Monthly Archives: March 2010
Once again California schools mull over lowering standards to decrease the racial gap. With blacks and Mestizos at the bottom, and whites and Asians at the top.
California has already scrapped “gifted and talented” programs because too few blacks and central American immigrants qualify.
Phrases like “changes in the way we teach,” and “going in depth on concepts” are just code for “dumbing down the curriculum for everyone to create an illusion that blacks are doing better.” Despite billions of dollars, not to mention the election of a black president, nationwide efforts to lift the achievement of black students has been 56 years of absolute failure.
The only thing that schools desegregation has brought is higher taxes for white parents and sub-standard, violent schools for white children.
I went this morning to sign up my Dog for welfare. At first the lady said, “Dogs are not eligible to draw welfare”.
So I explained to her that my Dog is: black, unemployed, lazy, can’t speak english and has no frigging clue who his Daddy is.
So she looked in her policy book to see what it takes to qualify.
My Dog gets his first cheque Friday. Damn this is a great country.
The legislation also enacts a dramatic and unprecedented diminution in the individual liberty of citizens. It does so by mandating that all Americans buy a government-approved health care plan while redistributing wealth on a massive scale by promising annual federal insurance subsidies to all Americans who earn less than 400 percent of the poverty level, which is currently $88,200 for a family of four.
Many members of Congress, including former Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), have argued that this unprecedented mandate is unconstitutional. Hatch told CNSNews.com last fall that if the federal government could constitutionally force individuals to buy health insurance there wasn’t anything the federal government could not force individuals to do.
Many congressional advocates of the individual mandate interviewed by CNSNews.com over the past year could not say where the Constitution authorized the federal government to force people to buy health insurance.
The final votes that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama needed to push the legislation through the House came on Sunday when Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) and a small group of other Democrats abandoned their insistence that congressional health care legislation include language that would prevent any federal dollars from going to any health care plan that covers abortion.
Instead, Stupak and his allies accepted President Obama’s promise that he would sign a draft Executive Order that simply instructs federal agencies to set accounting rules for how the health care plans that people purchase with federal funds will theoretically “segregate” the federal money they receive from other dollars that would theoretically pay for abortions.
President Obama’s draft Executive Order speaks of this “segregation” mechanism as if it were the effective equivalent of the Hyde Amendment. However, the Hyde Amendment prohibits any federal funds funneled through various annual appropriations bills from going to any health plan that covers abortion. The health care bill that Congress passed Sunday and the Executive Order that Obama is promising to sign will allow federal funds to go to health care plans that cover abortion. It will only theoretically “segregate” these fungible funds from other dollars going to the same insurance plans that pay for abortion.
Five self-professedly “pro-life” Democratic congressmen joined Stupak at a Sunday press conference to say that they would vote for the health care plan after President Obama promised he would sign this Executive Order dealing with the accounting mechanisms that will be used by abortion-providing, federally subsidized health insurance plans.
According to the CBO, by 2016, the cheapest family health care plan that Americans will be required to buy under the law will cost $12,000 per year. The average family plan will cost $15,200. A family of four making $88,201 per year—or more than 400 percent of the poverty level—will not receive any federal subsidy to purchase such a plan. They will pay taxes, however, to subsidize the health care purchases of people earning less than 400 percent of poverty.
According to the Treasury Department the Medicare system faced about $37 trillion in unfunded liabilities before Sunday’s bill was passed.
The example of Vienna, where the Islamic conquest of Europe was once halted, is a telling testament to the power of the Immigration Jihad. What the armies of Islam could not do en masse over several centuries, a permissive attitude toward Islamic immigration managed to do in only a few decades. The Gates of Vienna have not only been breached, they have been occupied by the enemy. And now the motto of the Vienna Tourism Bureau urging visitors to come is, “Vienna: Now or Never”.
Where once upon a time Islamic armies had to lay siege, plant gunpowder charges and finally breach the walls in massive costly charges—today they can simply hop a plane. And so what started out as a few newspaper vendors, factory workers and janitors, morphed into a full blown cultural invasion complete with a network of Islamic schools where students are taught that Islam is incompatible with democracy, that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims, and where 8.5 percent of the teachers surveyed said that it is understandable when violence is used to spread Islam. The pattern however is not limited to Vienna, it exists worldwide.
Entire areas of the city become “No-Go” Muslim areas
Muslim involvement in politics quickly follows with the aim of normalizing the services and standards of municipal government to their standards. Social services are used to underfund more Islamic immigration and expansion. Men import multiple brides from their home country and register them as cousins. Social services covers the bills for these poor unfortunate “single mothers” who are actually in a polygamous marriage with their “cousin”. Entire areas of the city become “No-Go” Muslim areas, effectively capturing portions of a city and turning into mini-Islamic states. And these portions will of course expand and grow, displacing surrounding residents and neighborhoods. And once they have a foothold in a major regional city, they also have their boot on the region itself. By exploiting the conditions in an economically depressed area, Muslim immigration can quickly gain a much larger grip on the entire country. Even as their mosques and schools prepare the next generation to fight in every sense of the word, for an Islamic takeover, the rising presence of Islam in the country begins to move the Immigration Jihad to the next stage.
Islam Now Inside the Gates of Vienna
Unlike the old forms of conquest, the Immigration Jihad is profitable for the Muslim countries that launch it, while its main expenses are borne by the non-Muslim countries who are its victims, and are forced to subsidize the social services burdens, crime and terrorism costs imposed on them by their growing Muslim populations. It is a mass invasion on the cheap. One where the new immigrants send back the loot to their old countries, spearhead crime and smuggling networks that reach from Eastern Europe and to the Middle East, plunged like a fishhook into Europe. Where the cost of each child who is taught to grow up and fight for Islam is borne by the country he is being trained to destroy. And so the Gates of Vienna have fallen. And the rest of Europe is not far behind.
THE gunmen walked silently through the orchard. Skirting a row of burnt-out tyres, set ablaze months earlier to keep the budding fruit from freezing, they drew their old .38 revolvers.
Inside his farmhouse Pieter Cillier, 57, slept with his 14-year-old daughter Nikki at his side. His 12-year-old son JD was having a sleepover with two teenagers in an adjoining room.
As the intruders broke in, the farmer woke. He rushed to stop them, only to be shot twice in the chest.
In his death throes he would have seen his killers and then his children standing over him, screaming and crying.
The attackers, who were drug addicts, simply disappeared into the night. Cillier’s murder, at Christmas, was barely reported in the local press. It was, after all, everyday news.
Death has stalked South Africa’s white farmers for years. The number murdered since the end of apartheid in 1994 has passed 3,000.
In neighbouring Zimbabwe, a campaign of intimidation that began in 2000 has driven more than 4,000 commercial farmers off their land, but has left fewer than two dozen dead.
The vulnerability felt by South Africa’s 40,000 remaining white farmers intensified earlier this month when Julius Malema, head of the African National Congress’s (ANC’s) youth league, opened a public rally by singing Dubula Ibhunu, or Shoot the Boer, an apartheid-era anthem, that was banned by the high court last week.
Malema’s timing could hardly have been worse. Last weekend in the remote farming community of Colenso, in KwaZulu-Natal, Nigel Ralfe, 71, a dairy farmer, and his wife Lynette, 64, were gunned down as they milked their cows. He was critically injured; she died.
That same day a 46-year-old Afrikaner was shot through his bedroom window as he slept at his farm near Potchefstroom. A few days later a 61-year-old was stabbed to death in his bed at a farm in Limpopo.
The resurrection of Dubula Ibhunu, defended by senior ANC officials as little more then a sentimental old struggle song, has been greeted with alarm by Tom Stokes, of the opposition Democratic Alliance. He said the ANC’s continued association with the call to kill Boers could not be justified.
“Any argument by the ANC that this song is merely a preservation of struggle literature rings hollow in the face of farming families who have lost wives, mothers and grandmothers,” he added.
He was supported by Anton Alberts of the right-wing Freedom Front Plus party: “Malema’s comments are creating an atmosphere that is conducive to those who want to commit murder. He’s an accessory to the wiping out of farmers in South Africa.”
Rossouw Cillier, Pieter’s brother, bristled as he pointed to the bullet holes in the panelled kitchen of the farmhouse near Ceres in the Western Cape. “They shot him through the fridge from the back door — the bullets came straight through here, into his heart. He never had a chance,” he said.
A successful apple and pear grower, he believes his community is living on borrowed time: “More white farmers have been killed than British soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, we are at war here.”
His brother’s farmhouse is now shuttered and empty. “I can’t spend time here. We’ll have to sell. This farm has been in our family for generations but it must go. Who’ll manage it? The children will never come back here. They held their own father as he died in front of them. Will they ever get over that?”
As we walked across the orchard, fruit destined for the shelves of Tesco and Sainsbury’s in the UK was still being picked. A tractor passed a 10ft cross erected in honour of the murdered farmer.
“It lights up at night,” Rossouw said. “My brother was a religious man. It’s all that’s left of him here.”
Across South Africa many farmers feel endangered. In Northern Province a tribute has been created beneath an enormous sign with the stark Afrikaans word “plaasmoorde” — farm killings. Thousands of white wooden crosses have been planted across a mountainside, one for each fallen farmer.
Recently the government’s department of rural development has been airing proposals to nationalise productive farmland as a “national asset”. Critics claim it is designed to deflect criticism from the ruling ANC’s failures.
“It’s a lot easier talking about nationalising farms than building decent houses, making clean water come out of taps or honouring promises to redistribute farm plots to millions of landless poor,” said a spokesman for AgriSA, the farmers’ union.
On the outskirts of Ceres there are few groceries in the township store — tins of pilchards, baked beans, some dried biscuits. A group of teenage boys sit on the burnt-out remains of a Ford Escort. This is where Cillier’s killers gathered, in a shebeen, a drinking club, where they fortified themselves with cheap hooch before they set off to rob him. They escaped with nothing.
According to Rossouw Cillier the most telling detail is that his brother was unarmed when they attacked. “If we brandish a weapon, we’ll go to prison, not them. What did they gain from this murder? It was an act as pointless as their lives.”
For the record, the SEIU is headed by Andy Stern, who is the most regular visitor to the White House. The SEIU contributed millions to the Obama election campaign and Obama has openly admitted that he consults with his old pal Andy prior to making any economic decisions. This just reeks of back-scratching and it’s the American people who will be paying for these socialist programs going forward. No surprise then that the SEIU is involved in the next money-grabbing scheme – seeing as they themselves owe the banks millions and their member pension plans are bankrupt….
A key labor union ally of the Obama administration has mounted an effort to create government-mandated worker retirement accounts as an entitlement program, with the possibility that a portion of all private retirement funds could be forced into U.S. Treasury debt.
Branding the program “Retirement USA,” the Service Employee International Union, or SEIU, has joined with the AFL-CIO, the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based economic left-leaning think tank that receives substantial labor funding and two other left-leaning interest groups, the Pension Rights Center and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security.
Retirement USA promotes the concept that all workers in the U.S. have a right to a government account that would fund a secure retirement in addition to Social Security and private workplace programs such as the 401(k).
“Our goal is to involve all workers and all employees in a government-mandated retirement program, with the government putting up the difference for lower-paid employees,” Nancy Hwa, a spokewoman for the participating Pension Rights Center, told WND.
Retirement USA would require by law employers and employees to contribute to a retirement account for every employee and demand that a portion of that contribution go into a federal-government-created annuity that would be funded by purchasing Treasury debt.
“Retirement USA is basically an effort that amounts to nationalizing 401(k)s and IRAs,” David John, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation told WND.
Under the guise of making workplace retirement savings accounts available to all Americans and insuring that existing retirement savings accounts pay lifetime income, the SEIU-led Retirement USA effort is quietly exploring strategies that would create “Universal IRAs” or “Guaranteed Retirement Accounts” for all workers.
Moreover, with the Obama administration needing to raise nearly $1.5 trillion just to cover this year’s anticipated federal budget deficit, and with the Federal Reserve discontinuing efforts to purchase U.S. Treasury debt, the Obama administration is looking at 401(k) and IRA accounts as trillions of dollars that could be forced into Treasury bonds to finance the federal budget deficits.
For those who don’t know, Rev.Manning is a controversial African American Pastor who actually tells the truth. He is man enough to admit that African Americans generally are lazy people and rely on others (read whites) to do everything for them. He dislikes Obama intensely – enough reason alone to like the man. This video gets really good around the 5min mark and ends in a huge encore. In an earlier video, he slammed Mandela as a scam and laid into Africans. I really admire him – I have more respect for someone who can admit their failings rather than blaming others for their failure. I look forward to his next video….
My friends can’t understand why I despise Nelson Mandela. They, along with the majority of the world population, have been brain washed into believing that he was hard done by, by a group of racist white people. People are lazy – it’s much easier to be told what to think than to actually do their own reading and research. Below is a brilliant letter written more than 10 years ago and which is still so very relevant to South Africa today. If the author were alive today, he wouldn’t believe that what he wrote about those many moons ago would have escalated into an even worse reality. History repeats itself, over and over and over, and people who ignore it do so to their own detriment. It’s a long letter, but well worth the read. Enjoy
The following open letter was written by the late Jaap Marais Leader of The Herstigte Nasionale Party van Suid-Afrika (Reconstituted National Party of South Africa) to President Bill Clinton on the 14th of January 1999. Now eleven year later his words seem even more prophetic even than they were then.
The President of the USA
The White House
In South African newspapers you are reported to have said in a speech at the White House that the present South African President, Nelson Mandela, had taught you not to hate your political enemies. Mandela is said to have told you that he harboured no grudge against his enemies who “cast him into jail”. And you, in the speech concerned, said that your (present) crisis could be compared to Mandela’s suffering in jail.
You seem to be under some misapprehension about the circumstances of Mandela’s incarceration and the crimes for which he was sentenced to imprisonment, otherwise you may not be desirous to identify with him. And you evidently have been given a distorted idea of how the African National Congress (ANC) under direction of its leader, Nelson Mandela, is vengeantly acting against their political enemies and opponents.
Your remark about Mandela’s having been “cast into jail” creates a wrong impression. Mr President, he was not “cast into jail”: he was charged for acts of sabotage and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Judge President of the then Transvaal Division of the South African Supreme Court after a protacted hearing in which he had had representation and every opportunity to defend himself. He, however, refused to take the oath and testify, and could consequently not be taken under cross-examination. Finding him guilty, the Judge said that he had been wrongly charged for acts of sabotage instead of for treason, in which case the sentence would not have been imprisonment but the death penalty. The trial was attended by journalists, jurists and others from all over the world. None could find fault with the proceedings and the findings of the Court.
Even The Rand Daily Mail, the most outspoken liberal newspaper at the time in South Africa, and in many ways a supporter of Mandela and the ANC, wrote about the sentences passed by the judge, “The sentences pronounced by Judge De Wet at the close of the Rivonia trial are both wise and just. The law is best served when there is firmness tinged with mercy, and this was the case yesterday. The sentences could not have been less severe than those imposed. The men found guilty had planned sabotage on a wide scale and had conspired for armed revolution. As the judge pointed out yesterday, the crime of which they were found guilty was really high treason. The death penalty would have been justified.”
These are the facts of history. Sentencing Mandela to imprisonment instead of letting him be hanged was an act of mercy on the part of his political enemies. Mandela has, therefore, every reason to be grateful and not the least reason to harbour a grudge against them. He owes his life to them. You will agree that this puts a completely different complexion on your statement that “he was cast into jail”.
This is by no means all of which Mandela should be grateful for. In the time of PW Botha’s prime ministership in the ‘eighties Mandela was moved from the Robben Island prison to the Pollsmoor prison near Cape Town, where he received VIP treatment. PW Botha was in this way making the first instalments in Mandela’s release on the pretext that he would not wish “an old man to die in prison”.
From Pollsmoor prison Mandela was moved to the residence of a senior officer on the staff of the Prisons Department in the town of Paarl in the Western Cape. There he had every convenience at his disposal to play a political rôle, including the use of a fax machine. And he was attended to day and night by a white policeman.
After a carefully orchestrated campaign inside and outside South Africa he was released by the FW de Klerk government to a stage-managed reception in Cape Town, receiving prime coverage from the South African Broadcasting Corporation and providing him with a launching pad for political initiatives. Thereafter the De Klerk government in a treasonable series of acts started peace negotiations with the ANC and moved on to draw up a new constitution on the basis of one man, one vote in an undivided South Africa, which in essence meant surrendering to the ANC and enabling Mandela to become the president of South Africa.
The essence of this political move was spelt out by Paul Johnson, well-known British intellectual, in The Spectator in April 1994. “South Africa under F W de Klerk”, he said, “Made a suicidal leap to universal suffrage”. He predicted that within ten years the country could be the theatre of Africa’s endless civil wars. “In any case it would become an industrial rubble heap, beastly, bloody and bankrupt (…) There is not the slightest hope that it (South Africa) will continue to exist on a system of universal suffrage – it is one of the most divided societies on earth: racially, ethnically, linguistically, as well as economically”.
This is De Klerk’s achievement. You may recall that you at one stage telephoned him and told him that you “marvelled” at what he was achieving in pushing South Africa along this disastrous course.
Some ten months later (February 1995) The Spectator published another article on South Africa in which its readers were told, “A country ravaged by crime and corruption, with plummeting standards and a people condemned to a sordid and brutal life”. The article describes the ANC government as “corrupt and incompetent”. This is Nelson Mandela’s government.
What is revealing is that while De Klerk was treacherously steering the country towards this national misery, newspapers reported: “Britain fights fervently for FW in UN debate”. And later: “Brits full of praise for FW as architect of peaceful change”. And eventually: “Brits bear De Klerk, their hero, on their hands”. Only an Afrikaner who is a traitor to his own people would be regarded by Brits as their hero. And De Klerk became the hero of Brits by letting loose the man who, according to Judge De Wet, should have been hanged for high treason.
You may sense the degree of loathing on the part of Afrikaners like myself, who had a father who fought, was wounded and kept a prisoner-of-war on St Helena Island by the British for more than two years while they devastated the country and caused the death of over 22 000 children under the age of 16 years and who, a few generations thereafter sees De Klerk being treated as a hero by Brits for having “irreversibly” destroyed White South Africa (as in foolish vanity he said his aim was).
As Mr Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Britain, said in January 1998 that the British “never forget the past even when addressing the future”, so we naturally also do not forget the past – also the recent past when the ANC and the South African Communist Party (SACP) had their headquarters in London from where with British moral and other support they conducted their terrorism against South Africa.
In the period September 1984 to August 1989 no fewer than 1770 schools were destroyed or extensively damaged, as were 7187 private homes of Blacks, 10318 buses, 152 trains, 12188 private vehicles, 1265 shops and factories, 60 post offices, 47 churches and 30 health clinics. And, what is even worse, there were 300 cold-blooded murders by the barbarous necklace method and 372 deaths of people trapped in homes set alight by terrorist gangs.
These were the means employed in “the struggle” to bring to power, under Mandela, a Communist-controlled organisation, which Peter Younghusband, in the London Daily Mail in November 1994, described as follows, “The ANC never was worth much as a liberation movement – and apart from a few random urban terrorist acts, its military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe, was equally worth little as a fighting force (…) the ANC very conveniently sat in exile waiting for the world to bring the White regime to its knees”. And, he said, Mandela is unable to run the country, and he and the ANC is steadily reducing South Africa to yet another Third World plodder.
It is one thing to say that Mandela bears his political enemies no grudge, but it is another thing to judge him by what he does, by what he allows, and by what he neglects to do.
To consider this one must see it in its historical perspective. When Mandela and his Communist cohorts at their Rivonia hide-out were planning bloody revolution in the early ‘sixties, the Afrikaner Nationalist Government (ANG) was under the leadership of Dr HF Verwoerd. And it was under the direction of Dr Verwoerd that this Communist conspiracy to violently overthrow the South African government was stamped out, Mandela and his collaborators landing in jail and the organisation of the Communist Party of South Africa being destroyed shortly thereafter through the efficient action of the security police in infiltrating the Communist cells.
Verwoerd frustrated and humiliatingly defeated Mandela’s plans. And for Mandela there is consequently one political enemy not to be forgiven for saving South Africa from a bloody Communist revolution. That is Hendrik Verwoerd. He and his ghost are haunting those who are destroying the results of his unequalled successful statecraft.
Verwoerd was not only the man under whose direction a Communist-led revolution was prevented. He also became the towering South African statesman of this century, and he was equal, if not superior, to any of his contemporaries in the Western World, a statement that may be evaluated on the ground of his achievements in the face of international enmity from the Anglo-American block, the Communist block and the Afro-Asian block.
He not only secured South Africa’s survival against this many-sided onslaught: he, more-over lifted the country to a level of stability, well-being and prosperity seldom, if ever equalled in history anywhere under similar circumstances.
To support this remark let me call opponents and enemies of Verwoerd to testify in this regard. Jan Botha, an outspoken liberal, in his book, Verwoerd is dead, refers to “the threats from the United Nations and the arms boycott by the United States and Britain”. Then he writes:
“By the time he died, Dr Verwoerd had built his own monument which was there for all to see: the Republic of South Africa. The White people had been forged together in unity, the country was militarily strong and resilient, the police and security forces were effectively dealing with all attempts at subversion and infiltration, the country’s economy was dynamic, expanding and had become largely self-sufficient.
“… in the history of South Africa his name will live for ever as the leader who, when his country was threatened with internal disorders and with economic sanctions, boycotts and open aggression from overseas, stood as a symbol of defiance, and the will and determination to survive”.
He not only frustrated the objectives of the great power blocks, but he also defeated the ANC’s plans to create internal disorder.
That Jan Botha’s was not a lone voice, can be shown by quotations from other sources. Paul Barrow in The Statist shortly before Verwoerd was assassinated on 6 September 1966 by the Communist Tsafendas wrote, “At the rate at which South Africa is now expanding, the term ‘miracle’ is likely to be appropriate to its development in the next few years”.
And on 31 July 1966 the unofficial mouthpiece of the South African liberal establishment The Rand Daily Mail, wrote:
“At the age of nearly 65 Dr Verwoerd has reached the peak of a remarkable career. No other South African prime minister has ever been in such a powerful position in the country. He is at the head of a massive majority after a resounding victory at the polls. The nation is suffering from a surfeit of prosperity and he can command almost unlimited funds for all that he needs at present in the way of military defence. He can claim that South Africa is a shining example of peace in a troubled continent, if only because overwhelming domestic power can always command peace. Finally, as if that were not enough, he can face the session with the knowledge that, short of an unthinkable show of force by people whom South Africans are rapidly being taught to regard as their enemies, he can snap his fingers at the United Nations. Thanks to the recent judgment of the Hague Court he can afford to condescend to the world body, graciously remaining a member as long as it suits him”.
These are the achievements of the man against whose memory a vendetta is being conducted under the direction of Mandela and his comrades. His name was ordered to be removed from the Verwoerd Building, the Verwoerd Dam, the Verwoerd Hospital, and under Mandela’s leadership his statue at the Free State provincial headquarters was pulled down in an act bristling with hatred and vengeance.
Of course, Verwoerd as leader of the Afrikaners being a symbol of his people, the attacks on him have been indirect attacks on the Afrikaners themselves, so that Mandela’s followers – never rebuked – felt free to shout: “Kill a farmer, kill a Boer”, instigating the killing of hundreds of Afrikaner farmers and their families, 431 in 1997 and 104 from 1 January to 31 August 1998 in 590 attacks. In the Mau-Mau uprising in Kenya in the ‘sixties only 39 White farmers were killed and in the terrorist war against Rhodesia only 300 were killed in the course of 14 years. Among those who have had as their battle cry “Kill a farmer, Kill a Boer” is Peter Mokaba, promoted by Mandela to Deputy Minister. Other appointments of identified Communists as Ministers and Deputy Ministers tell the same story, highlighted by the appointment of the Communist Mboweni as President of the SA Reserve Bank in a move to further impoverish Afrikaners in the name of “affirmative action”. These are ways in which Mandela has been allowing his grudge against the Afrikaners, as his political enemies, to be exploited, while he goes around pretending that he has no grievance against his enemies.
Even more unmistakable are his appointments to the so-called Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the way in which this commission has conducted its business. It was packed by him with enemies and opponents of the former government. The two Afrikaners, De Jager and Malan, who were included among the 15 other, were in different ways opponents of the previous government. However, De Jager resigned in disappointment, if not disgust, and Malan eventually showed his dissension from the majority by writing a minority report on the Commission’s findings.
This commission appointed by Mandela has little to do with truth and nothing with reconciliation. It is a hybridization between the Nuremberg trials of German war leaders and Stalin’s Moscow Show Trials of the nineteen thirties. Its prime objective was to place Afrikaners on the bench of the accused to be prosecuted, tried and convicted by their enemies, and to treat the ANC terrorists on a completely different basis, which resulted in some amazing events.
In flagrant violation of the provisions of the relevant act it, for example, granted amnesty to a bunch of 37 top level ANC leaders for crimes associated with political motives, without specifying the various acts, which is in conflict with the requirements of the law. In this group there are among others, Thabo Mbeki, Leader of the ANC, Minister of Foreign Affairs Nzo, Minister of Justice Omar and Minister of Defence Modise. Although this decision has been nullified by a judicial verdict, nothing has been done to rectify the situation.
In such cases, the Commission’s concern was not seeking and revealing the truth, but suppressing and stifling it – a procedure that would not have been countenanced when it concerned Afrikaners of the Security services who fought against the terrorists. They were paraded as criminals who individually under severe pressure had to confess in detail for whatever amnesty was asked for.
In these various ways Mandela created outlets for his grudges against the Afrikaners — the very people whose representatives saved him from the gallows and later gave him all the help to become the President of South Africa.
Against this background it is dismaying to read that this man has every reason to hate his enemies, yet does not think of retribution! And while allowing a vendetta to be conducted against the Afrikaners, he is presiding over the decay of this country, which the Afrikaners wrestled from the wilderness, fought wars for against imperial powers and, under Dr Verwoerd, was developing into the industrial giant of Africa.
Where under Verwoerd, “the nation was suffering from a surfeit of prosperity”, and South Africa “was a shining example of peace on a troubled continent”, under Mandela the nation is suffering from a surfeit of poverty and the country has become the crime capital of the world – 137 reported rapes, 63 murders, 73 attempted murders, 176 robberies, 670 housebreakings and 35 highjackings on an average every day of the year. It is common cause that a government that cannot secure the lives and properties of its civilians is unfit to rule.
“South Africa”, read a newspaper report on 29 November 1998, “occupies the first or second spot in all forms of crime on the world list for crime, and it is the young people and the homeless who pay the price”. Of the thousands who passed the matric examinations in 1998 less than one in 10 will get a job in the formal sector. In the four years of ANC government the national debt more than doubled – from R194 billion ($34 billion) In 1994 to over R400 billion ($70 billion) presently, the interest on which accounts for 21 per cent of the budget.
In the same period the South African rand lost 80 per cent of its value. And in the first ten months of 1998 more than 2,8 million man-days were lost to a wave of industrial strikes.
This is a picture of the country which under Verwoerd had the second highest economic growth rate in the world (7.9% per year), an average inflation rate of 2 per cent, was accommodating new labour in the formal sector at 73.6 per cent per year, and enabled the living standards of Blacks in the industrial sector to rise at 5.3 per cent per year as against those of Whites at 3.9 per cent per year. The Financial Mail published a special survey entitled “The fabulous years: 1961-66”. And as the previously mentioned Jan Botha wrote, Verwoerd “had launched the greatest programme of socio-economic upliftment for the non-Whites that South Africa had ever seen”.
This, Verwoerd achieved in the face of fierce diplomatic and economic opposition from the United States, Britain, Soviet Russia and others. Mandela, on the other hand, has the blessing and support of these powers, yet under his hand the country is disintegrating and has sunk to a state of lawlessness, joblessness and futurelessness unprecedented in South African history. Yet, Mandela is not struggling to emulate Verwoerd, but to denigrate him and his people.
Perhaps you will reconsider your emotional identification with Mandela in the light of historical truth.
J A MARAIS
LEADER OF THE HNP
For the past several years, the staff here at CofCC.org has been predicting two major divisions that would rip Democrats apart. The first major division is between blacks and Hispanics and largely centered around jealousy over entitlements.
The second major rift, which has been rapidly growing is between Jewish and pro-Israel Democrats versus anti-Israel Democrats. As we have reported before, The Israeli lobby is the largest foreign lobby in the US. It disproportionately funds the Democrats. According to Forward Magazine, the largest Jewish publication in the world, Jewish people are greatly over-represented in Congress (15% of Senate & 7.6% of the House). All but two House member caucuses with the Democrats. While a few like Lieberman and Specter are classified as centrists, many like Senators Schumer, Sanders, Feinstein, Boxer, and Franken are at the extreme fringes of the left. The majority of Israeli newspapers endorsed McCain over Obama, yet the Jerusalem Post reports that 80% of American Jews voted Obama. Jewish Americans also provide funding to the Democrats in great disproportion to their percent of the US population.
Among the “rich white kid” wing of the Democrats, there is a rapidly growing segment that has decided to name Israel as the “new Apartheid.” Now that South Africa is in absolute ruins, the young lefties don’t like to talk about it any more. They just want a new enemy nation to rail against. Obama core supporters in Chicago, who helped launch his career, were the Arabs, Nation of Islam members, and other black extremists. All of whom are anti-Israel. During Obama’s presidential election his most visible supporters tended to be the college kid leftists, many who have also adopted anti-Israel rhetoric.
However, Obama is also an AIPAC member and ritualistically kissed up to the Israeli foreign lobby during the election. He then chose Emanuel as his chief of staff, a Jewish super-Zionist, who was a civilian volunteer for the Israel military during the Gulf War.
However, Obama’s new found love affair with Israel is coming to a crashing halt. Israel and the Obama administration are now officially at odds. The rift pits a large segment of the leaders and financiers of the Democratic party against the most vocal and dedicated street activists who support the Democratic party.
Photo Right: This poster seen in Israel states: “Warning! PLO agent in the White House.”
From New York Times…
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, under extraordinary pressure from the Obama administration to curb the construction of Jewish housing in Jerusalem, served notice on Monday that his government would not yield easily to American demands.
In a speech to a pro-Israel lobbying group, Mr. Netanyahu reiterated that Israel had no plans to freeze housing in Jerusalem, the trigger for a recent dispute between Israel and the United States. He rejected the administration’s contention that Israel’s policies were impeding the peace process.
“The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 years, and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today,” Mr. Netanyahu said to the group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “Jerusalem is not a settlement; It’s our capital.”
Earlier Monday, Mr. Netanyahu met for 75 minutes with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in the first of a series of meetings expected to reveal whether the United States sticks to its hard line with Israel on settlements. He later met with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., and he was scheduled to meet President Obama on Tuesday.
The flurry of meetings is designed to calm the waters after nearly two weeks of tension between the United States and Israel, amid a diplomatic row that both countries have portrayed as the gravest in years. But judging by Mr. Netanyahu’s comments, it is far from clear that he plans to satisfy the demands that Mrs. Clinton made of him in a phone call 10 days ago.
Jeremiah Wright was Obama’s minister and mentor for twenty years. He helped Obama gain the trust of Chicago’s blacks to get elected to his first office. Wright visited Libyan Dictator Qaddafi twice while Obama was attending the church. Recently Wright told reporters that he had not spoken to Obama since the election because “Obama’s Jewish handlers” were keeping the two apart.
So they just passed a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he didn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that exempts themselves from it, signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese,…………… and better yet it is to be financed by a country that’s broke?