From the Hon. James David Manning, PhD, who in this segment of his very good show, talks about the coming riots that will put the Rodney King/LA Riots to shame for their ferocity.  White people, he says, have not been seen to riot for decades and when they do, it’s serious.

He blames the Obama administration (Obama, who he calls “the long-legged Mac Daddy”), oppression and subjugation of white people, and the general arrogance of the oppressors who use race as a reason for their actions.

This is a great speech that comes from a man no one can call racist for making it:

This is from a once-great political action group of volunteers in the Salt Lake City area who promoted freedom in the state and local governments through direct action protests, press corps confrontation, and more.  The entire group was self-funded, self-actualizing, and completely grassroots.  I miss Accountability Utah and wish they were still around today.  On the other hand, I guess they’re still around in the national Tea Party and Revolution movements.
–D.W.

Original source is at this link.

Take Our “Who is the Bigger Dummy?” Challenge!

Summary: Contestant A is General Mark Shurtleff, lobbyist for SB 175, the confiscation bill that destroyed Citizens Initiative B and your property rights. Contestant B is Senator Chris Buttars, sponsor of SB 175, who has just publicly acknowledged that General Shurtleff has no clue regarding the U.S. Constitution. See if you can identify the bigger dummy.

Topics:

1. Sen. Buttars Denounces General Shurtleff

2. But Wait… Buttars Ran Shurtleff’s Confiscation Bill!

3. Recent Case of Federal Confiscation Abuse in Salt Lake

4. Take the Dummy Challenge!

1. Sen. Buttars Denounces General Shurtleff

Sen. Chris Buttars recently denounced Gen. Mark Shurtleff’s abilities to comprehend the U.S. Constitution. In an interview with Ozwald Balfour on KTKK AM 630, Sen. Buttars stated:

“I think that anything this prominent [the upcoming marriage amendment] will be challenged legally and it will be my suggestion that we have independent outside counsel who is really into constitutional law. Mark Shurtleff isn’t.”

There are many years of evidence that General Shurtleff is an enemy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Shurtleff has recently gotten Buttars dander up by vaguely opposing parts (apparently not all) of Constitutional Amendment 3.
Note: For more information on General Shurtleff’s horrible track record, see just about every issue on our Issues & Alerts page, or look his name up on our Search page.

Back to Topics

2. But Wait… Buttars Ran Shurtleff’s Confiscation Bill!

Hold the show, however. Last session, Sen. Buttars was the water boy for General Shurtleff’s confiscation bill, SB 175, that gutted Citizen’s Initiative B and destroyed private property rights. See a detailed analysis of this horrific, unconstitutional attack on your rights and also see how your legislators voted in our2004 Legislative Performance Report.

Buttars was clearly the water boy for Shurtleff, and admitted to Accountability Utah volunteers that he was running the bill for Lyle Hillyard, who abandoned the bill after citizens politically thrashed him. Lyle Hillyard ran the bill for Sen. John Valentine, who likewise abandoned the bill after citizens pressured him in a town meeting held in his district. Throughout this shameful display of musical sponsors, Shurtleff was there guiding the bill and the entire process, finding one sucker after another to run his bill.

Back to Topics

3. Recent Case of Federal Confiscation Abuse in Salt Lake

To all those who doubt the insidious nature of federal forfeiture statutes, strike up a conversation with Salt Lake business owner Matthew Ryan Smith. Smith, a glassblower and artist, was on his way to an antique show in Seattle to attend art festivals and obtain gems, minerals, glass supplies, and art. He was carrying $26,000 for that purpose.

Smith’s money was confiscated by federal thugs at the Salt Lake airport, his car was searched without his permission, and he was detained and harassed for several hours. According to court documents, a DEA agent told an incensed Smith over the phone:

”If you’re going to play hard with me, I’m going to come and seize your money… It’ll take your lawyer at least a year to get it back.”

Smith got his money back, but apparently after spending $20,000 in legal fees. (Bonus question: How many other folks do you know who could afford the time, anguish, and money to risk a court fight like this?)

Smith was never charged with a crime, never had a jury trial, and had to fight the very abuses outlined in our aforementioned analysis of SB 175 and federal forfeiture statutes.
Source: “Traveler sues over seizure of cash in airport search,” Associated Press, Salt Lake Tribune, Sep. 7, 2004.

Back to Topics

4. Take the Dummy Challenge!

So, who is the bigger dummy? The drafter and lobbyist of an unconstitutional attack on your property rights, General Shurtleff, or the sponsor of that attack, Sen. Chris Buttars, who only now seems to realize that General Shurtleff is constitutionally challenged?

From the archives at VDare.com.

by Allan Wall

Vicente’s Tour De Fox Of The Henhouse

Vincent Fox and his good buddy Castro

Mexican Presidente Vicente Fox was in the United States again last week. And he had a very successful time of it.

Fox visited several states, spoke to business and political leaders, and to Mexican colonist communities. And by a fortunate coincidence (for Fox that is) while he was visiting, the U.S. Senate approved S. 2611, which made Vicente VERY happy.

Mission accomplished!

Fox’s first destination was Utah, a state with laws that openly encourage illegal immigration. Not only is Utah the home of invasion-promoters like Orrin Hatch and Chris Cannon, but Utah also offers illegal aliens in-state tuition. If you’re a lowly American citizen from Arizona, and you migrate to Utah, you’d have to pay out of state tuition. But if you illegally migrate there from Mexico, you can enjoy in-state tuition. What a deal!

Utah also has a special driver’s license, called a ‘driving privilege card’ specifically designed for illegal aliens! [Utah’s Embrace: No Documents, No Problem Michael Riley, Denver Post, April 2nd, 2006]

Joe Guzzardi has reported how the previous Utah governor traveled to Mexico and promised Fox that Utah would share the same school calendar and curriculum with Mexico! [Chris Cannon and the Betrayal of Utah]

Naturally, Fox was happy to visit Utah and tell folks to keep up the good work!

On May 23^rd, Fox spoke in Spanish, in Utah’s ‘Great Hall’ to members of the Mexican colonist community. He said that

‘It is not with walls that this situation is remedied, it is not with fences that the problem is resolved, but in shaking hands and working together, with bridges of understanding and collaboration.’ [Fox in U.S. says walls won’t fix problem, by Brock Vergaris, AP, May 23rd, 2006]  (‘No es con muros como se remediará la situación; no es con vallas como se resolverá el problema, sino dándonos la mano y trabajando juntos, con puentes de entendimiento y de colaboración.’ [Palabras del Presidente Vicente Fox Quesada durante la reunión con la Comunidad Mexicana, que tuvo lugar en el Utah Cultural Celebration Center, en esta ciudad.])

TRANSLATION: Open borders for Mexicans entering the U.S.

Good Buddies All 'Round (photo thanks to Deseret News)

Fox was very appreciative of Utah’s approach to illegal immigration, stating that it was a good example to the rest of the U.S.

Also speaking at the Great Hall Fox-Fest was a local Gringo Collaborator, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff. The state’s highest law enforcement official delivered, with tears in his eyes, a gushing eulogy to Fox, Mexico in general, and Mexican immigrants in Utah, of whom he said “we need them.”

For years, Shurtleff has supported amnesty, opposed English-only legislation and has been known to break Utah’s Official English law by speaking in an official capacity in Spanish. [Shurtleff and Latinos Share a 'Pretend' Meeting, March 10, 200, By Frank Curreri, The Salt Lake Tribune]

Vicente Fox is so pleased with Shurtleff that he is planning to award the Utah Attorney General with the ‘Aguila Azteca’, Mexico’s highest award for foreigners. [VDARE.COM NOTE: Order of the Aztec Eagle, a very different bird from the American one.] [Pedira Fox Condecorar a Procurador de Utah Por su Apoyo a Migrantes, Hector Alvarez Fernandez Notimex, May 24th, 2006]

If you would like to congratulate Attorney General Shurtleff for receiving the Orden de Aguila Azteca medal, and for his labors on behalf of a foreign government while serving as Utah Attorney General, you can email him right here.

ON July 24^th, Fox gave a speech to at the Utah State Capitol to over 100 lawmakers and leaders in special session, where he had the unmitigated gall to claim that Mexico doesn’t promote illegal immigration and that (U.S.) immigration is a shared responsibility.

So what does the Fox administration want? It wants

“the establishment of a new system that regulates the movement of people across our borders in a manner which is legal, safe and orderly.” [Legal, segura y ordenada.]

That’s Fox/Bush speak for open borders. By the way, the leaders of Utah gave Fox a standing ovation. [Mex. Pres. Construct Bridges of Understanding, by Julie Espinosa, Salt Lake Tribune]

With Utah and its future in such trustworthy hands, it was time to fly north, to apple country. Fox’s next stop was Washington State, where governor Chris Gregoire, [send her mail] had insisted Fox visit the eastern part of the state, with its thousands of Mexicans , including illegal aliens. Fox was glad to comply. [Fox: U.S. Can’t Fix Immigration Alone, by Shannon Diminny, ABC News, May 24^th, 2006]

While Fox was in Washington, Oregon governor Ted Kulongoski [send him mail] flew there to pay homage to Fox. The two had a meeting at the Yakima air field. Kulongoski spoke of the importance of migrants for Oregon’s economy, and joined with Fox in attacking American racism. Oregon’s governor said

‘Our state and the nation of Mexico have a long-standing relationship,…I wanted to come here to convey a message to (Fox) that we want to develop trade with Mexico, develop more air flights from Oregon to Mexico using Mexicana Airlines, and to talk about immigration.’ [Kulongoski, Fox affirm policies for migrants, by Thelma Guerrero, Statesman Journal (Salem, Oregon) May 25th, 2006]

It seems to me that Governor Kulongoski is on shaky ground, constitutionally speaking, when he says things like this.

The U.S. Constitution states in Article I, Section 10:

‘No State shall, without the consent of Congress….enter into any agreement or compact …with a foreign power…’

Yet today we have various state governors carrying on their own foreign policy dealings with Mexico.

The federal government would actually be within its rights to reprimand these governors. But then, our federal government doesn’t pay much heed to the Constitution either, certainly not that part about protecting the states from invasion (Article IV, Section 4). In fact, Collaborator-in-Chief George W. Bush encourages the Mexican invasion of our territory.

In Seattle, Fox visited a clinic where he located a sick Mexican named “Diana” and offered to take her back to Mexico and have her treated there.

What a grand humanitarian gesture! An even bigger gesture would to offering to pay for Mexican illegal aliens who avail themselves of medical care at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer. But that wasn’t on the agenda. [Descarta Fox Parar programas socials por comicios, by Jose Luis Ruiz, El Universal May 25th, 2006]

While flying from Seattle to Sacramento, Fox received some really great news.

The new Meximerican flag

He was informed that S. 2611 had passed the Senate. This bill provides an amnesty for illegal aliens, increases immigration to even higher levels, and requires that no border fences be constructed without consulting with the Mexican government first!

Naturally, Fox was ecstatic. I think his being in the U.S. made this victory even sweeter. He called the day of the bill’s passage ‘an historic day’ (no doubt about that!), and said that ‘It gives me enormous pleasure for the millions of ‘paisanos’ (fellow Mexicans) who worked hard for this to happen…’

Fox follows U.S. politics, so he knows the immigration surrender must still be approved by the U.S. House of Representatives. Of that he said ‘certainly we must work harder’ ['ciertamente nos obliga a trabajar más duro y con mucho más entusiasmo'] so that the House of Representatives will approve the amnesty. [ Dia histórica, califica Fox por aprobación de reforma, By Jose Luis Ruiz, El Universal, May25th, 2006]

Upon arrival in California, Fox was practically on his home turf. Armed with his victory in the U.S. Senate, the Presidente spoke to the California Legislature. The next day, May 26^th, he met with two key LA allies. One was Man-of-the-Cloth Invasion Booster Cardinal Roger Mahony, who confuses lawlessness with charity. Mahony spoke to the media in Spanish after his meeting with Fox.

The other ally: was Antonio Villaraigosa, the unrepentant Mechista Mayor of Los Angeles. [Mexican president wraps up U.S. trip with visits to LA leaders, by Peter Prengaman, AP May 26th, 2006]

That, in a nutshell, was the triumphant Tour de Fox of his northern territories.

I suspect it must actually be a psychological letdown for the presidente to be back in Mexico, where Fox is treated with much less deference than in the United States.

In the U.S. Henhouse, Fox was treated like a conquering hero. He was wined and dined, lionized and celebrated, and carefully kept isolated from protestors and hostile questions from the media.

The U.S. has become Vicente Fox Land, and he’s getting what he wants from us.

Why? Because our own leaders want the same thing Vicente Fox wants—open borders!

American citizen Allan Wall (email him) resides in Mexico, with a legal permit issued him by the Mexican government. Allan recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his FRONTPAGEMAG.COM articles are archived here his “Dispatches from Iraq” are archived here his website is here.

What would California look like broken in three? Or a Republic of New England? With the federal government reaching for ever more power, redrawing the map is enticing, says Paul Starobin – Wall Street Journal Online

Remember that classic Beatles riff of the 1960s: “You say you want a revolution?” Imagine this instead: a devolution. Picture an America that is run not, as now, by a top-heavy Washington autocracy but, in freewheeling style, by an assemblage of largely autonomous regional republics reflecting the eclectic economic and cultural character of the society.

There might be an austere Republic of New England, with a natural strength in higher education and technology; a Caribbean-flavored city-state Republic of Greater Miami, with an anchor in the Latin American economy; and maybe even a Republic of Las Vegas with unfettered license to pursue its ambitions as a global gambling, entertainment and conventioneer destination. California? America’s broke, ill-governed and way-too-big nation-like state might be saved, truly saved, not by an emergency federal bailout, but by a merciful carve-up into a trio of republics that would rely on their own ingenuity in making their connections to the wider world. And while we’re at it, let’s make this project bi-national—economic logic suggests a natural multilingual combination between Greater San Diego and Mexico’s Northern Baja, and, to the Pacific north, between Seattle and Vancouver in a megaregion already dubbed “Cascadia” by economic cartographers.

View Full Image

Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Patrick Henry declares ‘give me liberty, or give me death’ in his 1775 speech urging the colonies to fight the British.

Devolved America is a vision faithful both to certain postindustrial realities as well as to the pluralistic heart of the American political tradition—a tradition that has been betrayed by the creeping centralization of power in Washington over the decades but may yet reassert itself as an animating spirit for the future. Consider this proposition: America of the 21st century, propelled by currents of modernity that tend to favor the little over the big, may trace a long circle back to the original small-government ideas of the American experiment. The present-day American Goliath may turn out to be a freak of a waning age of politics and economics as conducted on a super-sized scale—too large to make any rational sense in an emerging age of personal empowerment that harks back to the era of the yeoman farmer of America’s early days. The society may find blessed new life, as paradoxical as this may sound, in a return to a smaller form.

This perspective may seem especially fanciful at a time when the political tides all seem to be running in the opposite direction. In the midst of economic troubles, an aggrandizing Washington is gathering even more power in its hands. The Obama Administration, while considering replacing top executives at Citigroup, is newly appointing a “compensation czar” with powers to determine the retirement packages of executives at firms accepting federal financial bailout funds. President Obama has deemed it wise for the U.S. Treasury to take a majority ownership stake in General Motors in a last-ditch effort to revive this Industrial Age brontosaurus. Even the Supreme Court is getting in on the act: A ruling this past week awarded federal judges powers to set the standards by which judges for state courts may recuse themselves from cases.

All of this adds up to a federal power grab that might make even FDR’s New Dealers blush. But that’s just the point: Not surprisingly, a lot of folks in the land of Jefferson are taking a stand against an approach that stands to make an indebted citizenry yet more dependent on an already immense federal power. The backlash, already under way, is a prime stimulus for a neo-secessionist movement, the most extreme manifestation of a broader push for some form of devolution. In April, at an anti-tax “tea party” held in Austin, Governor Rick Perry of Texas had his speech interrupted by cries of “secede.” The Governor did not sound inclined to disagree. “Texas is a unique place,” he later told reporters attending the rally. “When we came into the Union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.”

View Full Image

Polaris Images

Thousands of Texans hold a ‘Tea Party’ in downtown San Antonio in April protesting federal bailouts.

Such sentiments resonate beyond the libertarian fringe. The Daily Kos, a liberal Web site, recently asked Perry’s fellow Texas Republicans, “Do you think Texas would be better off as an independent nation or as part of the United States of America? It was an even split: 48% for the U.S., 48% for a sovereign Texas, 4% not sure. Amongst all Texans, more than a third—35%—said an independent Texas would be better. The Texas Nationalist Movement claims that over 250,000 Texans have signed a form affirming the organization’s goal of a Texas nation.

Secessionist feelings also percolate in Alaska, where Todd Palin, husband of Governor Sarah Palin, was once a registered member of the Alaska Independence Party. But it is not as if the Right has a lock on this issue: Vermont, the seat of one of the most vibrant secessionist movements, is among the country’s most politically-liberal places. Vermonters are especially upset about imperial America’s foreign excursions in hazardous places like Iraq. The philosophical tie that binds these otherwise odd bedfellows is belief in the birthright of Americans to run their own affairs, free from centralized control. Their hallowed parchment is Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, on behalf of the original 13 British colonies, penned in 1776, 11 years before the framers of the Constitution gathered for their convention in Philadelphia. “The right of secession precedes the Constitution—the United States was born out of secession,” Daniel Miller, leader of the Texas Nationalist Movement, put it to me. Take that, King Obama.

Today’s devolutionists, of all stripes, can trace their pedigree to the “anti-federalists” who opposed the compact that came out of Philadelphia as a bad bargain that gave too much power to the center at the expense of the limbs. Some of America’s most vigorous and learned minds were in the anti-federalist camp; their ranks included Virginia’s Patrick Henry, of “give me liberty or give me death” renown. The sainted Jefferson, who was serving as a diplomat in Paris during the convention, is these days claimed by secessionists as a kindred anti-federal spirit, even if he did go on to serve two terms as president.

The anti-federalists lost their battle, but history, in certain respects, has redeemed their vision, for they anticipated how many Americans have come to feel about their nation’s seat of federal power. “This city, and the government of it, must indubitably take their tone from the character of the men, who from the nature of its situation and institution, must collect there,” the anti-federalist pamphleteer known only as the Federal Farmer wrote. “If we expect it will have any sincere attachments to simple and frugal republicanism, to that liberty and mild government, which is dear to the laborious part of a free people, we most assuredly deceive ourselves.”

In the mid-19th century, the anti-federalist impulse took a dark turn, attaching itself to the cause of the Confederacy, which was formed by the unilateral secession of 13 southern states over the bloody issue of slavery. Lincoln had no choice but to go to war to preserve the Union—and ever since, anti-federalism, in almost any guise, has had to defend itself from the charge of being anti-modern and indeed retrograde.

View Full Image

Jack Molloy

The U.S., as envisioned by some percolating secessionist movements.

But nearly a century and a half has passed since Johnny Rebel whooped for the last time. Slavery is dead, and so too is the large-scale industrial economy that the Yankees embraced as their path to victory over the South and to global prosperity. The model lasted a long time, to be sure, surviving all the way through the New Deal and the first several decades of the post-World War II era, coming a cropper at the tail end of the 1960s, just as the economist John Kenneth Galbraith was holding out “The New Industrial State,” the master-planned economy, as a seemingly permanent condition of modern life.

Not quite. In a globalized economy transformed by technological innovations hatched by happily-unguided entrepreneurs, history seems to be driving one nail after another into the coffin of the big, which is why the Obama planners and their ilk, even if they now ride high, may be doomed to fail. No one anymore expects the best ideas to come from the biggest actors in the economy, so should anyone expect the best thinking to be done by the whales of the political world?

Read the rest by clicking here.

Feel free to turn off the audio so you don’t have to listen to this annoying lady through the whole thing.  Otherwise, this is a great presentation on a subject we don’t often hear about–especially in the main stream.

This lady represents all that is wrong with liberal California and Arizona thinking.  This woman, doubtless a school teacher or in some other government-dole job, has no idea what these illegal aliens do to the fabric of American society and our economy.  She has no idea that she’s a party to murder and injustice.