| |
|
|
|
|
Eye Opening Articles
We found them enlightening and even suprising. You may be surprised by these articles, but your eyes won't actually pop. (No guarantee implied. Not responsible for popped eyes.)
These articles and emails are collected here because they made such an impact on our staff when they read them. Authors are unknown, unless specified. Some are difficult to believe, but links to their original locations/references have been provided when available:
American Suicide
American Suicide ... very sobering.
Wherever you stand, please take the time to read this; it ought to scare the beejeebers out of you! We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. In early 2008 there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of America's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, "Mexifornia," explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream. Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'" "Here is how they do it," Lamm said:
"First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.' Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans." Lamm went on:
"Second, to destroy America, invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal; that there are no cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds."
"Third, we could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multi-ethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.' Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."
"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."
"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."
"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. "E. Pluribus Unum" -- From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'Unum,' we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."
"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits. Make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them." In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said:
"Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book 'Mexifornia.' His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."
There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America. Take note of California and other states. To date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast.
It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984." In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength." Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream. If you care for and love our country as I do, take the time to pass this on.
Return to Eye Opening Articles Index
Democrats Are Not Your Friends 1
Republicans' record on blacks beats the Democrats hands down - Posted on July 28, 2004 - by Viet-Boat-Rider
President Bush's address to the 2004 National Urban League Conference in Detroit should be used to highlight the fact that the Republicans' record on civil rights for blacks is far superior to the Democrats' record. Only in our Orwellian world could the Republicans be successfully painted by the Party of Jefferson Davis as the party of Jim Crow.
For nearly 100 years American blacks looked to be freed from their chains. When that day finally arrived, thanks to a bloody civil war, there was jubilation. But what did the vast majority of their descendents eventually do? They returned to thee Democratic plantation. And the likes of Julian Bond, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson intend to keep them there. After all, what good is a race hustler if he cannot keep that race-pot on the boil?
It is one of life's wicked ironies that the Party of Lincoln, the Party founded on an anti-slavery plank, the Party that abolished slavery and gave the country the fourteenth amendment in an effort to protect black rights; the Party which tried to put an end to lynching, in the face of fierce opposition by Democrats, has now been successfully demonized by the Democrats as racist. What is to be done? Well, the Republicans could start by telling the truth and there is no better place to start than the Party's voting record on civil rights.
The Dems' black overseers spread the lie that the Republicans opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Acts. Even a loose reading of history shows that while 69 percent of Democratic Senators voted for the Act, 82 percent of Republican Senators did so. The contrast in the House of Representatives was even more marked, with 61 percent of Dems voting for the Act as against 80 percent of the Republicans. Al Gore's father was one of those who refused to support the Act that enforced the constitutional rights of blacks. Unlike that well-known Democrat Bull Connor who used dogs, clubs and hoses to violate black rights, the genteel Gore merely voted against them.
The overseers tell their black brothers and sisters that Republicans were responsible for the outcome of the Dred Scott case, an infamous Supreme Court ruling that said no black, whether free or slave could be a US citizen. This decision seemed designed to invalidate the Missouri Compromise and legalize the introduction of slavery into the territories. But despite what the overseers assert it was the Democrats who were responsible for this decision. And who damned it and those judges who supported it? The Republicans. It was the Democrats' appalling behavior on slavery that drove Lincoln to say on the eve of the Civil War: "The Republicans inculcate, with whatever ability they can, that the Negro is a man, that his bondage is cruelly wrong, and that the field of his oppression ought not to be enlarged. The Democrats deny his manhood; deny, or dwarf to insignificance the wrong of his bondage; so far as possible, crush all sympathy for him, and cultivate and excite hatred and disgust against him; compliment themselves as Union-savers for doing so; and call the indefinite spreading of his bondage a sacred right of self-government."
When the war was over the Republicans introduced the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments in an effort to protect black rights, all in the teeth of ferocious opposition from Democrats. That these amendments fell into dormancy after the withdrawal of Northern troops from the South says more about the spirit of the South than is does about Republicans. Republicans should openly brag that it they were the anti-slavery party and the one that introduced civil rights amendments to the Constitution in a genuine effort to help former slaves establish themselves as self-governing individuals with the same inalienable rights as every other American citizen.
It was because of the Republicans record on slavery and black rights Democrats sneeringly calling them the "colored people's Party". That is something Republicans have every right to be proud of. And Republicans should not hesitate to shame Democrats into admitting that theirs was the slavery party, the party of the Ku Klux Klan, of Jim Crow, lynchings, burnings and Senator Robert Byrd. It was Democratic judges in the South who only forty years ago strove to keep blacks in their place and out of the polling booth — not Republicans.
It was Republican Justice Warren, an Eisenhower appointee, who stood up to the South's segregationist politicians, not a Democratic appointed judge. It was Warren's actions that finally brought about the full emancipation of all of America's blacks. And it was a Republican president who backed him. Republicans have a sterling civil rights record of which they have every reason to be proud. But through the Orwellian twisting of history the Republicans have been successfully labelled as the 'Jim Crow' party. Nevertheless, history is on the Republicans side in the only sense that matters — the truth. All that Republicans have to do is gird their loins and start preaching the gospel as it was originally written. Originally published at Free Republic.
Return to Eye Opening Articles Index
Democrats Are Not Your Friends 2
Democrats, John Roberts, Slavery and Segregation: History Repeats by Richard Lessner 08/16/2005
The hysterical opposition among some Senate Democrats and their allies on the Left to President Bush’s nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court has historical precedent. And I don’t mean Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas. The Democrats’ furrowed-brow posturing on the Roberts nomination, and their opposition over the past four years to many of President Bush’s conservative nominees to the federal bench, is reminiscent of the party’s position and tactics on slavery in the decades before the Civil War and segregation afterward.
Throughout the Antebellum period, the Democratic Party was held in thrall to what was then called “slave power.” The Democratic Party provided the bulwark defense of slavery against any efforts, however modest, toward eventual emancipation. Whereas in the 1780s even the Founders from the slave-holding South regarded the institution as a temporary evil and envisioned its eventual demise, by 1830 southern Democrats were arguing that chattel slavery was a “positive good” established by God and endorsed in the Constitution. They argued the South’s “peculiar institution” was a permanent feature, one with deep economic, social, religious and moral roots. The chief strategy in slavery’s defense was control of the United States Senate and Supreme Court.
Throughout the decades before the firing on Fort Sumter, Democrats used the power in the Senate to block any attempt by northerners to roll back slavery -- or even to slow or block its extension into new territories – and to ensure a pro-slave majority on the Court. Throughout this period southern Democrats managed to maintain a pro-slavery majority on the Supreme Court through the exercise of the Senate’s confirmation power. Democrats argued that slavery was a matter of “settled law” that could not be tampered with even by an anti-slave majority. The Constitution recognized and protected slavery as a fundamental property right, Democrats argued. Any encroachment upon this right – the nomination of a justice with known anti-slavery sentiments, for instance -- was instantly met with threats of southern secession. This reached its epitome in the 1857 Dred Scott ruling.
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney of Maryland, a Democrat, virulent racist, and vehement defender of slavery, wrote the majority decision that held African-American slaves were not human beings but property and therefore had no claim on constitutional rights. Dred Scott made civil war inevitable. It judicially removed the issue of slavery from the sphere of political discourse. The decision neutralized the representative institutions and put the issue of slavery beyond the reach of the people’s elected leaders. Democrats hailed Dred Scott as having settled once and for all the status of slavery in America. Even efforts of limit slavery’s expansion into new territories were attacked as a violation of Dred Scott. By the eve of the Civil War, Southern slaveholders were arguing they could freely and openly carry their property in slaves into the free states, just as they could a horse or cow, and that any restraint on the institution was to deprive slaveholders of their constitutional rights.
Any effort to limit or restrain on slavery was blocked in by the Democrat minority in the Senate and by the Taney court. When the Supreme Court in Aberman v. Booth (1859) upheld the constitutionality of the federal Fugitive Slave Law–which the South had demanded on threat of secession as part of the Compromise of 1850 -- escaped slaves fortunate enough to reach free soil had to be returned to their masters upon apprehension by bounty hunters, Northern sheriffs or U.S. marshals. The act compelled all government officials in the free states to enforce the law or risk large fines.
Meanwhile, Southern Democrats passed state laws making it a crime to advocate emancipation, publish or demonstrate against slavery, or to otherwise oppose the institution. If this history resonates with a certain familiarity, it almost perfectly parallels the Democrats’ current position on Roe v. Wade: Abortion is an absolute right, Democrats argue, guaranteed by the Constitution’s alleged “right to privacy” unearthed in Griswold and subsequently affirmed in Roe and Casey. Any nominee to the Supreme Court must genuflect to these precedents and accept abortion on demand without constraint as “settled law.” Any limitation on abortion–parental notification for minors or a ban on partial-birth abortion to cite but two examples transgress the absolute right as determined by the Supreme Court.
A federal law even makes it a crime for pro-lifers to demonstrate within a buffer zone around abortion mills. The rhetoric of many Democrats today on abortion eerily echoes their party’s rhetoric (and tactics) in defense of slavery. Of course, once the South lost the Civil War and Dred Scott was finally abolished by the 13th Amendment, the Democrats were compelled to turn their tactics to preserving segregation. Again, the Democrats prevailed in Plessy v. Fergusson (1896) which held that race-based “separate but equal” segregation was constitutional. Plessy and racial segregation stood as “settled law” for almost 60 years until Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Throughout this period, southern Democrats successfully blocked any legislation that would even modestly extend basic civil rights to African-Americans. Not even a federal law against lynching could overcome the Democrats’ filibustering in the Senate, although the Republican House twice passed such legislation.
Not until 1964 and the passage of the Civil Rights Act (with a majority of Republican votes finally overcoming filibustering by Southern Democrats) was the awful stain of slavery and segregation finally removed. Democrats understandably object when they are reminded of their party’s sordid history, even as they replay that history over and over again with regard to Roe. When Nancy Pelosi declares that the rulings of the Supreme Court are inviolable and tantamount to “the voice of God,” as she did recently in the Kelo eminent domain case, she is unconsciously echoing the pro-slavery and segregationist arguments of her Democratic forbears. The Democrats’ desperation to preserve a pro-Roe majority on the Supreme Court is of a piece with their party’s history on race. History, it seems, does repeat. Original article found on Human Events.
Return to Eye Opening Articles Index
Your Social Security
Here's some very interesting information on Social Security just in case some of you young whippersnappers (and some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what.
Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt , a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary;
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program;
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year;
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General Operating Fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other government program, and;
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal Government to "put away" -- you may be interested in the following:
Q : Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it? A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities? A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants? A: Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people read this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so. But it's worth a try.
Return to Eye Opening Articles Index
John Glenn
This should make you think:
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq. When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, please remind them of the following:
FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us - Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama bin Laden has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking. But consider this:
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation (and resulted in the deaths of over 40 American men, women and children).
We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida !!!
Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB ! The Military morale is high! The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize these facts. But wait - there's more!
Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum on the Senate floor - January 26, 2004, is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living. This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military:
Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn): "How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?"
Senator Glenn (D-Ohio): "I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank." "I ask you to go with me . . as I went the other day... to a veteran's hospital and look those men - with their mangled bodies - in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job! You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee, and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job. You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags. You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job? What about you?"
For those who don't remember During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA . Now he's a Senator!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a Veteran.
Return to Eye Opening Articles Index
More Guns = Less Crime
Could the solution to crime really be this simple? This seems to indicate "YES!"
Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia Crime Rate Plummets - by Chuck Baldwin
The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.
The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed impressively low.
In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.
With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you? The reason is obvious.
Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence. The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.
There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.
Return to Eye Opening Articles Index
Next Item
Next item.
Return to Eye Opening Articles Index
|
|
