving incidents and are more likely than other groups to ride in vehicles operated by drivers who have been drinking.   Research also shows that 90 percent of Hispanics see drunk driving as a major threat to the safety of themselves and their families.

In short, drunk driving does not discriminate—it kills and injures people of all races and culture.

We strive to reach out to diverse populations to fulfill our mission to stop drunk driving, support the victims of this violent crime and prevent underage drinking.  Please visit our Spanish language resource center for links to programs, brochures and other services/materials available in Spanish at madd.org/espanol.

This is like saying black neighborhoods are “plagued by gun violence” or “Americans suffer from obesity.” The above statement almost makes it sound as if Hispanics are more at risk of being killed because they hop in cars driven by (presumably white) drunks. Also, to say that drunk driving does not discriminate, immediately after admitting that different ethnic groups have different offense rates, is ridiculous. I wonder if these mothers would agree if I told them that breast cancer does not discriminate based on gender – since men also suffer from it sometimes.

I think I’ll go have a drink!

 

Driving drunk is a problem that affects people of all races.  According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Hispanics have the second highest rate of drinking and driving incidents and are more likely than other groups to ride in vehicles operated by drivers who have been drinking.   Research also shows that 90 percent of Hispanics see drunk driving as a major threat to the safety of themselves and their families.

In short, drunk driving does not discriminate—it kills and injures people of all races and culture.

We strive to reach out to diverse populations to fulfill our mission to stop drunk driving, support the victims of this violent crime and prevent underage drinking.  Please visit our Spanish language resource center for links to programs, brochures and other services/materials available in Spanish at madd.org/espanol.

- See more at: http://www.madd.org/blog/madd-recognizes-hispanic.html#sthash.9xnZykor.dpuf

In 1984, MADD changed its name from Mothers Against Drunk Drivers to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. This carefully considered change was made because MADD is opposed to the criminal act of drunk driving, not individuals. – See more at: http://www.madd.org/about-us/mission/#sthash.JszfKR2H.dpuf
In 1984, MADD changed its name from Mothers Against Drunk Drivers to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. This carefully considered change was made because MADD is opposed to the criminal act of drunk driving, not individuals. – See more at: http://www.madd.org/about-us/mission/#sthash.JszfKR2H.dpuf
In 1984, MADD changed its name from Mothers Against Drunk Drivers to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. This carefully considered change was made because MADD is opposed to the criminal act of drunk driving, not individuals. – See more at: http://www.madd.org/about-us/mission/#sthash.JszfKR2H.dpuf

When blacks and Hispanics are constantly trained to have ethnic solidarity, while whites are told it’s evil for them to do the same, no good can come of it. The following comment, gleaned from Yahoo news, illustrates this point:

Some years ago I went to the Miami Opa Locka Flea market, paid for a standby generator, I asked the merchant to start it prior to me leaving, just to make sure it works,we were there over an hour and he could not get it started, so I asked for my money back.

The guy refused to return the money paid, so I called the police, after the police came, I explained what happened, the Officer went to the merchant and they both started speaking in Spanish, so I asked the Officer to let him speak in English so I can understand what he is saying,as I know the merchant spoke English real well.

The Officer reply was, I must not tell him how to do his job, so I insisted that they speak in English as I knew how these Cubans are, they back each other most of the times, even in things that are illegal. After this Officer finished speaking with the merchant, I asked him what did the man say, he refused to tell me, so I asked for his badge number.

That Police Officer placed a handcuff on me and charged me with disorderly conduct.All I did was to insist that he speak in English as well as his badge number.

To make matters worst, on the court date, one pig by the name of Judge Baxter came into the court room, after he sat down the he said, you all area a piece of waste and I am here to flush you down the toilet.

I was so angry, knowing that I was innocent as well as the others, if innocent until guilty is still true? The next day I tried to file a complaint with the proper authority that oversees the conduct of judges, only to be told that a judge has the right to say whatever he feels like saying in his court room.

When tribal loyalties conflict with justice, we cannot assume that the rule of law will be administered equitably. When only non-whites (or Cubans, such as in this case) are allowed to have ethnic solidarity, and when they’re also aggressively recruited as police officers, judges and politicians, a white person will never stand as an equal in the eyes of the law.

The best solution, in my opinion, is to avoid doing business with people who would have an inherent advantage over you in the event of a dispute. If you bring a complaint against another white, he may be more wealthy than you, he may be more good-looking than you, and he may have better connections than you – but at least he won’t have an ethnic advantage over you.

As the world laughs at Malaysia over their silly ban on the use of the word “Allah,” which simply means “God” in Arabic, Western countries should take a good hard look at themselves.

Coming from a Jewish background myself, whenever I hear that a particular word is banned, I ask myself, “what is being worshiped, and what is so holy that its name cannot be pronounced?” The Tetragrammaton is considered, by Orthodox Jews, to be so holy that only the High Priest may utter it – and even then only on the holiest day of the year and in the holiest place on Earth: The Holy of Holies in the Temple.

The line between holy and profane, between love and hate, is a thin one indeed. Some people may not even be certain whether they love or hate a particular thing or person. All they know for sure is that its name arouses strong emotions.

In the Western world there is a de facto prohibition against the public use of the word “nigger.” It’s described as “the n word” in much the same way that Jews pronounce the Tetragrammaton as “adonai” or “the Lord.” Only the High Priests of the diversity cult are permitted to pronounce this word. Even they tend to restrict its use to their own Holy of Holies: The Inner City.

I have more to say on this matter, but I’m still recovering from writers’ block – and it’s summer out there.

While visiting my friends in Kentucky recently, we spoke of local folklore. They told me of a “spook” who lived in a nearby town. This “spook” was not a ghost or any other type of supernatural being. In fact, he was just a man. A man who was in the habit of peering through windows at attractive young women. He was a peeping tom.

When I asked what they did with him after he was caught, I was told, matter-of-factly, that nothing was done with him; he “wasn’t right.” In other words, he wasn’t right in the head. He was mentally ill. The local folk realized, after a while, that he posed no threat and they chose to let him be. This is an example of what we may call “tolerance.”

Ask the Yankees, whose impressions of the Old South were shaped by television and public school propaganda, how a black cross-dresser might have fared during the days of jim crow in Lexington, Kentucky. “Are you kidding?! He would have been taken out and lynched!!” This is the sort of reaction you’d probably get. After all, we all “know” that black men were lynched for even the slightest offenses, right?

But consider the case of Sweet Evening Breeze. I read about him while perusing a book called “Weird Kentucky.” According to Art Beat Lexington:

Yep, this little Southern town of ours has a drag grandmommy who played a huge role in building tolerance and encouraging self-expression that set the stage for the experience being presented at Buster’s this weekend.

James “Sweet Evening Breeze” Herndon was born in 1892 in Scott Co., suffered an eye injury as a boy that brought him to Good Samaritan Hospital, and was abandoned by his family the next day…

The charm of one of Lexington’s most colorful characters won over a wealthy white benefactor of the hospital, and Sweets was given a room to live in and a job handing out mail to patients and entertaining them with his ukelele. His unique styling evolved out of these creative exchanges and soon he was adorning men’s clothing with women’s accessories. A broach, makeup, dresses… all were part of Sweets’ design, and on Halloween, the one day it was legal for me(n) to dress as women, he’d grace the public in full drag…

Jeff Jones, an assistant professor at UK’s College of Public Health, wrote an article about Sweets in Chevy Chaser Magazine‘s September 2002 edition that explains other roles that endeared this gender-bending black man to his Southern society:

Having never learned to drive, Sweets would regularly wave down or call the police for a lift. He hated birds, and once a year, the local firemen would come and wash down his roof to remove any bird droppings. During the doctors-versus-nurses basketball games at Good Sam, Sweets filled the role of cheerleader…

Every fall he would buy shoes and leave them on the doorsteps for needy Pralltown children. When a neighborhood family or friend was having financial difficulty, he would buy food and have it delivered anonymously by taxi. Sweets also would report any neighborhood drug dealers to the police and helped put a young girl he liked through college.

By all accounts, Sweets was an excellent cook, sharing famed pastries all over town, and his parties with their fine china and silver were legendary.

Picklesimer, who now lives in Los Angeles and does parties for Elton John among others, drew inspiration and courage from his friendship with Sweets, who Bradley remembers would redo his house with the changing seasons.

Sweets considered himself the epitome of Southern grace and those who knew him say he never would have proclaimed himself a drag queen. But the courage of his expression and the stewardship that he demonstrated to his community established a foundation for the drag culture that exists today.

The story of Sweets is usually told in such a way as to draw attention to his courage. But it can just as easily be used to illustrate the tolerance Kentuckians had toward those who were different.

 

In an official statement, Starbucks president Cliff Burrows wrote:

The goals of the Diversity and Inclusion team include building a diverse workforce, increasing cultural competencies, shaping a culture of inclusion and developing a diverse network of suppliers.

Indeed, back in 2012, Starbucks showed its commitment to affirmative action by supporting the University of Texas at Austin against a lawsuit that challenged its racial policies. According to colorlines:

Basketball Coaches and Starbucks Push For Affirmative Action

They may be strange bedfellows, but there is one issue of national import that the National Association of Basketball Coaches, the Obama administration and Starbucks have come together to support: affirmative action.

This goal, along with fiscal considerations, have motivated Starbucks’ board of directors to oust CEO Howard Schultz and to replace him with an undocumented alien from Mexico named Pedro. In a statement that shocked many, managing director William Bradley explained:

True diversity must start at the top. Starbucks is sincerely committed to diversity and, frankly, as long as the public face of our company is that of a white male, this goal cannot be realized. It is time to replace the old with the new, the worn-out with the vibrant, the past with the future. Mr. Schultz represents an oppressive past. In the new America, there is no justification for white males to rule over an increasingly diverse workforce.

Furthermore, Mr. Schultz has cost us $28.9 million dollars this past year alone. We, as board of directors, must answer to our shareholders. I am proud to announce that we have found a better candidate for this job: Pedro. Pedro, as an undocumented alien, will earn minimum wage and no more. He will not have special stock options or private security. Pedro will also be responsible for clearing the leaves from our corporate park.

So far, there has been no public reaction from Mr. Schultz. However, sources have indicated that President Obama has invited him for a beer.

 

 

 

 

We read about it almost every month. A celebrity lets his guard down and allows some political incorrectness to escape through his lips. Before you can say “heresy,” he’s grovelling and apologizing. From James Watson to Mark Cuban, the routine grows tiresome. Each time this happens we say to ourselves, “wouldn’t it be refreshing if one of them would actually stick to his guns and refuse to back down?”

But there is a man who stood up to the powers of political correctness – and has suffered the consequences: Frank Borzellieri (pronounced Borza-lerry). In his book Crucified by the Catholic Church, Borzellieri recounts the gross injustices visited upon him by the Catholic Church and the New York Daily News.

I first met Frank Borzellieri at the 2012 Amren conference. He struck me as a man who had suffered much. I gave him a modest donation and got on his mailing list. I don’t make much money myself, so after receiving a couple of donation solicitations by mail, I began to ask myself, “why doesn’t this man just find a new line of work? The Catholic Church has betrayed him, so let him find a new employer.” At the most recent Amren conference, I met him again, and I gave him another small donation. This time I got a copy of his book and, soon thereafter, got to reading it.

If there’s one lesson I’ve learned over and over again in my life, it’s to refrain from being quick to judge others. It’s easy to say, “go out and find another job” if you’re not standing in Borzellieri’s shoes. The man spent years of his life earning degrees that are useful only within the framework of the Catholic Church. The actions of the Archdiocese of New York left him, in midlife, with heavy debt (from his student loans), with no livelihood and with no health insurance; Mr. Borzellieri suffers from several serious health conditions that require expensive treatment.

To summarize this sad series of events I’ll quote from the back cover of the book:

In August 2011, Frank Borzellieri was fired as a school principal by the Archdiocese of New York because of a libelous newspaper article in the New York Daily News. What is most disturbing, as the quote above reveals, is that the very writing that Frank was fired for were writings that the Catholic Church had reviewed and approved years earlier. In Fact, after reviewing Frank’s writings, the Archdiocese promoted him three times! Only after the corrupt Daily News reporter published her dishonest and defamatory article about Frank Borzellieri, did the Archdiocese  cave in to political correctness in the most craven and cowardly manner – firing Frank within 24 hours of the article’s publication. As further proof of the despicable cowardice  of the Archdiocese of New York, the Church then tried to suppress the very fact that they previously knew and approved of Frank’s writings on race and immigration. Now, with the release of this book, they are exposed.

For further reading, click here, here, here and here.

Among the villains, in this ugly saga, are:

Timothy McNiff, superintendent of schools for the Archdiocese

Corinne Lestch, the reporter who wrote the libelous, and misleading, article against Borzellieri

Eric Rapaglia, Borzellieri’s boss. He reneged on his repeated assurances that Borzellieri’s job was secure. He also lied about having previously read Borzellieri’s writings and having given them his blessings. Rapaglia tried to withhold Borzellieri’s final paycheck in order to use it as leverage to keep him from speaking out and defending himself.

Cardinal Dolan. This man answers only to the pope, and could have easily prevented the entire shameful event. When Borzellieri sent him an impassioned letter, pleaded his case, Dolan duly ignored him. Borzellieri had confirmed that Dolan received the letter.

The SPLC. Borzellieri does a good job of documenting the true nature of this bogus organization.

Among the heroes are:

Borzellieri’s former students at  St. Barnabas High School in the Bronx. They signed petitions and gave Borzellieri much needed moral support during his darkest hours. All of them are black or Hispanic.

Monsignor Edward Barry of St. Barnabas was the one who promoted Borzellieri twice after reading his books. He provided ongoing support after the firing.

Roy Innis, National Chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality. Innis wrote an eloquent letter praising, and defending Borzellieri. Corinne Lestch refused to cite it in her article.

Jared Taylor and American Renaissance have continued to publicize Borzellieri’s plight, giving him a platform to appeal for assistance, and even giving him the podium for this purpose. This sets a fine example of how we must help each other and support, each to the best of his ability, our own people.

As to the quality of the book, I think it’s well written overall. It is a bit repetitive at times, but I attribute this to the dual purpose this book seems to serve: A compendium of evidence and material that Borzellieri might use for his pending lawsuit and a means to educate the public.

In conclusion, I’ll quote from the book’s conclusion:

There is currently a libel defamation lawsuit filed against the Daily News, Corinne Lestch, Ann Marie Zagaglia, and Connie Anestis…

The guilty ones at the Archdiocese cannot dispute the facts in this book. That is why they tried so hard to keep me from telling the story. That is why they will never debate or submit to lie detector tests. I expect them to retaliate against me for writing this book. They may think they have the money and power to do so… I may have no money, no job and no health insurance, but thanks to two ideologically conservative law firms, I do have unlimited legal assistance, to either sue or to defend against being sued. So to the cowards at the Archdiocese, bring it on. I will continue to expose everything you do to me, and if you continue your ungodly attempts to defame me and to prevent me from making a living, you will be next on my lawsuit list.

Have these cowards found some success in silencing Mr. Borzellieri? Perhaps; the book doesn’t seem to be available anywhere online. Amazon carried it until recently. But anybody who donates can request a copy from the author and one will be sent.

Donations can be made to Borzellieri via paypal: frbz@verizon.net

or by mail:

Frank Borzellieri

P.O. Box 780142

Maspeth, New York 11378

Disclaimer: I did not personally witness any of the events described in this article, nor have I seen any firsthand evidence of it. All the above is according to the book “Crucified by the Catholic Church” and should be understood within this context.

Back in 1996, 35 people were gunned down in Tasmania. As a result of this tragedy, the Australian government instituted new gun-control laws. Among them was a compulsory buyback program. Since then there has been much debate over how this affected violent crime rates in Australia.

Gun rights advocates have, for the most part, been claiming that violent crime actually increased after the buyback. Anti-gun advocates argue that such claims are flawed, and that violent crime went down after the buyback. Each side accuses the other of using flawed, or meaningless, statistics.

If we are to address the issue of post buyback crime rates at all, the burden of proof must fall on the anti-gun crowd. Regardless of what the Australian Constitution says, or does not say, about gun ownership, people have a natural right to defend themselves. Our natural rights are not contingent upon any government-issued piece of paper. The right to defend oneself against violence is primal. Therefore, if we are to argue that the Australian government was justified in its theft of its citizens’ firearms, the burden of proof is on us to show that such a measure is necessary and effective.

But we cannot simply point to a decrease in violent crime and assume that it’s due to the buyback. Correlation does not equal causation. Similarly, we cannot assume that an increase in violent crime is due to the buyback. There are many, constantly changing, factors that influence crime rates. I would argue that the very complexity of the issue renders such claims (on either side) practically meaningless.

I would also argue that, even if it could be shown that gun confiscation does decrease violent crime, this still does not give people the right to steal guns from other people.

Consider the case of motorcycles. Why not make recreational motorcycle riding illegal? Such a law would certainly save lives; there’s no doubt about it. While it’s true that the person most at risk, with motorcycles, is the rider himself, the same could be said about guns. Suicide rates are much higher than homicide rates.

Most people understand that we must accept certain risks if our lives are to worth living at all. If it’s worth risking our lives for fun, how much more so for self-defense.

My brother just got back from a prolonged trip to Australia. He tells me that the Australians he spoke to were very pleased with their strict gun laws. There seems to be an assumption that living in Australia makes one an expert on Australian crime and gun laws. Thinking back on my own visit there, I don’t think this is the case. My impression is that many, if not most, Australians are heavily indoctrinated by their left-leaning government and press – the same as Americans and Europeans.

I recently overheard a conversation between two of my friends. They were talking about the recent shooting in Troutdale, Oregon. I’m familiar with Troutdale, since I often visit that area during the summer. It’s only about 45 minutes from my house. My friends were citing this incident as justification for gun-control. It’s funny because Troutdale was also the scene of a “wilding” a couple of years ago. Here’s a video of the incident:

 

… but I don’t remember calls for diversity-control after that. Perhaps this is because of selective reporting by the corporate-owned media. People hear about lone gunmen, but they’re less likely to hear about black mob violence. I would wager that the average American is much more likely to become a victim of black violence than he is to become a victim of a lone white gunman – but the powers that be, in order to serve their own political agenda, aggressively publicize white gunmen (even if they’re only part white) while ignoring black violence as much as possible.

Ethnic diversity leads to a degradation of our culture. Hence, even when the culprit is a white high school student, some of the blame can be laid at the feet of “diversity.” What we need is diversity-control, not gun-control.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 144 other followers