CONSERVATIVE CORNER WITH KAZ & MALACHI-2

MALACHI 13

PLEASE EXCUSE THE FIRST 14 MINUTES. JUST FORWARD THE PLAYER TO THAT POINT AND THE SHOW WILL BEGIN. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.

THE BLACK WOMAN, SOCIALIST COLLATERAL DAMAGE!!!!

THE BLACK WOMAN, SOCIALIST COLLATERAL DAMAGE

by Alan Stang
April 15, 2008
NewsWithViews. com

No treatise on women would be complete without some comments on the black woman. For years, black neighborhoods across the country have made East Berlin under the Communists look like Caesar’s Palace in Vegas. Going back to the first Watts riot in Los Angeles, in your typical black neighborhoods you find boarded up stores and few or no services, one reason for which is that blacks themselves destroyed those services.

Of course, you find rampant crime, mostly black-on-black, another example of black self-disgust, large gangs, widespread use of dangerous drugs, epidemic abortion (more self-disgust), and men who can barely speak English listening to “rap” on “ghetto blasters.” You find teenagers wearing trousers so big they must hold them up, apparently unaware that the style was introduced to facilitate pretty boy prison rape. Right now, the Department of Justice web site says this about murder: “In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites.”

Yet, paradoxically, the black woman paradoxically emerges from this horror a proverbial pillar of strength. Yes, there are exceptions, no doubt many of them, but there are more than enough such pillars to make my observation true, enough so that you surely have met one or more of these powerful, authoritative, black women.

It is a situation full of paradox; those women are so strong because the black family is so weak. In so many explosive cases it has been destroyed. Indeed, by now almost everyone surely knows that the federal government destroyed it with a policy designed for that purpose.

No other people have been manipulated – recruited in various schemes as cannon fodder – as much as the blacks. Consider that white people are always white. Yellow people are yellow. But every few years somebody up there orders a change of name for the race in question.

Many years ago they were “colored.” Then they were “people of color.” Then they were “Negroes.” Then we were told the name “Negroes” was demeaning, so they were “blacks.” A few years ago, they became “African-American.” Who ordered the change? Where did it come from? There didn’t seem to be any discussion on the subject. Did you notice? I suspect a certain shakedown artist in Chicago who routinely inflicts a conglomeration of deracination on the nation.

The new name just appeared and by now it is enforced to such an invisible but profound extent that I have actually heard people apologize for mistakenly using a previously approved but now obsolete name. Why “African-American?” Obviously to inspire a spurious loyalty to another country.

Remember that B. Hussein Obama’s church says it is loyal to Africa. But Africa is not a country; it’s a continent. People whose ancestors came here from Europe don’t call themselves “European-Americans.” That is a pejorative term employed by racists who hate whites. When big immigration from Europe was still recent, whites called themselves “Italian-Americans,” or Swedish-Americans” and so on. No more.

Since everyone calls Caucasian Americans white, it makes most sense to call these other Americans black. By the way, I do have a question. I don’t know the answer. Hussein is half black and half white. Why call him “black?” Wouldn’t it make just as much sense to call him “white?” According to my dictionary, someone who is half black and half white is a “mulatto.”

Whatever, we have established that somebody is always manipulating American blacks. Today, there are white liberaloids who pander to them and black con men who make lucrative livings off them. Because of this illicit attention, it would not be much of an exaggeration to say that for decades, life in many of the nation’s “hoods” has in some respects been worse than it was in slavery on the Old Plantation. Why?

Because the white liberaloids destroyed the black family. They did so during the Johnson Administration and the weapon they used was the “War on Poverty.” Americans live in perpetual war. There are shooting wars like the present no-win, treasonous fiasco in Iraq. Often, the nation is “fighting” more than one war at a time. Thus, we were “fighting” the no-win treasonous fiasco in Vietnam while we were “fighting” the family-killing “War on Poverty” here. Few Americans have any idea what it is like to live in a country at peace.

Lyndon Johnson was a Texas sidewinder. His political career started with a miracle, an election victory in which the dead resurrected without the intervention of Jesus and marched from the cemeteries to the polling places to put him across by 87 votes. There was a lot of sadness mixed with the jubilation because they returned to their graves after voting without visiting their families.

Advertisement

There was also a federal inspector named Henry Marshall, who was investigating one of Johnson’s pals. Marshall must have moonlighted as a contortionist, because when authorities examined his corpse they found that he had committed suicide by shooting himself in the back five times with his own rifle. That man was hard to kill!

Until the 1960s, black families – like white – consisted of mom, dad and kiddos. That’s right; it wasn’t always like it is now. But the “War on Poverty” shoveled federal funds via “programs” to families with kids but absent fathers. And, guess what? You don’t need to be as smart as Dr. Ron Paul to know that if you pay for something, pay liberally (not a pun), you dramatically increase the chance that you will get it.

Gradually, and then, as word spread, rapidly, the black father disappeared, in fear that if the welfare worker caught him on the premises, the check could be withheld. A new kind of life emerged in the black community. In another paradox, the more kiddos there were without fathers, the bigger the check from the “War.” What would you do? The dads would show up at night – while the welfare workers were congratulating each other over wine and cheese for the good they were doing – and make sure everybody who could be pregnant was.

So, the federal government literally tailored the “program” to destroy the black family. Did they do it deliberately, as part of a scheme to create millions of Marxist lumpenproletariat they could use as cannon fodder? Remember, one of the basic principles of our system of jurisprudence says that a man is presumed to intend the natural consequence of his acts. The destruction of the black family is the natural consequence of these “programs.”

What has this done to the black neighborhood? Today, more than 70% of black households have just one parent, mostly women, more than three times as many as there were in the 1950s. The same ratio applies to out-of-wedlock black births. Remember Katrina? When that monster destroyed New Orleans, the inmates did not know what to do. So long had they been sucking on the federal teat that they were totally emasculated. They could not help themselves. They waited until the government responded, and, sure enough, more than a year later they still were on the dole.

Don’t get the idea that this weakness is peculiar to blacks. Almost thirty years ago, some businessmen in New Zealand brought me there during a national election to speak about world government. The Socialist government in that country at the time had created a creature called the “welfare mum.”

This was a lady whose business was making babies without a husband. The government set her up in an apartment, all expenses paid. And many Kiwi women came aboard. The work was easy, fun and so lucrative! All you had to do was get pregnant! Need I add that there are no blacks in that country? We are talking of course about women as white as Laura Bush. There is also the fact that the illegitimate birth rate today among young white women in this country, which is about 30%, is higher than it was among black women half a century ago. Girls just want to have fun.

Many black women no doubt do not survive, physically or mentally, in the ‘hood. What kind of woman would survive? A strong, demanding, authoritative, resourceful woman, a woman capable of holding the stunted family together, without the help of a father riding herd on normally rambunctious, young men high on their hormones, for whom the neighborhood “hero” is the guy in the fancy car selling drugs.

And now a new dynamic is at work. A few black women in different parts of the country tell me there is a “shortage” of suitable, black men in the community, because those strong, black women have Master’s degrees and corresponding jobs. You see them everywhere, well-groomed, well-dressed, actually speaking English, paradoxically living the American dream as it is about to become a nightmare. The problem is that ladies with Master’s degrees do not marry emasculated men who can’t speak English, who spend their days shooting up in the ‘hood and their nights in impregnation.

So, the government set up the scam and the ‘hood fell for it. Typically, the only “solution” the totalitarians offer is more handouts and more programs, more of the scam. The problem can be solved, but only by black men, black men inspired by Jesus Christ to take charge of their families and kick the enslavers out, black men who speak English, not Ebonics.

Here are some utterly fascinating excerpts that help put the problem in perspective, from a message to me from one of my readers, a black lady. Yes, needless to say, she does have a Master’s degree, despite which she was able to get a husband:

The truth is so many blacks in general believe . . . that the real problem for the black community is “skin instead of sin.” They focus on “race and not grace”; “gossip and not the Gospel” (as one writer put it). And because of this many blacks are more beholden to “culture” (and what mama did or aunty did) than they are to Jesus Christ and (obedience to) His Word. But the truth is, sin is deeply at the root of many problems in the black community.

Thus, the government didn’t drive that man off, or keep him from acting responsibly; or keep him from finishing school, etc, etc. No one put a gun to someone’s head to drink, do drugs, rob a bank, on and on. . . . Yet, many people (who created their own problems because of their own sinful behavior) consider themselves to be helpless/hapless victims of (“societal”) forces. Then . . . in the end they . . . blame these “forces” for the misery they’ve heaped on themselves and others. . . .

Now back to the point about the woman who “has become strong,” highly educated and well-employed — without a man in her life. Nine times out of ten (and believe me I can vouch from experience); that black woman (who everybody thinks is sooooooo spiritual or sooooooo strong and courageous) is not really strong from a Biblical sense; she’s strong from an Oprah Winfrey, “I am woman hear me roar!!!!!” sense. I’m talking about pride, pride, pride!!! . . . So many black women (that I know) are sooooooo full of themselves that there really isn’t room for that “suitable man” they think they are looking for. You cannot blame the government because you cannot find a husband. You cannot blame the government because your individual acts of sin are causing problems in your life.

© 2008 - Alan Stang - All Rights Reserved

E-mail This Page
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

——————————————————————————–

Alan Stang was one of Mike Wallace’s original writers at Channel 13 in New York, where he wrote some of the scripts that sent Mike to CBS. Stang has been a radio talk show host himself. In Los Angeles, he went head to head nightly with Larry King, and, according to Arbitron, had almost twice as many listeners. He has been a foreign correspondent. He has written hundreds of feature magazine articles in national magazines and some fifteen books, for which he has won many awards, including a citation from the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for journalistic excellence. One of Stang’s exposés stopped a criminal attempt to seize control of New Mexico, where a gang seized a court house, held a judge hostage and killed a deputy. The scheme was close to success before Stang intervened. Another Stang exposé inspired major reforms in federal labor legislation.

His first book, It’s Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights, was an instant best-seller. His first novel, The Highest Virtue, set in the Russian Revolution, won smashing reviews and five stars, top rating, from the West Coast Review of Books, which gave five stars in only one per cent of its reviews.

Stang has lectured in every American state and around the world and has guested on many top shows, including CNN’s Cross Fire. Because he and his wife had the most kids in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic, where they lived at the time, the entire family was chosen to be actors in “Havana,” directed by Sydney Pollack and starring Robert Redford, the most expensive movie ever made (at the time). Alan Stang is the man in the ridiculous Harry Truman shirt with the pasted-down hair. He says they made him do it.

BLOG TALK RADIO

A NATION OF ENRONS!!!!

http://www.fool.com/investing/small-cap/2008/03/20/a-nation-of-enrons.aspx Seth Jayson March 20, 2008 An understatement: We are living through a time of considerable market and economic turmoil. Since we stand to see trillions of dollars’ worth of assets vaporize in the ensuing mess, we ought to take a look at history to see how we got into it, and how investors can get out. Half a decade ago, the entire nation was shocked when award-winning “innovator” Enron turned out to be little more than a cash-shredding pyramid scheme. The crucial failing for investors was Enron’s use of opaque, “mark-to-market” accounting. The problem comes when the market is batty (or doesn’t exist), so you instead mark your assets to a model, especially one that’s wrong, either because you made an error or because you based it on exceedingly generous assumptions. In the end, we learned that Enron’s accounting was pretty much mark-to-fairy-tale, with the company booking enormous gains from assumed future profits on schemes (like bandwidth trading) that sounded great, but had little chance of producing anything besides headlines. Andy Fastow, meet Fred and Ethel You might think we’d learned our lessons about fantasy accounting after Enron, but you would be wrong. Things actually got worse. The infection moved to the comfy-sounding “homeownership” market. Against a star-spangled, feel-good backdrop touting the “American Dream,” our recent mark-to-model mania tripped up a lot more than one big company. In fact, it swept through the entire banking world. (Bear Stearns (NYSE: BSC) is not the first to choke on lousy, poorly modeled mortgage-backed securities “income,” and I’ll eat a Miami condo if it’s the last.) But more dangerous yet was the way this mania also infected millions of aspiring real-estate moguls. The most widespread mark-to-model fantasies were actually committed not by some easy-to-blame Wall Street suit, but by Fred and Ethel down the street. It was flawed models (and the habit of booking earnings on these models) that enabled financial companies to concoct the elaborate securities that funded the bubble. And yes, the bank CEOs who paid themselves handsome bonuses ahead of the hurricane deserve a public flogging. But they weren’t the only ones making out like bandits. While Wall Street was booking fantasy profits on bad assumptions about real estate, Fred and Ethel down the street were operating under their own mark-to-model dreams. Really … In their model, house prices always go up. In their model, you can pay any price for a home, so long as you can make the monthlies with a teaser-rate ARM, never mind the upcoming adjustment to 9%. In their model, you avoid that via a refinance down the line with an equity cash-out to boot. In their model, it’s OK to buy on a less-than-forthcoming, Alt-A “liar’s loan,” because there’s no real punishment for lying on a mortgage application — particularly if everyone’s doing it. With this model, it makes sense to buy three other homes, in order to flip them later. And it makes sense to extract HELOC cash from the home, based on fantasies about continually increasing “equity.” This is not so different from what Enron was doing. Fred and Ethel were marking up the value of their assets (the home) to a model (their belief that real estate prices always go up) and then spending the “income” immediately, on iPods, Hummers, $250 jeans, and fancy vacations. This happened all over the country, and millions of people behaved the same way. In fact, the American Fantasy of owning a home (for no money down) that would provide leveraged, 10% annual returns for a decade, is precisely what enabled those Wall Street suits to do what they did. It takes two to tango, folks. And this was the biggest dance party in economic history. Last year’s model got ugly Alas, this dream’s “income” wasn’t actually matched by real cash flows, just bank loans — precisely the problem at Enron. The “income” was all hot air. And now that the “income” from home appreciation has turned negative, it must be supported by cash mortgage payments. But many people can’t pay those bills, the mortgages are defaulting in huge numbers, and now, we are all paying a price, even those of us who didn’t throw our money into a flimsy, overpriced McMansion. Stocks have been creamed. The losses at those companies most directly victimized by their own housing-bubble ineptitude – Bear Stearns, Citigroup (NYSE: C), and Wachovia (NYSE: WB) — are easy to understand. But, of course, the losses have extended much further than that. Even mighty Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) has dropped like a rock, as investors wonder how many iPods can be sold in Foreclosureville, U.S.A. And if they can’t afford their beloved iPods, what will they buy? That’s the thinking that has crushed everything from trendy togs-sellers like Zumiez (Nasdaq: ZUMZ) to carmakers like GM (NYSE: GM). Consumers are spending less, and we appear to be headed directly into a recession. So ugly it’s cute? By now, it ought to be clear that I have been, and remain, one of the most vocal econo-bears you will find on these pages. I am certain that systemic failure has steered us into a terrifying run at the ditch, to be followed by a painful, protracted rough patch. It was all spawned by greed gone amok on Wall Street and Main Street. Yet I believe history will prove this to be one of the best times to have invested in stocks, especially attractive-priced small caps. Here’s why: The market is in panic mode, and when markets panic, no one’s thinking. Small caps have been crushed more than the rest of the market, as investors seek “safe” large caps. Over time, value-priced small caps produce some of the most amazing returns in the market. Really. There are loads of small caps out there poised for years, if not decades, of fantastic growth, but the market is pricing them as if they are dead and buried. The not-so dead and buried Take oven-maker extraordinaire Middleby, down 20% so far this year, despite amazing returns on equity and capital, and its leading position in a megatrend — the global move toward dining out. Or consider the abovementioned Zumiez, which has a growing brand, a solid balance sheet, and huge growth potential, yet is priced for a decade of subpar growth. Yes, the uncertainty ahead means a rough ride, and some of the small caps out there won’t survive, which is why, at Motley Fool Hidden Gems, we advise opportunistic buying of cash-strong companies, long-term holds, and, above all, a steady temperament. At Gems, we’re on the dig, 24-7, for solid small caps with the capital to survive the downturn, and the superior businesses destined for major growth once things turn — and they always do. In the next issue, we’ll be reviewing the recommendations and finding the best bargains for new money. If you’d like to take advantage of the market’s panic and lay the groundwork for some great future gains, a free trial is just a click away. Seth Jayson, a top-10 CAPS player, is also co-advisor at Motley Fool Hidden Gems. At the time of publication he was short Apple puts, but had no positions in any other company mentioned here. View his stock holdings and Fool profile here. Middleby and Zumiez are Hidden Gems recommendations. Apple is a Stock Advisor pick. Fool rules are here.
Legal Information. © 1995-2008 The Motley Fool. All rights reserved.

Geert Wilders - Fitna the movie (Official English)

from youtube.com posted with vodpod

1981 News report about Bohemian grove

from youtube.com posted with vodpod

Illuminati & HAARP

from youtube.com posted with vodpod

CNBC Interview with Stephen Previs about the Amero [hq]

from www.youtube.com posted with vodpod

Stop the Terror, Stop the Bloodshed

from youtube.com posted with vodpod

The American Form of Government

from youtube.com posted with vodpod