http://theamericancritic.com/categories/rss/HistoryLatest Articles Posted on The American Critic Filed Under HistoryLatest Articles Posted on The American Critic Filed Under HistorySun, 30 May 2010 09:07:00 PDT1275235620I am the Mobfather Rush Limbaugh here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.

I am happy. I am honored. I am proud, ladies and gentlemen, to be considered the Mobfather here leading the unruly mobs protesting at all these town hall meetings. I think it might be helpful to keep a list of all the things we are according to the president of the United States and his gang, the State-Controlled Media and all of his other cronies. To start with, we are always right-wing extremists. Now we are unruly members of a mob, and I am the Mobfather. We are people now who dress too nicely, even though it's Obama and his wife who are getting some Vanity Fair award for fashion, right? We are idiot shills for big insurance. We are people who are trying to destroy Obama. We are people who cannot change. We are people who are unwilling to seize the moment. We are people who do not like change. We are people who want the status quo.

Now, I'm not an economist, folks, but something here doesn't make sense. The State-Controlled Associated Press, and I think this is a headline they use every month now: They just cut and paste into whatever the figures actually are. "'New Jobless Claims Drop More Than Expected' -- The number of newly laid-off workers seeking unemployment benefits fell last week, the government said Thursday, a sign that the job market is making gradual improvement." Oh, really? The number is 550,000 instead of the expected 588,000 people that lost their jobs. Over half a million people lost their jobs and we get "New Jobless Claims Drop More Than Expected." I think they actually went up because at the end of the story: "The number of people continuing to claim benefits rose, however, by 69,000 to 6.3 million, after having dropped for three straight weeks."

Now, if more people are claiming jobless benefits, doesn't that mean that jobless claims rose? And if they went up by 69,000, the projected number was 588,000 the seasonally adjusted number is 550,000. If you add 69,000 to 550,000 we're up over 600,000 people that are looking for or are on unemployment. So if you ask me, the numbers actually rose. Now, I'm told that tomorrow the unemployment figure will be 9.6%. I don't know who's cooking it. Well, who do you think would be cooking the books? But I'll tell you what. I think these people are desperate. I think Obama and his gang are desperate. They are lashing out. They are unraveling before our very eyes. Here is Nancy Pelosi from yesterday in San Francisco.

PELOSI: I think they are Astroturf -- you be the judge -- of carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town hall meeting on health care.

RUSH: Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House. She is very powerful, one of the most powerful people in the country. This is what I mean by unraveling. She's running around now claiming that we're Nazis, that not only are we an unruly mob but that people are showing up wearing swastikas when, in fact, I have a story here from the Washington Post, Howard Kurtz, July 28, 1997: "Two senators call a news conference to present an average, hardworking American who -- to their embarrassment -- turns out to have a Nazi swastika tattooed on his arm. Is that news? Several major media organizations didn't think so. The West Virginia truck driver was trotted out by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) as someone who would be helped by the Clinton tax plan. Rockefeller, clearly unaware of the tattoo, introduced the man as 'a very close and personal friend.'"

So these guys back in 1997 shilling for Clinton's tax plan, bring out a guy, close personal friend of J. Rockefeller, actually has a swastika tattooed on his arm. The news media didn't think any big deal about it because this all happened when he was a teenager, it's no big deal. The speaker of the House accusing people of showing up at these town hall meetings of wearing swastikas, that is not insignificant, folks. This woman is deranged. They are unraveling, but that is not insignificant. You have the Democrat Speaker of the House saying that people, citizens who are concerned about health care are now wearing swastikas. She's basically saying that we are Nazis. She is saying that the people who oppose this are Nazis, and I'm going to tell you what. I'm going to run down the list here later on in the program, but this party, the Democrat Party and where it's taken this country, the radical left leadership of this party bears much more resemblance to Nazi policies than anything we on the right believe in at all, and I'll go through that list in just a second.

However, if you go to RushLimbaugh.com right now in the orange banner at the top of the website, you will see a headline: "Was Pelosi So Wrong About Swastikas?" Steve Gilbert at Sweetness & Light heard my reaction to the Obama health care logo the other day. I mentioned something about it reminded me of Germany in 1942, the shape of the logo, the people. I said, "I haven't seen this in many, many years." And if you go and take a look at this, you will find that the Obama health care logo is damn close to a Nazi swastika logo. I'm going to show you people watching on the Dittocam this, and there you are. The middle frame is the Obama health care logo. At the bottom is an official Nazi logo, eagle and everything, spread wings, or bird with spread wings. Ms. Pelosi has some major apologizing to do. I know that numerous repeated Botox injections can cause blurry vision, but I don't think Ms. Pelosi can use that as an excuse. They are really unraveling. They are really falling apart. Listen to her again. This is at San Francisco General Hospital. Do you think there is a legitimate grassroots opposition going on here?

PELOSI: I think they are Astroturf -- you be the judge -- of carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town hall meeting on health care.

RUSH: Mary Katharine Ham blogging at the Weekly Standard has put together a brilliant piece of work here dismantling the entire piece of evidence, the single piece of evidence that is being used by the State-Controlled Media, the smoking gun mob memo. It's being used by the Democrats and the State-Controlled Media as proof of organized mob activity is from a guy in Connecticut with 23 Facebook friends and five Twitter followers.

RUSH: By the way, we have shut down the Sweetness & Light website which always happens, Sweetness-Light.com where the similarity between Obama's health care logo and the Nazi logo is just overwhelming. People are trying to get in and see this. You know, these Democrats think they live and operate in a vacuum. They run around and say, "Oh, yeah, people are showing up with swastikas," and that's going to be the end of the story. They create a whole new story and we find out that it's a Democrat meeting in '97 that they bring up a good friend of Jay Rockefeller's who's got a Nazi swastika tattooed on his arm. They accuse us of being Nazis and Obama's got a health care logo that's right out of Adolf Hitler's playbook. Now what are the similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi party in Germany? Well, the Nazis were against big business. They hated big business and, of course, we all know that they were opposed to Jewish capitalism. They were insanely, irrationally against pollution. They were for two years mandatory voluntary service to Germany. They had a whole bunch of make-work projects to keep people working one of which was the Autobahn.

They were against cruelty and vivisection of animals but in the radical sense of devaluing human life, they banned smoking. They were totally against that. They were for abortion and euthanasia of the undesirables as we all know and they were for cradle-to-grave nationalized health care. I have always bristled when I hear people claim that conservatism gets close to Nazism. It is liberalism that's the closest you can get to Nazism and socialism. It's all bundled up under the socialist banner. There are far more similarities between Nancy Pelosi and Adolf Hitler than between these people showing up at town halls to protest a Hitler-like policy that's being heralded by a Hitler-like logo. …
Barack Obama is losing the trust of the American people. Another similarity, Obama is asking citizens to rat each other out like Hitler did. Obama's the one that's got the snitch website right out of the White House, flag@whitehouse.gov, asking citizens to report people who are saying weird, odd things. You know, the White House responds, "No, no, no, we're not taking names here. We're not taking names. We're just taking people who are putting up faulty arguments and refuting them." Well, that's not the intention.

Ted Kennedy's dad, by the way, Joe Kennedy, sympathetic to Hitler, sympathetic to the Nazis. That's why FDR pulled him from his post as ambassador to Britain. You want to start talking, Ms. Pelosi, about ties to the Nazis? Let's focus on your party and some of the greatest heroes in your party that you hold up. And let's look at your policies, Ms. Pelosi. Your policies come dangerously close to some of those policies that Hitler forced on the German people. This is outrageous stuff for her to be running around saying these are unruly mobs with swastikas. Obama sends out the memo ginning up his ACORN mobs to try to fight this, taking names on a White House website of people who are telling the truth about health care is what this is about. He wants his stupid minions to snitch on people who are telling the truth about it.

Barack Obama had earned the trust of a majority of Americans. Right or wrong, he was trusted. Those who looked at Obama with clear eyes, however, always knew he was something other than what Obama said he was in speeches and what the State-Controlled Media reported. We knew he wasn't post-partisan. Barack Obama was the Senate's most liberal member. His alliances and associations were exclusively with hard, left radicals. We knew he wasn't post-racial. No one sits in a racially divisive and bigoted church for 20 years without agreement with the message. But people wanted to believe. They hoped love at first sight was the real thing. The American people trusted Barack Obama, but that was then. After Obama's election he has begun to govern, and since he has begun to govern, it isn't just his poll numbers that have fallen. The trust the American people placed in Obama has eroded, and this is key, because if there is no trust with an individual, that person cannot lead. Trust me on this. Obama is losing America's trust.

Obama said he cared about jobs. Well, we've lost almost three million since he took office. Even though he rammed a $1 trillion porkulus bill through and hundreds of thousands of jobs are still being lost every month. Despite his media's efforts to tell us the news is good, it isn't. He orchestrated a hostile takeover of General Motors and Chrysler to give them essentially to union executives. Obama Motors is something a majority of Americans would never have voted for. Obama is leading the charge to pass a cap-and-tax scheme, an energy tax just when Americans are struggling to get by. He's pressing to take over health care when Americans don't want that, either. He has demonized doctors, insurance companies, automobile executives, bankers, me, talk radio and now the president of the United States has descended to an unbelievable point. He is demonizing American citizens, average, ordinary, everyday people who do not have the jobs he assured them he cared about and was going to provide, Americans exercising the right to free assembly, the right to free speech. The president of the United States is demonizing them now.

These town hall meetings reveal a deep distrust of Barack Obama and his policies and everyone who supports them. The town hall meetings, ladies and gentlemen, are a manifestation of America's lack of trust in the Democrat Party and its leaders. And now this man who is losing our trust has started an enemies list -- essentially, a snitch list. Americans have figured out that Obama doesn't care if votes are taken on bills that haven't been written. He has broken most every promise he has made and everybody knows that his "No New Tax" pledge on the middle class tax is next. In fact, that's already been broken. All of these actions and more have amounted to a betrayal of trust. Barack Obama's not who he said he was. Just for a moment forget falling polls, forget rising unemployment.

The problem Obama faces is destroying his presidency as he's losing the trust of the American people. He can no longer say "Trust me," and this distrust Americans feel is growing stronger and deeper every day that passes. It's becoming clear as well that Barack Obama listens to nobody. It's his hard-left agenda and whatever it takes to ram it through. He doesn't care what Americans think. He doesn't care about their ideas. He doesn't care about their values. This is all about him. This is all about Barack Obama's personal agenda and objectives. It's about Barack Obama erecting monuments to himself. He has no intention of governing. He intends to rule. And that's why legislation is voted on that no one's read. That's why he rams through bills without hearings, without discussion and without knowing any details. He intends to rule, and Americans are figuring it out. They no longer trust Barack Obama.

RUSH: By the way, to illustrate what a bunch of radical, environmentalist wacko insaniacs the Nazis were, I just sent Koko Web links we're going to put on RushLimbaugh.com where you'll be able to see it. It's too lengthy to read. But they were environmentalist wackos out the wazoo. Isn't it fascinating? No one can have an honest disagreement with the statists, nobody can have an honest disagreement with Barack Obama or Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. If you disagree, you are a Nazi, you're a racist, you're Hitler or something similar.

RUSH: Ms. Pelosi, you asked for this. Here you go. Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate. His cabinet only met once, one day. That was it. Hitler said he didn't need to meet with his cabinet. He represented the will of the people. He was called The Messiah. He said the people spoke through him. Do you know what the very first law that Hitler ordained was? The very first law was a law declaring how to cook lobsters. They were to be boiled. That was deemed to be the least painful. The law was sent around to all the restaurants. Now, does this sound like something any conservative president has ever done or does it sound like the things that liberals are doing all over this country? The links to show you just how off-the-wall radical environmentalist the Nazis were are posted now at the top of RushLimbaugh.com. Okay, Ms. Pelosi. You say you see swastikas? Well, when it comes to it, you look much more like one than any of us ever will.

RUSH: Craig in Richfield, Connecticut. Hello, sir. It's great to have you with us on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Rush, good afternoon. A charter listener here and a great admirer of your work for many years.

RUSH: Thank you, sir, very much.

CALLER: I was listening to your analysis earlier comparing the Democrat Party and what they're doing to what the Nazis were doing, particularly when they came to power in 1933, 1934. I would disagree with one part of your analysis and that is the Nazis hating big business. Uh, quite the contrary. I thought the Nazis actually were allied and loved big business. In fact, a lot of the deals they made with companies like Farben and Bosch and Mercedes were basically designed to implement top-down control of the economy and create such things as, say, a People's Radio, a People's Car, things of this nature.

RUSH: Right, right. Okay, they hated private-sector capitalism. They hated Jewish capitalism. They wanted... You need businesses. They just wanted to run them. Do you remember why the Volkswagen came to be?

CALLER: The Volkswagen came to be basically because they wanted a car that could be afforded by the German people. One of the reasons they needed it was to make sure everybody had a mode of transportation and also to stimulate economic activity.

RUSH: No, no. Well, that may be partially right, but the idea was, as you say, to create a cheap car. But it was also a car that was designed not to pollute, to not use much gasoline. It was right out of the playbook of the environmentalist wackos here today, and the fact is that very few Germans ever ended up with one because they couldn't afford it. They used the lay-away plan to buy the things, and they couldn't.

CALLER: Oh, you are entirely correct. Do you know the most successful venture of the German government was the People's Radio because basically Hitler and the Nazis wanted to ensure that every house had a radio so that they could get their diatribes, their points across and their propaganda across. That was very successful, but you are correct: the Volkswagen initially was a flop.

RUSH: Yeah, big-time flop in Germany. And you're right about his association with Mercedes.

CALLER: Absolutely.

RUSH: He associated with Mercedes and in the process undercut Maybach. Maybach preceded the Mercedes. Now Mercedes has brought Maybach back. But Hitler even put in an order for Mercedes he never got.

CALLER: (chuckles) Well, they did make quite a few cars for him. There was one in particular in Las Vegas at one of the big casinos. I forget which casino but they have a lot of the vintage cars, but they actually have a vintage Mercedes that Hitler drove and one of the things he used to do was he would take his gun and he would shoot two holes in the rear window to ensure that the windows were indeed bulletproof. The windows I think were about maybe an inch, inch and a half, about an inch or so thick. But he would ensure that nobody had sabotaged the car and made it so that he could be harmed while in the car. Very interesting. But yeah, I mean to say your point, listen, I agree with you right on. The Democrats basically are in alliance. The other great example would be Goldman Sachs. I mean, Goldman Sachs... If you want to know in my opinion the biggest proponent of the cap and tax bill is Goldman Sachs. They stand to profit from every trade, every carbon offset trade that is made from that bill.

RUSH: Yes.

CALLER: So, people think, people think these guys are Republicans. These are not only Democrats, these guys are socialists basically.

RUSH: Well, you know, it is a good point about this, too, in addition. Because you are exactly right about that. I'm not trying to steal your thunder, but some weeks ago in discussing cap and trade, I pointed out the word "trade," and I'll tell you who I must credit for this, who came up with it. I was watching the Fox All-Stars and Nina Easton came up with this thought, this idea. Cap and trade. Trade what? We're going to trade carbon credits, and there's going to be money going back and forth with every trade, and Goldman Sachs/Wall Street is going to profit through the roof. The same guys that Obama wants the American people to think he's demonizing and doesn't like and is punishing and is getting even with, he's throwing them a huge bone. He is not doing anything for the people who elected him. He's not doing anything for the people he promised to create jobs and prosperity. He's giving it all to the trial lawyers. He's giving it all to the private sector union bosses and his buds on Wall Street.]]>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 20:36:18 PDT1249616178"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
Joseph Goebbels

If you want to play with adults you should act like you are a grown up. Putting fake pictures or pictures that are of low quality serves just to bring disrespect on you and the point you are trying to make.

Mr. George W. Bush lowered his head to have a medal put over his head. He did not bow. Got to love people who do not check their facts before repeating lies and showing fake/low quality pictures.

Remember:
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly, it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”
Joseph Goebbels
]]>Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:40:16 PDT1240702816
After World War II there was widespread agreement that due to the atrocities committed against the Jewish people they should be given something in return for their suffering. “The basis for the modern State of Israel is the persecution of the Jewish people, which is undeniable. The Jews have been held captive, massacred, disadvantaged in every possible fashion by the Egyptians, the Romans, the English, the Russians, the Babylonians, the Canaanites and, most recently, the Germans under Hitler. The Jewish people want and deserve their homeland.” (Qaddafi) So, in May of 1948, Israel was declared The State of Israel and some 700,000 Palestinians, half the Arab population of British-ruled Palestine, fled or were driven from their homes. Arab troops intervened but ended up losing some of the land the United Nations had assigned to the Palestinians. The analogy that I think works best in explaining this situation goes something like this: Imagine that you and your family have lived in your house all your life. In fact, your grandparents and great grandparents lived there before that and have passed it on to your parents for centuries. Now you live there and have a family of your own, hoping to one day pass this land on to your children. One day a knock comes on your door and a man tells you that The Native Americans, which had occupied the land hundreds of years before your great grandparents, want it back and you have to leave. “But this is my land! It has been in my family for generations!!!” No matter, you must leave and be forced to live in a designated area near your old home. The question then is, how would you feel and would you fight for what you believed was yours? From this perspective you can see that the Palestinians too have had a history of persecution. This is why they view the coastal towns of Haifa, Acre, Jaffa and others as the land of their forefathers, passed from generation to generation, until only a short time ago.

Many bright and talented politicians have taken a stab at “fixing” this situation, yet no long term stability has been reached. Why? I believe it is because most people cannot wrap their minds around the pain associated with this conflict, the pain felt on both sides. Still, the history of Israel and Palestine is not remarkable by regional standards; a country inhabited by different peoples, with rule passing among many tribes, nations and ethnic groups. This is a country that has withstood many wars and waves of peoples from all directions and that is precisely why it gets so complicated when members of either party assert that this land is exclusively theirs. Ancient Israeli claims to the land aside, current claims are especially tenuous when you consider that Jews have not lived on this land for centuries and are now viewed as relative latecomers. The fact also remains that in 1948 Jewish people were given land by UN decree that was not strictly the UN’s to give due to collective guilt over the WWII holocaust. However, an ancient saying applies here. Two wrongs do not make a right.

In 1964 The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) was founded with the aim of destroying Israel. The Palestinian National Charter in 1968 officially called for the liquidation of Israel. On October 6th, 1963, The Yom Kippur War (October War) was launched. In a surprise attack on the Jewish Day of Atonement, Egypt retook the Suez Canal and a narrow zone on the other side while Syria re-conquered the Golan Heights. Following massive US and Soviet resupplying of each side, Israel succeeded in pushing back the Syrians and threatening Damascus. On September 13, 1993 representatives of the State of Israel and the PLO signed the "Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements", a document also known as the "Oslo Accords". They were signed at a Washington ceremony hosted by US President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1993, during which Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin ended decades as sworn enemies, with an uneasy handshake. This agreement was the fruit of secret negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, represented by the PLO, following the Madrid Conference in 1991. In 1997, Israelis and Palestinians reached an agreement on Israeli redeployment in the West-Bank city of Hebron, but that too was short lived. After the attacks of September 11th, the United States policy in the Middle East generated more regional resentment towards Israel, with its unconditional support for Israel. In June of 2005, violence flared up again in Gaza. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Palestinian and Israeli leaders to ensure coordination of Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas met in Jerusalem to discuss the withdrawal. On June 21, Sharon announced that the Palestinians had promised to cooperate, regarding a Gaza withdrawal, but Abbas postponed Palestinian legislative elections in order to change the election law. He did this amidst growing concern that Hamas would trounce Abbas's Fatah party in the elections. (Reuters) This brings us to today: Palestine is controlled by a democratically elected “terrorist organization”, Hamas. Hamas’ becoming the leading power in Palestine was a pie in the face of United States foreign policy, the premise of which was that by spreading democracy through the region it would bring peace. Following this “Realist Theory” of Democratic Peace, the US did not expect or know how to react once an organization that they refused to negotiate with came into power. Hamas was voted into power by the Palestinian people because the Fatah Party was widely considered to be corrupt. Hamas was not, in spite of its other more negative attributes. Hamas is an Arab acronym meaning "Islamic Resistance Movement" and their charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and for replacing it with a Palestinian Islamic state. The latest conflict started when Hamas began lobbing rockets into Israel. Israel responded with brute force, killing many Palestinians through air strikes and use of ground troops. It is felt by many that this was done before President Obama was inaugurated because the Israeli government was not certain if the new Administration would support such an action; whereas it was known that the Bush Administration would stand aside.

Most observers have come to realize that this constant back and forth will never end and that these temporary agreements of peace are just that, temporary. So what is the solution? One idea that has been coming up over and over again recently is called “The One State Solution”. It has been called everything from “the most visionary and most sensible solution to the most anti-Semitic, since it would require Israel to cease to exist as an exclusively Jewish state.” (Satin) However, Israel is in fact not an exclusively Jewish state even now. After 61 years of constant instability and war the One State Solution is worth looking at.

New York University historian Tony Judt has suggested that a one-state solution is right for the 21st century, “a world of individual rights, open frontiers, and international law”. This would be a world of self-chosen identities where cross-cultural interaction and learning is the ideal. This may seem like a rosy outlook but there is historical precedence to back it up. Throughout the centuries both Israelis and Palestinians have faced cruel persecution and often found refuge with one another. Arabs sheltered Jews and protected them after maltreatment at the hands of the Romans and their expulsion from Spain in the middle ages. The most compelling argument I have heard for the One State Solution comes from an unexpected source, Muammar Qaddafi, the leader of Libya. In an opinion piece published in the New York Times on January 21st. 2009, Qaddafi speaks of place that does not exist, a place called “Isratine”. This is the dream of the many who believe that the One State Solution can work. Just visit one-state.net and you will see the beginnings of what their idea of a new flag would look like. (Tucker) Aside from naming and branding a new state, which is extremely premature, Qaddafi brings up two very important points for this solution to work. 1.) “A key prerequisite for peace is the right of return for Palestinian refugees to the homes their families left behind in 1948.” (Qaddafi) Since this is the basis for the original resentment of the Palestinians this must be resolved. How? He of course does not go on to give details, knowing full well that this would be the hardest bullet to bite for the Jews. Yet his point seems to be that the longer we wait the harder it will be to bring into being. 2.) He points out that “Assimilation is already a fact of life in Israel. There are more than one million Muslim Arabs in Israel; they possess Israeli nationality and take part in political life with the Jews, forming political parties. On the other side, there are Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Israeli factories depend on Palestinian labor, and goods and services are exchanged.” (Qaddafi) He is showing us that culturally they already have learned to live and work together and that by using this as an example we can visualize what “Isratine” could eventually look like.

This all being said, most political scientists still believe that the bitterness and resentment that has taken over the region is beyond fixing. That may be true, but it is painfully obvious that doing nothing or repeating mistakes from the past will only continue to bring trouble to an already troubled part of the world. In a recent editorial in the New York Times entitled “How Words Could End a War”, Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges described research results involving over 4,000 Palestinians from 2004 to 2008 that indicate that key concessions on each side of the conflict could defuse emotions sufficiently to make a single state solution viable. If the present interdependence and the historical fact of Jewish-Palestinian coexistence can guide their leaders, and if they can see beyond the horizon of the recent violence and thirst for revenge toward a long-term solution, then perhaps these two peoples can come together; realizing that living under one roof is the only option for a lasting peace.

]]>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 06:55:15 PST1233672915Small town America

Nestled in a horseshoe of the Great Mississippi River is a small town in rural Louisiana. This is a pastoral landscape of corn, cotton, and soybean fields that are faithfully cultivated year round by the residents. Some attend services every Sunday in the centrally located church whose proud steeple is the highest point in town. This is a testament to the potent faith of the inhabitants that will overwhelmingly call no other place home.

This is not the archetype of the romantic conceit some treasure in the myths of provincial America. This is a place of myth of a much more profound and disquieting reality that can’t easily be distilled from the non-linear histories that have shaped its present incarnation.

The town is Angola, a name derived from the country whose slaves tilled its fields almost two centuries ago. At slightly over 5,000 people it is presently distinguished as being the largest penitentiary in the United States. A corollary of this is the fact that this Manhattan sized plantation turned penal colony has its own zip code and is so insular as to have its correctional staff live inside prison grounds.

“Small town America, that’s exactly what you have,” says a resident as quoted by Laura Sullivan of NPR when she visited the facility in October of 2008. Mrs. Sullivan goes on to describe how “All day long, men in white uniforms are cutting grass, painting houses, planting gardens, free of cost to the prison staff.”

The less privileged inmates can be found in crews tending the rest of the 18,000 acres where the weather can reach over 90 degrees during the hottest part of the year. Bill Haber of the associated press visited the prison in 2001 and took a photo of an all black work crew overseen by a lone white guard on horseback. It takes no stretch to imagine the implicit historical legacy.

The Farm is a world of gentile tradition. The correctional officers are referred to as “Freemen”. In like fashion, it is common for the inmates to reply to orders with the equally colloquial “yassuh”.

Most of the guards hold no high school diploma. It is unnecessary in a place where generations upon generations have worked at the penitentiary. Some may even have a pedigree going back to the turn of the 20th century, when the convict worked plantation was organically folded into the creation of the modern penal system.

Today Angola is a model prison. The inmates feed themselves on the food they grow, fossil fuels are conserved with the use of horse drawn plows, violence is low. “This is a very serious hardcore prison, but it’s a very moral prison,” says Warden Burl Cain, brother of former Louisiana Senator James David Cain.

Since taking over the prison in 1995 Warden Cain has transformed the establishment through the construction of new chapels, an inmate run Christian radio station, even a Baptist seminary where inmates can earn theological degrees.

In a video produced by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association from which Warden Cain was quoted above, he goes on to explain this transformation, “I don’t want to claim credit for it cause’ it’s a God thing and this is us being submissive to Him and the inmates just change.”

Twice a year the gates of Angola are open to the general public according to a tradition going back to the 1960s. “The rodeo is our chance to bring the public in to see what we do,” Warden Cain says enthusiastically. “We tell people that we have a gated community cause’ we have over 600 people living inside the farm in a subdivision here.”

Community is an appropriate noun for a prison whose incarcerated and free population lives in such proximity. Some of Angola’s prisoners are allowed to cook and clean for Burl Cain and the other deputy wardens in their homes. This distinguished caste of inmates is guilelessly known as the “House Boys”.

One of the 600 residents is Dora Rabalais. In an interview with Ms. Sullivan she was quoted as saying “It’s a family – a family of people that work together, play together, pray together and even have their own little family fights just like any other family would have.”

It should go without saying that this motley family has had its fair share of squabbles in its rich history. More often than not it does go without saying, as there are simply things that need not be uttered amongst polite company, or at all if it can be helped.

Warden Cain is more than happy to indulge in discussion about farming, or Jesus Christ, or the moral rehabilitation of his flock. Ask him about the Brent Miller case, as Laura Sullivan did this past October, and you will have entreated beyond his threshold of benevolence. “We don’t talk about those, just can’t do it.”

Cain is not open for discussion on such arcane topics. Though every 90 days for the past 13 years he has faithfully stamped the papers keeping two men in solitary confinement. This is another tradition held by the various wardens of Angola going back to 1972.



That’s all my life

Albert Woodfox and Herman Wallace have spent the past 36 years living in 6 by 9 foot cells. These men have spent more time in isolation than 2/3 of the world’s population has even been alive. For one hour each day they are allowed to leave their cells for their private exercise yard. With no one for company except for their guards, it makes one rethink the paradigm of the famous Sun-tzu proverb “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”

Mr. Wallace and Mr. Woodfox live in a world of ascetic austerity. They present a discomforting pebble in the quilt of the American fable. A place where it is now the norm to drive down a four lane interstate in an air-conditioned Asian car fueled by Saudi and Canadian oil while listening to satellite radio playing British rock and roll, drinking Ethiopian coffee grown in South America and wrangling with a customer service rep for an American bank that lives in Bangalore, India. Their 54 square foot world is innocent of such progress, with the exception of the television that’s piped in 24/7.

Yet the Angola 2, as they are now known are not innocent men. They have been convicted and retried multiple times in a court of law, each time being found guilty. The case in question was the murder of 23 year-old Brent Miller, a prison guard who was found stabbed to death in one of the dormitories one fateful morning in 1972. The murder weapon was a lawnmower blade and a later autopsy revealed that Miller had been stabbed no less than 38 times.

Brent Miller’s murder occurred in the midst of a racially and politically charged era in the American penal system. Less than a year prior a strike had erupted in Folsom prison, still the longest in American history. According to Howard Zinn, “The strike was broken with a combination of force and deception, and four of the prisoners were sent on a fourteen hour ride to another prison, shackled and naked on the floor of a van.”

Dr. Zinn goes on to explain some of the biases that may have led to such volatile situations. In 1969 white-collar crimes (tax fraud) that averaged $190,000 led to only 20% of those being convicted to serve jail time for an average of 7 months. Crimes of the poor (burglary) that averaged $321 led to 60% of those serving jail time for an average of 33 months.

Blacks and other minorities overwhelmingly participated in petty crimes. Dr. Zinn elaborates, “The rich did not have to commit crimes to get what they wanted…Somehow the jails ended up full of poor black people.” Simply put, to be black meant being handed a fixed deck.

The war in Vietnam and the black civil rights movements also came to factor into the pressure-pot of the American prison system. From the same source quoted above, the renowned A People’s History of the United States Dr. Zinn describes a study conducted by psychiatrist Willard Gaylin in which seventeen Jehova’s witnesses refused to register for the draft and were each given a two-year sentence. A black man who had refused due to conscientious objector status received a five-year sentence.

There is an interaction between Dr. Gaylin and this man that bears repeating here.

“How was your hair then?”
“Afro.”
“And what were you wearing?”
“A dashiki.”
“Don’t you think that might have affected your sentence?”
“Of course.”
“Was it worth a year or two of your life?”
“That’s all my life. Man, you don’t know! That’s what it’s all about! Am I free to have my style, am I free to have my hair, am I free to have my skin?”

Dr. Gaylin’s case is representative of a trend and not an isolated event. In 1969 there were 33,960 draft dodgers, up from 3,305 the previous year. In 1970 the war protest climaxed with President Nixon’s invasion of Cambodia. In 1971 the largest mass arrest in US history was conducted as 14,000 protesters were taken into custody in the streets of Washington DC.

The prison culture was dynamically affected by these turns of events. Inside of a construct of embedded racial biases and class distinctions was infused a young intellectual political and social dynamism. This was a place where one would be as apt to run into an idealist as a serial rapist.

“There had always been political prisoners,” explains Dr. Zinn. “People sent to jail for belonging to radical movements, for opposing war. But now a new kind of political prisoner appeared – the man, or woman, convicted of an ordinary crime, who, in prison, became awakened politically.”

This political awakening shifted prisoners from individual rebellion to collective action and tipped in 1971 with the murder of George Jackson. George Jackson was an African American male who had spent over a decade in prison for a $70 robbery. During the course of his tenure he went from being a petty criminal to a revolutionary, writing the book Soledad Brother that became a beacon for black militancy.

George Jackson was shot in the back by prison guards in San Quentin, allegedly trying to escape. His martyrdom catalyzed inmate populations all across the country to riot. The most notorious of these was the uprising in Attica that lasted for 5 days and culminated with 31 dead inmates and 9 dead guards.

Prison authorities reported to the press that the revolting inmates had slit the guards throats. Upon further investigation it was revealed that these guards had been shot in the confusion that ensued when the prison was stormed by authorities. The inmates had no guns.

To further emphasize the schism in thought between these two ideological forces, here is what Tom Wicker of the New York Times had to say when he visited the prison during the siege, “The racial harmony that prevailed amongst the prisoners – it was absolutely astonishing…That prison was the first place I had ever seen where there was no racism.”

When one factors in the racial, generational, class, and ideological divides that polarized this era it would seem inevitable that a white young inexperienced prison guard should be found stabbed 38 times. It shouldn’t.

JC Pennies Catalogs

It is a mistake to assume that the outbreak of prison riots in the early 1970s was motivated by violence. It wasn’t. It was motivated by ideas, the prisoners were not fighting the guards themselves so much as the unethical institutions they represented. Most of these revolutionaries did not perceive themselves as anarchists and agents of violence but as disenfranchised citizens looking for equal and humane treatment.

When Brent Miller was found dead on the dormitory floor in Angola, this was a much more sadistic act. Surely the current events played a role in the timing of the murder. Just the day before an inmate had firebombed a guard shack. These facts do not help in explaining the nature of the murder. This had to do with the context inside Angola.

Lloyd Hoyle, who was deputy warden at the time was quoted by Laura Sullivan, “I almost shed tears because of the conditions of that prison you would not believe it.” Mrs. Sullivan goes on to describe, “Hoyle says there were 200 armed convict guards, who abused and tortured the inmates. Many of the paid guards were illiterate. There was a prisoner slave trade and rampant rape; inmates slept with JC Pennies catalogs tied to their waists for protection.”

These 200 armed convict guards were known as “trustees” and were often much crueler than the paid guards. To some this may seem counter-intuitive, a prisoner turned guard should have more empathy toward their fellow prisoner, whom they more closely resemble. For people experienced in such matters nothing could be further from the truth.

In the book Man’s Search for Meaning neurologist and psychologist Victor Frankl wrote about his experiences as a prisoner in Nazi concentration camps. One of the subjects he described was, “Capos – prisoners who acted as trustees, having special privileges.”

Dr. Frankl continues, “While these ordinary prisoners had little or nothing to eat, the Capos were never hungry; in fact many of the Capos fared better in the camp than they had in their entire lives. Often they were harder on the prisoners than the guards, and beat them more cruelly than the SS men did. These Capos, of course, were chosen only from those prisoners whose character promised to make them suitable for such procedures, and if they did not comply with what was expected of them, they were immediately demoted.”

This was the natural order of things in the world that Brent Miller was born into. His father had worked at Angola, and most likely his father before him. Trustees performed the duties the paid guards were not staffed or inclined to do. This climate of inmate upon inmate abuse must also have reinforced the idea that these people were degenerate and incorrigible by nature.

In fact just 20 years prior to the Brent Miller murder 31 inmates had cut their Achilles tendons in protest of their brutal treatment. Later called “The Heel String Gang” they allude to a culture of torture and abuse that defined life on the farm.

As Miguel Bustillo of the LA Times wrote in May of 2008, “When Miller began working there two decades later, the guards were all white and the prisoners segregated. Wardens looked the other way when stronger inmates sold weaker ones as sex servants.”

It is easy to draw the conclusion then that this was a place inhabited by inherently fiendish people. Dr. Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University may have another explanation. In 1971 just a few months prior to the murder of Brent Miller he conducted the now famous Stanford Prison Experiment.

The experiment’s aim was to find out the psychological effects of being a prisoner and prison guard. He took 24 students with no medical disabilities, psychological issues, or criminal history. The participants were randomly chosen to perform the roles of guard and prisoner. For the prisoners this was done by stripping them of all possessions, wearing nothing but ill-fitting clothes, and reducing their identities to numbers. The guards were equipped with military uniforms, sunglasses that prevented eye contact, and wooden batons.

The experiment was conducted in the Stanford Psychology Department basement turned makeshift prison. It was supposed to go for two weeks, it lasted only six days. In that small time span both parties had adapted to their roles so well that at one point some prisoners were forced to go nude as a matter of degradation, including sexual humiliation.

Best selling author Malcolm Gladwell also sites this study in The Tipping Point. He makes the case that people, “…are powerfully shaped by their external environment, that the features of our immediate social and physical world – the streets we walk down, the people we encounter – play a huge role in shaping who we are and how we act.”

Applied to Angola in the 1970s this simply means that the trustees, guards, and prisoners were not necessarily evil people. They were simply people reacting normally to an abnormal environment. If you put rats in a cage and deny them food, it is simply a matter of time before they start to eat each other. If this seems extreme then one may consult the Piers Read book Alive: The Story of the Andes Survivors, which chronicles a less academic exposition of this reality.

To say that the people of Angola, both prisoner and guard alike are immoral people would not satisfy Gladwell. Nor would it be accurate. According to Gladwell, “Character, then, isn’t what we think it is or, rather, what we want it to be. It isn’t a stable, easily identifiable set of closely related traits…Character is more like a bundle of habits and tendencies and interests, loosely bound together and dependent, at certain times, on circumstance and context.

In Herman Wallace’s own words in a phone interview conducted by Brooke Shelby Biggs in July 2008, “I believe that they were holding a lot of these guys in these cells because they didn't have other places in order, anywhere else to put them. These guys are not bad. But you put them in a situation where they can't maneuver, then yeah, they're going to respond in the manner that you treat them.”

A fingerprint can come from anywhere.

Brent Miller’s case could be framed as a nexus of social forces internal and external, historical and contemporary. This does not change the fact of his death or the fate of Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox, human time capsules who have been punished for the better part of half a century.

The death of Brent Miller left Leontine Verrett a widow before she could vote. After the murder she left town and understandably did not go to the trials that quickly convicted Wallace and Woodfox. Miguel Bustillo of the LA Times quoted her, “That was a lot to deal with at 17 years old. I trusted [the authorities] to do the right thing.”

Later in the same article, Mrs. Verrett goes on to say, “If I were on that jury, I don’t think I would have convicted them.” This statement is a result of developments that have cast doubts on the guilt of Woodfox and Wallace, or at least brought their plight to more popular attention.

In the most recent turn of events, Woodfox was within days of being released on bail. In her follow-up on December 17th 2008, Laura Sullivan writes, “Earlier this year a federal judge overturned Woodfox's conviction, finding that he had ineffective lawyers. He ordered the state to retry Woodfox. Three weeks ago, the judge then granted Woodfox bail. That's when Caldwell stepped in with an emergency appeal to stop his release.”

The Caldwell Mrs. Sullivan refers to is James “Buddy” Caldwell, Attorney General for the state of Louisiana. Buddy is a distinguished looking man in his early sixties, who would have been 26 at the time of Miller’s death. Buddy has smooth silver hair and talks with an accent that bespeaks a bit of his heritage. Harkening back to these values, his campaign slogan reads “Integrity and Credibility”. The state attorney general website reads “Deeply committed to preserving and protecting the health, safety, welfare and legal interests of all of the citizens of Louisiana.”

On December 19th at Ardillo’s restaurant Buddy graciously gave his time to be interviewed by Action17 News anchor Ken Benitez. When asked about his job Buddy went on to say, “This first year of my office it’s been rare that I get home from work before 8:30 to 10:30 at night. So we’ve been awfully busy and the nature of the job affects everything we do. I mean contractor fraud, the storms, all these unfair trade practices…You know it’s possible that I’ll be back in the A meet area trying a big case that happened in 1972. I hope that I don’t have to and that the courts uphold it but if not I’ll be here myself.”

The “A meet” area Buddy is referring to is the 5th circuit court of appeals. It is clear that Caldwell has taken a personal interest in deciding Woodfox’s fate.

Laura Sullivan describes how, “Woodfox had been expected to be released to the custody of his niece who lives in a gated community outside New Orleans. That hope ended last month when Caldwell's prosecutor sent an e-mail from a private account to the community association warning that Woodfox was dangerous.”

In Caldwell’s own words, “This is the most dangerous person on the planet.”

The position of the Attorney General is not swayed in light of a bloody fingerprint not evidenced in the previous trials. The print does not match Woodfox or Wallace. The print does not match the guards or the inmates who moved the body.

Caldwell’s position is again stoically firm, “A fingerprint can come from anywhere. We’re not going to be fooled by that.”

This despite the fact that, as Mrs. Sullivan writes, “Deep in a drawer in an office at Angola there are identification cards bearing the fingerprints of every inmate housed at the prison in 1972.”

“He saw what he saw.”

James Caldwell is just the most recent character in a Sisyphean drama that has defined Woodfox and Wallace’s legal odyssey. During Woodfox’s retrial in the 90’s he was again found guilty. The juror forewoman was Anne Butler.

As Richard Becker for Workers World reported in his 1998 article, “Butler had written a book, Dying to Tell, about Angola prison. The first chapter was on the death of guard Miller, based on the state's version that Woodfox and Wallace were guilty. Instead of calling witnesses, the assistant district attorney in charge of presenting the case to the grand jury requested that Butler "explain" the case. The new indictment was then handed up.”

Dying to Tell was passed amongst jurors during the trial. Butler was also the wife of former Warden Murray Henderson, the lead investigator of the Brent Miller murder 26 years prior. Less than a year after the trial Mr. Henderson shot Butler 5 times on her front porch.

According to Laura Sullivan the response of Warden Henderson was swift, “Prison officials rounded up more than 200 inmates, looking for radicals — Black Panthers like Wallace and Woodfox — and brought them to a makeshift interrogation center, one floor above death row.”

Mrs. Sullivan continues, “Several inmates said it was a bad month to be black at Angola. According to court records, prison officials never questioned a single white inmate.”

Billy Sinclair, a white death row inmate that is now free though not exonerated recalls, “You heard hollering and screaming and the bodies being slammed against the walls. Upstairs you could smell tear gas bombs. We heard the beatings that were going on for weeks after that."

The investigation eventually led to a key witness in the form of Hezekiah Brown. Brown’s testimony is still the only evidence implicating Woodfox and Wallace in the murder of Brent Miller.

Mrs. Sullivan writes, “Brown testified he saw Wallace, Woodfox and two others stab Miller to death with a lawn mower blade. He also testified he received no favors for implicating Wallace and Woodfox.”

One of the two inmates, Chester Jackson, was offered a deal for cooperating. The other, Gilbert Montegut, was provided an Alibi by a guard.

Billy Sinclair recalls, “I was on death row with Hezekiah Brown. Hezekiah Brown was a professional snitch. [Brown] forever did everything he could to ingratiate himself to white authority. All the other inmates knew that if you were going to do anything wrong, don't let Hezekiah Brown see you."

Even the deputy warden, Hilton Butler, was recorded on tape during an interview with Anne Butler (no relation), “Hezekiah was one you could put words into his mouth.”

Hezekiah Brown is now passed, but not before being set free in 1986. Though he testified to not receiving any favors, he spent his remaining days in Angola at the dog pen. The dog pen is where inmates care for the dogs that chase runaway prisoners and can live relatively autonomous lives. In the hierarchy of Angola, this is a place where some inmates spend decades trying to get to.

According to Randolph Matthews, a current dog pen resident, “There's no fences, you live in a house, you have perks. If you didn't know it, you would never know you were even in prison."

There’s more.

In a letter to Governor Edwin Edwards, Warden Frank Blackburn writes, “As discussed with you I would like to have issued to the above named inmate one (1) carton of cigarettes per week. This, I feel, would partially fulfill commitments made to him in the past with respect to his testimony in the state’s behalf in the Brent Miller murder case.”

Above the cited text is the name Hezekiah Brown. Cigarettes being a valued form of currency in the inmate economy notwithstanding, the “partially” alludes to other promises that may have been made to Hezekiah.

In the same stunning research done by Laura Sullivan, she turned up no less than four letters written by Warden Murray Henderson to various authorities lobbying for Mr. Brown’s release.

In a letter written two years after the murder, Warden Henderson writes, “On April 17, 1972 a white officer was killed by three black militants from the New Orleans area. Brown testified for the State and on the basis of his testimony these three individuals received a life sentence each.”

Though Hezekiah died before Alfred Woodfox’s retrial in the 90’s his testimony found its voice in Anne Butler, who led the jury to uphold the indictment.

Prior to her passing at the hands of Murray Henderson, Mrs. Butler was quoted, “Hezekiah Brown was a very good witness. And he saw what he saw.”

Black Pantherism

Laura Sullivan is a correspondent for NPR. As a journalism student at Northwestern University she and two other students distinguished themselves by helping to exonerate the “Ford Heights Four”. Arrested in 1978 for the murder and rape of a couple in East Chicago, these four innocent men lost nearly two decades of their adult lives due to a miscarriage of justice.

David Protess, one of Mrs. Sullivan’s former professors heads a program at Northwestern called “The Medill Innocence Project”. Under this program, budding journalists can pursue academic achievement alongside social justice. Protess himself has aided in the exoneration of 11 innocent men.

In collaboration with this project is the Northwestern Law School, which houses the “Center for Wrongful Convictions”. There are listings of exonerated men convicted of capital crimes and were either sentenced to life or death. There are no less than 884 of them. That is enough to fill 14 school buses.

There is also a list on the major causes of wrongful convictions. They are, Erroneous Eyewitness ID, False Confessions, Ineffective Assistance, Junk Science, Police Misconduct, Prosecutorial Misconduct, and Snitches.

During Mrs. Sullivan’s research on the Woodfox case she turned up a man, Colonel Nyati Bolt. Bolt lives in a trailer off the grid, no phone, no PO Box. According to Sullivan, Albert Woodfox was with him at the time of the murder.

At Woodfox’s original trial Bolt testified on his behalf. He spent the next 20 years in solitary up to his release in 1992. When asked by Sullivan he still maintains his version of events, “When I made my statement, I made it honest, I made it out of my heart. They can say whatever they want to say because that's the way it went. And I can't cut it any other way than that."

In Malcolm Gladwell’s most recent book Outliers, he focuses on people of unusual achievement and attempts to make sense of their success. Gladwell makes the case that a person’s success can be defined by arbitrary events, such as what year or even what month they were born. He makes the case that how we are raised does matter, and that our cultural legacies going back generations still affect us.

A true Outlier is simply someone who was born in the right time at the right place, and was prepared to take advantage of that opportunity. An antipodal argument can be phrased. Being at the wrong place at the wrong time and being unprepared for the misfortune.

Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox were both African Americans born in New Orleans. This is a place that had a flourishing slave culture before many of the American founding fathers were even born. Wallace and Woodfox were born in the mid forties meaning they would have been in their early twenties during the climax of the black civil rights movement of the sixties.

An African American committing petty crimes would statistically lead to longer sentences in a harsher environment, and it did. Had Herman and Albert been born in Connecticut a few years earlier or later they may have never ended up in Angola at all. Had they not instigated the formation of a Black Panther Chapter in a charged and segregated slave plantation converted to prison and they may have not been targeted.

Burl Cain, James Caldwell, Hezekiah Brown, Murray Henderson, and Anne Butler are not iniquitous people. They are not villains, nor are they immoral. On the contrary, they are very much motivated by their systems of values and moral codes. Burl Cain has demonstrably given many of the inmates of Angola a constructive outlet. James Caldwell has no doubt done much good for the citizens of Louisiana.

Geneticists have pointed out that there is more genetic variation in a single group of Chimpanzees than there is in the entire human species. Humans very much think the same, and we feel the same. Divisive arguments are simply not constructive or well founded.

Dale Carnegie writes, “When dealing with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity.”

Benjamin Franklin once said, “The great advantage of being a reasonable creature is that you can find the reason for whatever you want to do.”

Cain and Woodfox are not that different. In a deposition in early December 2008 Cain explained why Woodfox was kept in solitary, “I know he still has that Black Pantherism.”

Cain is right, he does.

“Just to have a hug.”

There is a picture of Albert Woodfox and Herman Wallace that is circulating on the Internet. If you knew nothing about the picture you might think it was taken at a middle school or community center. There is nothing to suggest these men have spent 36 years in solitary confinement; the longest in US history.

Albert and Herman are in their sixties, wearing blue jeans and white long-sleeved shirts. They are both wearing thick-rimmed glasses and are smiling. Woodfox with graying hair looks like he could be a stuffy law professor. Wallace has the build of a boxer and the posture of a blues musician.

Between them is an 11 year-old girl by the name of Poppy Richards. In 2007 Poppy flew from her home in Britain to the US and finally to Angola on the road that tethers it to the nearest town 30 miles away. The prison officials generously allowed her to visit with Woodfox and Wallace for an unprecedented 4 hours.

Carrie Reichardt quoted her daughter, “When I first saw Herman and Albert I ran up to them and gave them a huge hug. It was weird to think that this is a rare treat for them, just to have a hug from another human being”

The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, “He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.”

When interviewed by Brooke Biggs, Herman Wallace had this to say, “Our objective is that front gate. We're working our way towards that front gate, gradually.”

]]>Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:12:13 PST1231128733
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security, (FICA) FICA (wage deduction) from your paychecks!
Roosevelt promised the following to all American citizens.

That participation in the program would be completely voluntary and
you would only pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program.

That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year.

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 programs.

Annuity payments to all of the retirees would never be taxed as income.


Now here are some simple (Questions & Answers) for us to understand.

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security Funding 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 U.S.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants, who 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!

Now, after doing all this damage and violation to 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 that some citizens believe it!

All Facts & Information above can be verified and is
public knowledge.





]]>Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:33:23 PST1198103603
When our founding fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution they did not have a large federal government in mind. Instead they wanted a limited federal government to produce limited restrictions to each state, which would then do most of the governing and have the most control over the state and its residents. Thomas Jefferson wrote the most well known phrase of all time, "Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness." Clearly our founding fathers did not intend for our liberties and rights as citizens to be compromised for a false sense of security and the artificial betterment of a nation. The nation was not top priority for the original framers of the Constitution, the main priority was the people-the citizens.

It wasn't until the 12th grade that I was introduced to the book "1984". A book written in 1984 by George Orwell, a British writer and critic. The book nearly depicts current trends in America and worldwide perfectly. The book is a Story of citizens suppressed by their country who has joined forces with other nations to develop three superpowers, Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. The book focuses on Oceania, which coincidentally includes the United States. The trend in Oceania is on of a Marxist-styled Socialist setting. The citizens are suppressed and brainwashed in order for the nation to claim dominance over the other nations and to create what the leaders feel is a Utopia, where the needs of the people are generalized and suppressed, as citizens are closely monitored by the government.

It isn't until you do some digging that you find we are heading towards such a situation. Recently there have been secretive talks between leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico to unionize and create the North American Union, or NAU. The NAU would then begin to act as a singular nation, rather than three individual nations. May I remind you the needs of the people in America are far different than those of the people in Mexico and Canada. The new-to-be NAU government would also create the Amero, a form of currency to compete with the European Union's Euro. Being a ally of America and Canada, it is common sense that England would become part of the NAU. Mexico having several ties with South American countries would solidify the NAU as the new Oceania. It is a feasible possibility that you and I may soon no longer be citizens of the United States of American, but rather citizens of the NAU.

Aside from talks between the three countries in North America, there is the surreal Patriot Act that was passed in 2001 by Congress and President George Bush, basically allowing the government free reign in collecting data of American citizens and limiting a citizens actions in order to fight terrorism. However, the very principle of the Patriot Act is terrorism in itself, striking terror in the hearts of citizens around the country. This act gives free will to the government to search your most intricate functions to determine if you are a terrorist or not. One function given to Law Enforcement is commonly called the "Sneak and Peek" search, allowing law enforcement officers to search a home or business without the owner's or the occupant's permission or knowledge. This in itself would be enough to make the Patriot Act, unpatriotic and unconstitutional, as it obliterates the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment calls for probable cause and a warrant to allow searches and seizures. However this act allows law enforcement officers, or LEOs, to enter a private home or business without a warrant, and without the knowledge of the owner. The Patriot Act also allows LEOs to search your private emails, phone conversations and financial records without a court order. Again, this falls back the the 4th amendment of irrational searches and seizures, because these are unreasonable and unlawful. There are several more keys to the puzzle we call the Patriot Act. Fortunately for the citizens, several legal challenges have been brought up against the Patriot Act, and often times, the Federal courts have ruled in favor of the Patriot Act being unjust and unconstitutional. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled that the use to gain access to e-mails and telephone records from private companies and private homes for what the government called "counter-terrorism investigations" was "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values."

Amnesty is a very controversial topic that needs to be dealt with in order to regain control of our government. For years now, Congress has been fretting over illegal immigrants and how to deal with them. Currently, there is a bill called the Dream Act, which will grant over 12 million illegal immigrants citizenship. Voting for this bill is a few weeks away, fortunately. If you polled the nation, two out of every three people would disagree with this act and would not support amnesty. The Act was named the "Dream Amnesty Act" a cute name to throw off the common American. The purpose of the act is to grant the illegal aliens with their dream of amnesty and becoming official citizens; which is unconstitutional and unpatriotic, a la; The Patriot Act.

I can not call an unpatriotic and unconstitutional government anything but deplorable. How can one of the superpowers of the world, be so naive towards its own Constitution? Several current acts, bills, laws, and movements within our government go against the principle of the constitution. This is an unjust Marxist Socialism styled government takeover. It is a slap in the face to our nation's founding fathers and needs to be dealt with. ]]>Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:50:24 PST1196718624