If it’s a medical emergency, Erie County 911 will respond, but there is one address many of its dispatchers know by heart.
They find Scott Graham usually waiting at that Buffalo address for his ambulance several times a week.
“Sometimes two times a day,” Graham told 2 On Your Side. He suffers from Sickle Cell Anemia, a blood disorder. If left untreated, it can block blood flow to limbs and organs.
“It feels like somebody shooting me with battery acid, and I’m stepping on razor blades, and I’m having a heart attack at once,” he said talking about the pain the disorder causes.
Graham doesn’t have a job, insurance or car. So, when he feels bad, he doesn’t call a cab. He calls 911 to have an ambulance drive him to the hospital.
Obongo and Gates both have one thing in common. Their careers are products of preferential treatment and racism against Europic men. It is clear that a man of Gates’ stature should not be a Harvard professor, but he is given the job because he is a negroid, and because people in general – including most Europic people – are a bunch of idiots who swallow whole the leftist lie.
Now it is time for Obongo the Mindless Mulatto to apologize, as requested by MA police unions. If the Obongo’s handlers advise him to apologize, it will not be sincere. Either way, he should drop dead, and so should the fallen Catholic vice president and speaker of the House.
The amount of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is overwhelming, and transcends the question of the presence of molten steel at Ground Zero. E.g. buildings cannot collapse at free fall speed unless by way of planned demolition. However, the presence of molten steel at Ground Zero is real and compelling evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, for that means that temperatures exceeding the maximum for burning jet fuel was reached, thereby indicating the use of explosives on 9/11. The following is a seven-part rebuttal of those who claim that the molten metal at Ground Zero was merely the molten aluminum from the planes that allegedly hit the towers.
1. 9/11 Truth Deniers say that “Fed by office contents and fuel from hydraulics & [sic] vehicles and sourced with oxygen from hollow beams and tunnels which acted as chimneys, underground fires burned for weeks perhaps as hot as 1800 [degrees] F, more than hot enough to account for pools of molten aluminum.”*
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YXzjAKJQOg
Rebuttal: There is both eyewitness and physical evidence supporting the existence of melted steel. A crewman who worked at Ground Zero is quoted as saying, “Eight weeks later we’ve still got fires burning…. I mean, these things were burning at one point I think they were about 2800 degrees.” Mayor Rudy Giuliani said, “there were fires of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit below the ground.” A crew worker is quoted as saying, “It was literally steaming. Your [steel toed] boots would melt in certain areas. That’s how hot it was.” Steel could be found that was fused together, thereby indicating that the STEEL had incurred melting.
2. The sheer volume of molten metal and the time spent molten far exceed that which is possible by any molten aluminum produced by the jet fuel explosions.
3. There is no evidence that the towers were even hit by planes.
4. They would say, “While there’s certainly no doubt that there was molten metal at Ground Zero, no tests were ever conducted to determine its composition.”
Rebuttal: On the contrary, a sample was collected and qualitatively tested by Professor Steven Jones, and found to contain a great deal of iron, thereby ruling out the molten aluminum hypothesis.
5. Molten aluminum is silver; not red/orange/yellow. Further, they say that steel must be dripping in order for it to be molten. This presumption is false. The color of the steel can indicate whether or not it is molten, and the color of the steel in photographs proves the existence of temperatures in excess of 1800 degrees, which is the maximum temperature at which jet fuel can burn under optimal conditions.
Furthermore, their presumption that dripping molten steel cannot be found is false. There is indeed video of dripping molten steel.*
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74qazOMbl6k @ 4:40.
6. There was molten metal at World Trade Center Seven, as well as the basement of the Twin Towers, neither of which were hit by any planes. 9/11 conspiracy theorists that believe in the official government conspiracy theory conveniently ignore this.
7. Molten steel was analyzed in the FEMA report*. NIST completely ignored it and called it “irrelevant to their investigation.”
*http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
NEW YORK (Fortune) — In promoting his health-care agenda, President Obama has repeatedly reassured Americans that they can keep their existing health plans — and that the benefits and access they prize will be enhanced through reform.
A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy’s Health committee, contradict the President’s assurances. To be sure, it isn’t easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language. But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.
1. Determine what the other person is saying. Clarify all confusion about his argument. Eliminate all equivocation. Ambiguity in language is routinely used to cloak a false belief in a true belief, leaving you with either two options: either attack the true belief, thereby attacking yourself as well as your opponent, or refuse to attack the false belief to salvage the true belief, thereby letting the oppenent win.
2. Address the claims that are most concrete before addressing the claims that are most abstract. The reason for this is that people have limited attention spans, and are less willing to patiently form and examine the abstract concept of which you speak. This is important because a chain is as strong as its weakest link. Because it is easier to disprove a concrete argument than it is an abstract argument, you might as well disprove the concrete part of the argument, thereby doing away with your opponent’s argument. He would then attempt to reconstruct his argument, which you can attempt to foil once again. Only in written form may you lay out all layers of your argument at once. Thus, it is preferably to debate in written form than in oral form.
3. If the debate cannot be resolved within the time constraints, refer people to sources from which they can conduct their own research on the matter. In this manner, you can forfeit the debate without worrying about having lost the debate.
The following is an example of the Order of Debate in use. The section in the Order that is used is indicated after the rebuttal. From here on out, the “Confederate flag” is short for the “Confederate battle flag”:
“The Confederate flag was used to intimidate blacks.”
“What do you mean by ‘intimidate blacks.’” [1]
“The Confederate flag was used to scare blacks.”
“How was it used to scare blacks?” [1]
“The KKK waved it, and it is a universal reminder of the problem of slavery.”
“The official flag of the KKK is the stars and stripes; not the stars and bars. The vast majority of the chapters of the KKK wave the stars and stripes.” [2]
“But it’s still associated with the KKK and slavery.”
“Who associates it with the KKK and slavery?” [1]
“The blacks.”
“Any negro who associates with the KKK is wrong to do so. Any negro who associates it with slavery and nothing else is wrong to do so. It would be the fault of the negro for his misinterpretation of the flag, not the flag itself.” [2]
“Yes, but that’s what the negroes associate it with.”
“That’s their faults. They should stop doing that.” [2]
“But why shouldn’t they associate the flag with racism and slavery if racism and slavery was prevalent in the South?”
“I do not agree with your use of the word ‘racism.’ Judging by how you use the word, I have reason to believe that you are a racist. America was, for the most part, not racist in those days.” [2]
“Of course it was.”
“Of course it wasn’t.” [2]
“Are you saying that there wasn’t prejudice towards negroes in those days, in the South?”
“There is and always will be prejudice towards every race on earth. Prejudice is simply a belief that you have about someone based on external factors.” [1]
“The South was exceptionally racist in those days.”
“Racism was not prevalent in those days, and the north and the South shared the same basic view of the races. To be exact, the north was more racist than the South.” [1, 2]
“How so?”
“The proper definition of racism is that it is dishonesty about race. The South had a more accurate opinion of the average negro than the north. Therefore, the South was less racist than the north. And both the north and the South had a more accurate opinion of the negro in those days. Thus, today’s America is more racist than yesterday’s America.” [1]
“How so?”
“It is not true that all of the races are mentally equal. People today pretend that they are. Therefore, people today are racist. They are more racist than ever before. Yesterday, people were much more honest with themselves about the mental differences between the races. People were must more honest about race in those days. The Southrons were more honest than the Yankees. Therefore, the Confederate flag does not represent racism. Rather, it represents the opposite of racism. As for whether it represents slavery, what do you mean by ‘represents slavery’? What about slavery does it represent?” [1, 2]
“It represents that slavery is good and that it should be instituted.”
“The Confederate flag does not represent that, and it is immoral to believe otherwise. Though slavery was legal there, it was legal throughout all of America at the federal level. Furthermore, the north was actively involved in the slave trade. The Confederate cause was not to maintain the institution of slavery. Did they maintain the institution of slavery at that time? Yes. But that wasn’t the reason that the South sought to secede. Similarly, the Confederates dressed in gray, but dressing in gray was not the reason that the South wanted to secede.” [2]
“The stars and stripes also, to a lesser degree, represent slavery.”
“Every nation on Earth has dealt in the slave trade. The only question is: how humane was the treatment of the slaves. There is evidence to suggest that the Southerners treated negroes better than the northerners. See Alexis de Toqueville’s Democracy in America in which he states that race relations were better in the South than they were in the north. So why should the Confederate states represent slavery? Why doesn’t every flag in the world represent slavery? Why should the flag of a nation that was one of the best in how it treated its slaves be singled out as a representation of slavery?” [2]
“The South was actively practicing slavery. The northern states abolished it.”
“That’s not entirely true, either. And the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t free the slaves in the northern holdings. It only freed the slaves in the CSA, as a wartimes measure, of course.” [2]
“You’re splitting hairs. The South practiced slavery and for that reason the flag represents slavery to the negroes, and it intimidates them for that reason.”
“The flag ought not be a symbol of slavery, because that wasn’t the Southern cause. The Southern cause was liberty and sovereignty.” [2]
“For White people.”
“No. The Southern cause was not liberty and sovereignty for White people. It was liberty and sovereignty for the individual Southerner. Of course, the individual Southern who would enjoy liberty would be White, but the race of the individual Southerner was not a motivating factor in the push for secession. You imply that slavery was the motive for secession. It wasn’t. 80-90% of Southerners didn’t even own slaves, and both the Union and the Confederacy had a financial stake in the institution. The war was fought over the issue of taxes, liberty, and sovereignty. Read The South was Right. Learn the facts about why that war was fought, and what the flag properly represents.” [2, 3]
“Hate” is a verb, not a noun. The noun form of the word “hate” is “hatred.”
I hate how fallen Jews such as those at the ADL have abused the English language by using the word ‘hate’ in lieu of ‘hatred,’ because they love to trample on Western Civilization and all of its fruits.
And my hatred is righteous, justified, and good, for it is directed towards evil. Your hatred of my hatred, on the other hand, borders on evil, for you ought not seek to hold back the hand of righteousness. Rather, you ought to do as I do, and seek to hold back the hand of wickedness. Hatred is not necessarily bad. It depends on what you hate. Only an apathetic leftist who has no real love of life and holiness would have no real hatred of death and evil.
Meir Kahane is a role model for what it means to be a real Jew. An interview of him is presented here.
To set the record straight, I now consider myself a Jew, but only because I’ve been practicing the laws consistently enough that I ought to be regarded as “observant,” whereas before I wasn’t.
In my philosophy, the Gentiles have no reason to call anyone but a practicing Jew a “Jew.” The Gentiles don’t go by Jewish law, so why should they care about the rule that if your mother is a Jew, then you are automatically a Jew? That’s also one of the reasons I don’t like the Jews for Jesus. If they reject the Pharisaic laws, then, by definition, they must reject the law that having a Jewish mother qualifies you as a Jew.
This is not nitpicking. This is a matter of life and death. One of my quotations – and you can quote me on this: Language is the most important political issue. If all the Commies and Neo-Con atheists are “Jews,” then the Gentiles have good reason to hate “the Jews” because those “Jews” have indeed been responsible for much economic, political, and cultural devastation. Now, if you want to follow that Jewish law and call them “Jews” to other Jews, that’s fine. But I believe that it is imperative that these people are not called “Jews” in front of Gentiles, who might then use that as an excuse to go after everyone who is called “Jewish.”
However, that leads to the following dilemma: How “observant” must a Jew be to be Jewish? After all, there is a fair amount of debate over what is Jewish law. Furthermore, even if the debate over what is Jewish law were settled, how consistently must one follow Jewish law to be called Jewish? 100%? 99%? 75%?
The answer to this question is important, but it is not a religious issue. It is a philosophical issue. It is question of how a Gentile word should be defined, and Gentile language is outside the scope of Jewish law. Now, if halachic Jews want to define this Gentile word in terms of “yehudim” because they find it convenient to do so, that’s fine. But that is a specifically Jewish way of defining the term. And again, the Gentiles should not define a “Jew” in this way. But how should Gentiles define a “Jew”, especially when they do not understand Jewish law?
To answer to the question of how a Gentile should define a “Jew,” I offer the following definition which Gentile can easily understand: a “Jew” is someone who intends to follow the Ten Commandments in a manner consistent with at least the minimally stringent halachot. If they need clarification on this, it would be the manner in which any of the Talmudic sages (Chazal) followed the Commandments. (The sages can be those of either the Jerusalem or Babylonian Talmuds.)
Thus, those who do not observe Shabbat in accordance with any of the Jewish traditions breaks one of the Ten Commandments, and therefore should not be called a “Jew” by a Gentile. Of course, a practicing Jew who defines you as “Jewish” if you either a) have a Jewish mother or b) converted to the religion, will define you as “Jewish” even if you become a Christian. But Gentiles ought not to define Jews in this way, lest they attack real Jews who do not murder or steal and who are not a menace to society.
This is not to say that every halachic Jew who is non-observant is evil or bad. Of course, most of them are. But it is an important distinction to be made in the interest of a genuine public understanding of the Jews. E.g., failure to make and to understand this distinction led to the Jewish Internment of WWII.
I think that Kahane didn’t address the Khazar issue as I would have done so. But that’s just because he probably didn’t research the matter.
He should’ve said, “Yes, we’re Khazars. So what? We’re still Jews. You can convert to Judaism. And converts are just as Jewish as the direct descendants of the original Jews.”
As for why people would hate Jews, there is a reason. Indeed, there is a reason for everything. Things don’t just happen. The only thing that “just happens” is existence. Just because you don’t know the answer to something, doesn’t mean that answer doesn’t exist. And if I have to be the only man on the face of this sorry planet who understands anti-Semitism, then so be it.
The reason that a Goy would hate “the Jews” is any combination of a) religious intolerance or b) righteous indignation towards those who are improperly called “Jews.” For example, I think EVERYONE should hate what many “Jews” have been doing. But those people are not properly called “Jews.”
Insofar as Jew-hatred is caused by religious intolerance, then of course it’s wrong. People shouldn’t take religion that seriously.
But insofar as Jew-hatred is caused by a Karl Marx and a thousand other evil “Jews” who have done such a terrific job of destroying the world with their Leftism, then that is caused by a misunderstanding of what it means to be a Jew.
Now, anyone who insists on hating the Jews after they learn the difference between a real Jew and a fake Jew is obviously hating Jews for the former reason rather than the latter reason. And those people are evil. But there is no doubt that the evil works of Leftists and Zionists have stoked the fires of Jew-hatred above and beyond that which would be caused by mere religious intolerance.
Believe it or not, the Germans got along just fine with the Jews before the Commies started ruining Germany socially, culturally, and politically. Thus, the Jewish Internment was indeed caused by Leftists who are halachic Jews. But it was also caused by the Germans who failed to distinguish between real/good Jews and fake/bad Jews. Indeed, many Germans were good, and protected the Jews, because they did make this distinction.
As for the ultimate solution to the problem of Jew-hatred, in a word, it’s wisdom. And don’t tell me that Gentiles cannot learn to be wise. Just as the Leftist “Jews” have brought down civilizations with their control over the media and academe, they can raise (or could have raised) those civilizations. In other words, if every Jew had my philosophy of life for the last 200 years, then there would not have been a “Holocaust,” a “9/11,” a war in Iraq, the election of Obongo the Mindless Mulatto, and just the general decline and fall of Western Civilization. Rather, Western Civilization would be at its peak right now.
Western Civilization is primarily a product of Christianity, and secondarily the product of Greco-Roman traditions. Christianity is not in direct opposition to Judaism. To the contrary, Christianity and Judaism have profound similarities. E.g. both are pro-life, pro-God, and anti-theft. It’s Leftism that is in direct opposition to Jewish ethics. Furthermore, Judaism has actually been influence by Greek philosophy. A passion for logic and knowledge is not a bad thing; it’s a good thing. And that is a positive attribute that runs through Western and Jewish traditions.
I agree with most of what Kahane says. I just disagree with the following points:
-How he addresses the issue of the Khazars.
-His facts/figures on the “Holocaust.”
-His desire to call the instinct for self-defense “normal,” taking after the Leftist/psychiatric complex’s obsession with “normality” as the standard of mental health.
Besides these three disagreements – all of which are irrelevant to Kahane’s main points – I agree with virtually everything that Kahane says in the interview. Indeed, I am a big fan of Kahane. My main rabbi – Rav Dovid bar Chaim – taught at Kahane’s yeshiva, and has a similar philosophy.
Active, The American Constitution and Capitalism Defense Front, is a permanent and enduring organization of American citizens dedicated to maintaining the foundational principles of the United States of America, as initiated by its Declaration of Independence and realized by its Constitution and economic system of free-market capitalism.
PHOENIX — A Social Security Administration motivational management conference held at a high-end Valley resort last week cost $700,000, the SSA told the ABC15 Investigators.
Costs for the conference at the Arizona Biltmore Resort & Spa included airfare, hotel entertainment, dancers, motivational speakers, and food, an administration official said.
A spokesperson outside the SSA’s Phoenix office declined to comment.
In the absence of my being there in New York City to stand with the 9/11 families, first responders and survivors, I offer the following statement in support of your goal of a new investigation into the attacks of September 11th and the NYC CAN campaign to place it on the ballot for November.
At the time of 9-11, I had been an FBI agent for over 20 years. My main responsibilities by then were teaching criminal procedure to FBI agents and other law enforcement officers, mostly about 4th Amendment search and seizure, 5th and 6th Amendment law of interrogation, right to attorney and constitutional protection of rights to “free speech”, due process, habeas corpus, and against cruel and unusual punishment. A week before 9-11, I and the rest of the FBI’s ethics instructors were mandated (as a result of an earlier public FBI scandal) to give a one hour PowerPoint presentation, a form of remedial training on “law enforcement ethics” which I accomplished in a fairly perfunctory way, just reading the slides.
We’ve never had an Official U.S. Senate Pornographer before, though pornographic behavior is frequently the entertainment provided to the public by the world’s oldest deliberative body. So Al Franken, the answer to Harry Reid’s prayer, should fit right in.
Some of the Democrats can’t wait to see what mischief they can do. “With the Minnesota recount complete,” Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said after the Minnesota robbery was completed, “it is now clear that Al Franken won the election.”
Actually, it wasn’t clear at all, but clarity is never valued among thieves. The Democrats in the Senate were eager to get Al seated quickly, both for crucial Senate votes coming up and because once seated among his equals, a bum is difficult to throw out.
There’s honor among the members of our only native criminal class, similar to the honor among robbers, burglars and other servants of the night. The difference, and it’s only a slight one, is that robbers, burglars and thieves often hold themselves to higher standards than members of Congress.
Meanwhile, “Jane Roe” was arrested protesting leftist Peurto Rican diva bitch Sotamayor’s confirmation hearing. A pox on those who touched her. A pox on the La-La-Latina. And a pox on the Bongo.
The Left defines racism as the belief that all the races are not equal, and sexism as the belief that all the sexes are not equal. So if you believe that the average intelligences of the races varies, or that men and women differ mentally as well as physically, and that those differences inform us of the gender roles, then you are deemed a sexist. But the most fundamental definition of a racist is “someone who is dishonest about the races.” Similarly, the most fundamental definition of a sexist is “someone who is dishonest about the sexes.” Thus, the Left merely misapplies those definitions to suit their egalitarian worldview.
What I would like to explore is how the Left is even able to get away with this. I understand why they have an egalitarian worldview: it’s because they lack knowledge of the meaning and purpose of life, and so they make a default judgment of equality on matters such as those of the races and the sexes. But this does not explain how they or anyone else can make sense of those who do not share those beliefs. For example, if a sexist, according to the leftist definition, is supposed to be a man who is intolerant of women in authority, then why would such a man exist? Why would a man ever be intolerant of a woman in authority? It doesn’t make sense for a man to feel that way. If a man is the employer who hired the woman, then of course the man is tolerance of the “woman of authority.” And if the woman helps bring the company business, and lead the company in the right direction, then of course male employees of a female boss would be tolerance of the “woman of authority.”
In other words, LEFTISM CAN’T EXPLAIN THOSE PEOPLE WHO AREN’T LEFTIST.
Similarly, there is no man on the face of the earth who hates Negroes or Mexicans or other racial groups just because they look different. That would make no sense whatsoever. It is obvious that because of the profoundly higher legal and moral crime rates of the lower races such as Negroes, you’d have to be delusional not to be the least bit resentful that these people were a) allowed in this country in the first place, and b) kept in this country after they came here. Anyone with half an ounce of common sense knows that this country would be so much better without the Negroes, and perhaps other races as well.
The rightist argument MAKES SENSE. The leftist argument DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. How does someone wake up one day and decide for absolutely no reason to hate all “women of authority” and all people who look different? It’s an insane thesis, and it is backed by nothing. So why does it linger in the public establishment like a bad virus?
The only possible way to make sense of the leftist mind is to boil it down to Freudian sexuality. Supposedly, if women are “in authority” it is harder to bed these women. And if inferior races are among us, then allegedly this results in sexual competition from those inferior races. However, this hypothesis is completely baseless. In other words, it is a myth, a fairy tale, a flight of fancy. There is no basis to it whatsoever.
For example, women who are financially independent do not suddenly lose interest in men just because they have money in the bank. Any wise and healthy woman would want to have children, regardless of how much money she has in the bank. In fact, women of superior intelligence should desire more children than those who are less intelligent, because there should me more children with more intelligence in the world. Furthermore, a wealthy woman doesn’t lose interest in men per se either.
The only way that financial independence changes the mating game is that it allows more sexually disordered women who have no interest in men to stay out of the dating game without having to worry about marrying a man for his money. But no remotely wise man desires these unhealthy women anyway. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Most women don’t fit into this category. Most women have heterosexual needs – physical and mental – just like most men. And as time goes on, mentally, physically, or sexually unhealthy women would be filtered out of the gene pool anyway.
As for the implication that there is some kind of sexual competition coming from the lower races, and that this is a cause of concern, this too makes no sense. Inferior races are inferior. Their intelligence levels are lower, and their physical attributes do not compensate for that deficiency. Physically attractive men can be found in any race, so as to make any average physical differences negligible at best. But the mental differences are not negligible. Indeed, anyone who belongs to the superior race can find a better mate within his or her race. Thus, it is easy to see that there is no reason for men from superior races to envy men from inferior races.
But this fairy tale of “sexual control,” which is loosely inspired by the work of Sigmund Freud, one of the most destructive and evil fallen Jews of modern times, is based on nothing but hot air. It is the attempt by nihilist pseudo-philosophers like Freud to knock the wisdom right out of the minds of the common people by stripping the people of their religion and philosophy, and by attempting to justify why the common sense of the past is wrong.
After all, fallen Jews like Freud, Marx, and Wittgenstein weren’t just ignorant of the truth in their own right; they deliberately campaigned to undermine Western Civilization with the destruction of religion and family values, such as those possessed by their religious Jewish cousins. Why? In order to eliminate the religious intolerance that is at the heart of Jew-hatred. However, it’s a ONE WAY road, and this is the WRONG WAY to go about business. This is the precisely opposite manner in which people should promote religious tolerance. Rather, the right way to address that problem is not to SUBTRACT wisdom from the masses, but to ADD wisdom to the masses.
It is because these JINOs (Jews in name only) were fallen from the faith that they lost touch with reality and morality such that they would lead such evil campaigns as those summarized by the term “Leftism.” In other words, as a result tha they didn’t have wisdom to offer the people, they didn’t know how to build knowledge and civility; only to destroy it. But ignorance of the law of God is no excuse. Indeed, ignorance of the law of God is the root of all evil. And if God has to put evil fools out of their misery because they were too stupid and foolish to acquaint themselves with His laws, then so be it.
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America. (more…)
