Police release video of Black on White Mob beating in Detroit

We reported earlier about a mob of blacks that brutally assaulted several white people near Detroit. Several racially motivated assaults took place in a short about of time. One victim is still in the hospital with a fractured skull.

The story has been contained to the local media, who will not even mention that all the attackers were black and all the victims white. Just imagine if a mob of white people rampaged through a city assaulting any black person they could get their hands on. It would be a national news story within hours.

However, whites are being beaten or murdered everyday in racially motivated attacks. The media completely ignores it.

Watch the video: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/16461498/detail.html#

Hillary Clinton’s “Pastor” and Lucifer

In light of the guilt by association being thrust on Obama because of Jeremiah Wright, and John McCain receiving an endorsement from Pastor John Hagee, Hillary Clinton also has a ‘Pastor’ by the name of Saul Alinsky.  Though passed away, the effects of this relationship are very evident in the professional and political life of Mrs. Clinton.

A Pastor is a mentor and and a shepherd.  One who leads and guides the flock into ‘truth’.

Saul Alinsky was the author of 2 noteable works “Revielle for Radicals” and “Rules for Radicals”.  Both are considered standard reference works regarding pragmatic activism by the hard-left in America.

Saul Alinsky had a star pupil: Hillary Clinton.  Hillary Clinton thought so highly of this mentor, that a thesis was written about him as a dissertation.  So, Alinsky was more than a run of the mill educator to Hillary.

Here is the real rub:  In the preface of “Rules for Radicals”, Alinsky dedicates the volume to Lucifer.  He is very specific about the existance of Lucifer and leaves no doubt as it being the Lucifer of the Christian Bible.

So, Hillary’s mentor was a Satanist.  This indeed provides answers to her methods, morals, and ability to destroy people without care or consideration beyond her own selfish world.  This explains the absolute lust for power that will attempt to use any tactic without regard to rules or ethics.

Such was the way of Saul Alinsky.
Such was the way of Lucifer.
Such is the way of Hillary Clinton.

John Raterink
Caledonia, MI 
(269) 945-5079

 

Illegal Immigrant receives 10-15 years for death of boy

CENTREVILLE — A man who authorities suspect is an illegal immigrant was sentenced Monday to 10 to 15 years in prison for a hit-and-run crash that killed a 14-year-old Mendon boy.

Sergio Onofre, 21, of Three Rivers, pleaded no contest in April to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, causing death and failure to stop at the scene of an accident resulting in death. Police have said Onofre was driving a Ford Mustang that ran off M-60 in Park Township at about 6:25 p.m. Feb. 17 and struck Daniel P. Turner. Onofre then crashed his car and fled on foot.

St. Joseph County Prosecutor Douglas Fisher said the sentence by Circuit Judge Paul Stutesman was the “legal maximum allowed by law.” He said the judge departed from guidelines “because of (Onofre’s) actions at the crime scene, his failure to recognize his alcoholism and his failure to show remorse and had nothing to do with his illegal-alien status or national origin.”

Police have said Onofre provided information to St. Joseph County Sheriff’s Office investigators that has led them to believe he is in the United States illegally.

Michigan passes Bill to Curb Illegal Immigrant hiring

LANSING — The state House on Tuesday voted to require that companies getting state contracts and economic development incentives hire Michigan workers.

The legislation also could force vendors that knowingly hire illegal immigrants to give up and potentially pay back payments they have received.

New construction contracts would have to require that 100 percent of workers on a project be Michigan residents for one year before starting work. The current requirement is 50 percent.

“We’ve got to fight for every single job,” said Rep. Fred Miller, D-Mount Clemens, the lead sponsor of the 12-bill package that passed mostly along party lines.

Republicans objected that some bills could allow companies with unionized labor to move employees from out of state into Michigan more easily than could companies without unionized employees.

“It’s full of exemptions,” said House Minority Leader Craig DeRoche, R-Novi.

Democrats responded that existing law already includes language exempting employers who have collective bargaining agreements letting employees move from state to state.

Republicans also complained that Democrats rejected their attempts to tie the legislation to bills that would repeal a surcharge added to the state’s new business tax last year and go after illegal immigrants. One amendment would have barred state contracts for cities that adopt “sanctuary” policies and refuse to cooperate with immigration authorities.

Democrats in turn accused Republicans of “making political hay” at the 11th hour while other groups such as the Michigan Chamber of Commerce worked to get its concerns addressed.

The bills are headed to the Republican-led Senate.

___

The Michigan worker bills are House bills 5780-5791

Pansies Protest Iraq War in Grand Rapids

GRAND RAPIDS — This was not their grandfather’s Memorial Day parade. Nor was it their parents’ peace protest.

More than 100 people, most of them in their 20s, lay on a sidewalk in front of Calder Plaza on Saturday as part of “Bodies Against the War,” a demonstration aimed at protesting the war in Iraq.

Most wore white T-shirts on which they spray-painted “133,241,” their estimate of the total death toll for civilians and soldiers in the Iraqi conflict.

Comment:
These people had made chalk lines around their bodies representing DOA images.  What is ironic about all of these war protests, is that no mention was made for the victims of 9-11, nor protesting the situation that has led to this war in Afghanistan or Iraq: Radical Islam.

These liberals are the first to protest a defense of America, and a strong military.  They are too cowardly to protest something truly dangerous like Socialism and Radical Islam.  A little trip around the world can be an eye opening experience to those blinded by the ‘benefits’ of Islam and Communism.  We need to fight these threats with all we have if we are to have a future of Liberty for our children.

The Rise of the European Right against Islam

New Italian mayor, a member of the Secessionist League of the North party, halts plans to construct Mosque in the city of Italian city. Has Islamic “prayer center” bulldozed, names the once future site of the Mosque after a famous Italian conservative.

From International News…

This decision was taken by the committee of Oppeano (Verona, Italy), where yesterday morning a building used by Muslims for prayer was bulldozed. In its place, the Municipality will create a public square named after the writer of The Rage and the Pride, which promoted a bitter campaign against Islam.

The decision to raze the structure which had been opened by ONLUS [translator’s note: Organizzazione Non Lucrativa di Utilita’ Sociale, a non-profit registered Italian charity] “For the success of Muslims”, was taken by the municipal administration, which acquired the area for €70,000 in order to transform it into an open area for parking and green space.

“My citizens did not want this takeover,” explained the mayor, Alessandro Montagnoli, deputy of the Lega Nord, “above all because it could create problems of practicability and cohabitation with the residents.”

Site once earmarked for a large Mosque, will now be called Oriana Fallaci square. Fallaci is one of Italy’s most famous journalists, and one of Europe’s most famous female journalists. She joined armed Anti-Mussolini partisans at age 15 and became a professional journalist at age 16. In 1967 she became a war correspondent in Vietnam.

She once nailed Henry Kissinger to the wall so bad that Kissinger stated afterward, ” that was the single most disastrous conversation I have ever had with the press.”

She passed away two years ago and is now denounced by the left-wing European media. Before her death she rallied against illegal immigration in the United States. She recounted tales of her own horrifying experiences in Mexico and urged Americans to keep them out of the United States.

Hundreds of Christian New Testament Bibles Burned in Israel

CofCC.org News Team

From FOX News…

Orthodox Jews have burned hundreds of New Testaments in the latest act of violence against Christian missionaries in Israel.

Uzi Aharon, the deputy mayor of the central Israeli town of Or Yehuda, says he got into a loudspeaker car last Thursday and urged people to turn over hundreds of New Testaments and missionary material recently distributed by missionaries.

The books were dumped into a pile and religious students set them afire in a lot near a synagogue, he said.

The Maariv newspaper reported Tuesday that hundreds of students took part in the book-burning.

Spike Lee attacks Clint Eastwood for not including Black “Heroes”

 Mythological claims about the accomplishments of the all black Tuskegee Airmen were recently exposed all fabrications when historians actually researched the claims for a high profile award ceremony last year.

The re-writing of history to suit race hustlers.
by Kyle Rogers

The push is on to create fictional black WWII heroes. “Spike” Lee, a race hustling movie director who’s fame is based mainly on the fact that he is black, attacked Clint Eastwood for not putting fictitious black heroes in his WWII movies.

However, Lee’s true motive is to promote his own Afro-Mythology film on WWII. Spike Lee has directed a movie titled, “Miracle at St Anna” which portrays fictional accomplishments of the all black 92nd Buffalo Division in Italy. Spike Lee is playing the race card to shamelessly promote his new movie.

CofCC.org reported in the past about how mythological accomplishments of the all-black Tuskegee Airmen were exposed as total fabrications.

Cultural Marxists and race hustlers are now claiming that the all black Units of the 92nd Buffalo Division saved the day in Italy during WWII.

In reality, the all black units were only sent into combat late in the war to fight the severely diminished German Army in Northern Italy. They were only used to attack enemy positions after white soldiers had battered the Germans down for months. They were not even deployed overseas until the end of September in 1944, three and a half months after D-Day. They primarily served by participating in patrols along with segregated units from British and French colonies in Africa.

The Division was used twice against the last line of German defenses in Northern Italy late in the war. The so-called Gothic Line. The use of the black troops was supposed to have been a propaganda move to make the black soldiers look good. By this time the Germans were down to poorly outfitted draftees, and their defenses were wearing down fast. Both times the black units fled in disarray and suffered huge disproportionate casualties by the rag-tag remnant of the German army.

The move was similar to Civil War battles in which Union Generals were ordered by the Lincoln administration to use black soldiers. The results were usually a disaster. During the Battle of the Crater, Union Generals received orders demanding that black troops be used in an assault. The black soldiers fell into disarray and the Union lines fell apart leading to a major late war Confederate victory in which the Union suffered 5 casualties for every 1 Confederate.

Another example was made into a movie staring Morgan Freeman called Glory. Two white Union regiments in a row were ordered to charge Fort Moultrie. A black unit was in third, in hopes that the Fort would not survive a third assault and create a chance for a propaganda victory for black union soldiers. Instead, half the black regiment was annihilated by starving, shoeless Confederates who had to scavenge gun powder off dead Yankees just to fire their Muskets.

During the Congressional debate on the integration of the Armed Forces, several US Generals testified on the disastrous performance of the black soldiers in Italy. They said that it would be wrong to place blacks in combat units with whites, because they would not perform at the same level as the whites.

Today the role of blacks in the US military more closely mirrors the Confederate Army than an “integrated” force. Very few black Confederate participated in combat. They served as teamsters, laborers, cooks, and the like.

Today the United State armed forces are disproportionately black. Most estimates claim the armed forces are 20% or more black despite making up about 12.5% of the population as a hole. However, the Elite combat forces, aviators, and high-tech oriented jobs have only token numbers of blacks. Among non-combat service oriented jobs it is not uncommon to see units in the Army that are half black. This despite a massive 60 year effort to “integrate” the military which is still going strong today. I remember about seven or eight years ago when the Commandant of the United States Marine Corps was viciously attacked on national television simply for stating that blacks have trouble passing the marksmanship and the swimming tests at boot camp.

It seems people tend to go to positions that they are most suited for. Why not let blacks serve in ways they are most suited. Why do we have to “integrate” and make up fictional stories about black war heroes that never existed to justify it? Only a tiny percentage of white men would ever be able to qualify to be a Navy Seal. So if an even much smaller percentage of blacks are suitable to be a Navy Seal, why is that such a terrible thing to admit?

Might I remind everyone of the Battle of Blood River in which 146 Dutch farmers armed with muskets and two cannons were attacked by 10,000 Zulus and the Zulu army was crushed?

Gay Marriage was inevitable by James Edwards

Gay marriage was inevitable

I haven’t written about the big gay marriage ruling by the CA Supreme Court yet. I’m sure you’re all aware of it, so I didn’t need to bring it to your attention. I’ve been more interested in reading the reactions of Christians and conservatives all over the internet. Needless to say, they’re outraged and disgusted, by and large. Not to mention shocked. Because California’s the big one. Eleven percent of the entire American population lives in California, and it has an inordinate amount of influence on the rest of the country. As goes California, so goes the nation. That’s the old saying, and there’s a lot of truth in it.

And that’s one of the reasons the right wing culture warriors are so shocked. They know that if this ruling stands, it likely means that gay marriage is here to stay, and soon will be the law of the land throughout the country. They’re mounting a campaign to pass an amendment to the California constitution in November, but that’s by no means a guarantee of reversing this ruling. First, they could fail to get the amendment ratified by the voters. Second, the amendment could be ratified, and then be found unconstitutional itself by the courts. A lot of people are under the impression that an amendment to the CA constitution is automatically “constitutional”, but many legal scholars are warning that that’s not the case. You can’t pass an amendment barring Asians from voting, for example; it would be nullified as conflicting with the CA constitution, not to mention federal laws. So, the amendment route to reversing gay marriage is hardly a sure thing. On top of that, November is months away, and even if the amendment passes, it will take weeks or months to take effect. But in a little over three weeks, homosexuals can begin marrying in California. By the time November rolls around, thousands and thousands of gay marriage will have taken place. If the amendment passes, these existing marriages are going to have to be taken into account, and it’s going to be a real mess. My guess is that if the amendment passes, the courts will basically say it’s a violation of the constitution, and/or that the thousands of existing gay marriages make it an unworkable law and a moot point, and they’ll throw it out. (Opponents of gay marriage recognize that, and they’re going to ask the court for a stay of their ruling, but many observers think it’s unlikely to be granted.) I think a lot of the culture warriors know this, too. They’re talking tough, but they’re whistling past the graveyard. The ones with any sense know the battle to ban gay marriage is pretty much over.

Well, the Christians and conservatives may be disgusted and outraged, but they shouldn’t be shocked. Race realists have seen this day coming for a long time. It was inevitable given our mad national lust for equality, the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, and the precedents set by court cases concerning interracial marriage. If a person actually sits down and reads the rulings from courts that have thrown out laws against interracial marriage, it’s difficult to understand on what grounds the CA and MA courts could have ruled otherwise than they have on gay marriage. The surprising thing isn’t that they could rule that gay marriage should be legal; on the contrary, it’s what took them so long to do it.

The cultural conservatives like to say that the courts in MA and CA have begun tinkering with the age old definition of marriage, but that’s not the case at all. The courts in this country began tinkering with the commonly accepted definition of marriage way back in 1948, when the California Supreme Court declared the state law banning interracial marriage unconstitutional on the basis of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution in the Perez case. At that time, interracial marriage was extremely rare, and the vast majority of states didn’t allow the practice. After the ruling, Gallup took a national poll, and 95% of white Americans said they disapproved of interracial marriage. They were as disgusted and outraged with interracial marriage as today’s Christians and conservatives are with gay marriage. Even in 1967, when the US Supreme Court invalidated all anti-miscegenation laws anywhere as unconstitutional in the Loving vs. VA case, the vast majority of white Americans still disapproved of interracial marriage.

The Focus on the Family types also like to say that homosexual marriage came about because of our rejection of God, and flows naturally from the same judicial activism that gave us legal abortion. But they never mention the rulings on interracial marriage that set the very precedents that the gay marriage ruling are based on. They can’t; unlike previous generations of Christians, today’s evangelicals profess to love interracial marriage. They condemn anyone who opposes it as a “racist” or a “hater” or a “bigot”. (Never mind that that means just about 100% of the Christians in America in 1948 were racists and haters and bigots.) So they have to deny the obvious, and they do - they claim that legalizing interracial marriage was not only just and fair and the Christian thing to do, but also that it in no way led to gay marriage being legalized.

Which is simply absolute nonsense. Anyone can go read the full opinion of the case in Massachusetts that led to gay marriage being legal there. Here’s the ruling. Go through and see how many times the judges refer to Loving vs. VA. I’ll save you the trouble - it’s 25. (They also refer to the Perez case 12 times.) It’s no exaggeration to say that the Goodridge ruling was clearly based on the precedents set in Loving and Perez rulings. And not only are the rulings the same, the arguments of the plaintiffs and defendants are almost exactly the same in both cases.

In 1948, and 1967, the legal argument for interracial marriage basically boiled down to this: Laws against interracial marriage are unconstitutional because the 14th amendment says everyone should be treated equally. If a white man can marry a white woman, but a black man isn’t allowed to marry a white woman, then they aren’t being treated equally, and the law is unjust.

The argument against interracial marriage went like this: No, the laws against interracial marriage are perfectly constitutional, and treat everyone equally. Everyone is free to marry within their race, whether they’re black or white. There’s absolutely no discrimination.

In the gay marriage cases, the legal argument in favor of it boiled down to this: Laws against interracial marriage are unconstitutional because the 14th amendment says everyone should be treated equally. If a man is allowed to marry a woman, but a woman isn’t allowed to marry a woman, then they’re not being treated equally, and the law is unjust.

The argument against gay marriage went like this: No, the laws against gay marriage are perfectly constitutional, and treat everyone equally. Everyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex, whether they’re male or female. There’s absolutely no discrimination.

That may sound simplistic, but when you strip away all the “whereas’s” and the “wherefore’s”, that’s pretty much the gist of it. The argument for interracial marriage was the same as the argument for gay marriage. Given the precedents of Perez and Loving, judge’s hands are pretty much tied, and gay marriage was inevitable. And it’s not just me saying it - here’s the New York Times:

In the 1948 case of Perez v. Sharp, the California Supreme Court struck down a ban on interracial marriage.

Chief Justice Ronald M. George quoted from the Perez decision three times while the current court was ruling on the legality of a ban on same-sex marriage. It seemed that the chief justice accepted that the struggle for same-sex marriage closely paralleled that of the struggle to legalize interracial marriages, reports the New York Times. When the California Supreme Court majority found Thursday that same-sex couples had a right to marry, they cited Perez.

Opponents of same-sex marriage are uncomfortable with the analogy, reports the New York Times. Monte Stewart, president of the Marriage Law Foundation, says the parallel only works on the surface. “Marriage in its deep logic has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the union of a man and a woman,” said Stewart.

The Perez decision came long before the rest of the nation started desegregation, as another six years would pass before Brown v. Board of Education, where the United States Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that segregated schools violated the Constitution. Thirteen years would pass before the U.S. Supreme Court would also strike down bans on interracial marriage in the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, according to the New York Times.

As the Perez decision occurred so long before the rest of the nation’s attempts at equality, the history of interracial marriage restrictions can be viewed in two ways. The Perez court can be said to have started the wave of equality with an early decision in the right direction. Or, it can be said that the court overrode the democratic process in making a decision most of the country was not yet willing to embrace.

Here’s more from the NYT:

The Supreme Court was the first state high court to strike down a law barring interracial marriage, in a 1948 decision called Perez v. Sharp. The vote in Perez, like the one in Thursday’s decision, was 4 to 3. The United States Supreme Court did not follow suit until 1967.

At present, six of the seven justices on the California court, including all the dissenters, were appointed by Republican governors.

The decision was rooted in two rationales, and both drew on the Perez case.

The first was that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right.

“The right to marry,” Chief Justice George wrote, “represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with a person of one’s choice and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual.”

Chief Justice George conceded that “as an historical matter in this state marriage has always been restricted to a union between a man and a woman.” But “tradition alone,” he continued, does not justify the denial of a fundamental constitutional right. Bans on interracial marriage were, he wrote, sanctioned by the state for many years.

In a second rationale from the interracial case, the court struck down the laws banning same-sex marriage on equal protection grounds, also adopting a new standard of review in the process.

When courts weigh whether distinctions among people or groups violate the right to equal protection they generally require just a rational basis for the distinction, a relatively easy standard to meet. But when the discrimination is based on race, sex or religion, the courts generally require a more substantial justification.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation, the majority ruled on Thursday, also requires that sort of more rigorous justification. The court acknowledged that it was the first state high court to adopt the standard, strict scrutiny, in sexual orientation cases.

Lawyers for the state identified two interests to justify reserving the term marriage for heterosexual unions — tradition and the will of the majority. Chief Justice George said neither was sufficient.

Here’s The Boston Globe:

CONGRATULATIONS TO California and all its lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender citizens who have been recognized as equal citizens by the state’s Supreme Court. The California court affirmed its 1948 Perez decision recognizing that the choice of one’s marriage partner is a fundamental right, regardless of race or, in Thursday’s ruling, gender.

Here’s The Sacramento Bee:

Gay marriage ruling has roots in landmark race-based case

By Stephen Magagnini - smagagnini@sacbee.com
Published 12:00 am PDT Tuesday, May 20, 2008

The California Supreme Court’s historic ruling legalizing gay marriage has its roots in the case of a Mexican American woman who 60 years ago fought for the right to marry an African American man.

Andrea Perez and Sylvester Davis were denied a marriage license in Los Angeles County because state law at the time banned interracial unions.

So Perez took her case to the California Supreme Court. In October 1948 judges struck down California’s anti-miscegenation law, which had stated: “All marriages of white persons with negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race, or mulattoes are illegal and void.”

Last Thursday, state Chief Justice Ron George, in his majority opinion, cited “this court’s landmark decision 60 years ago” in the Perez case, which upheld “the fundamental constitutional right to marry” regardless of race.

George noted that the court didn’t just strike down laws against interracial marriage that had existed since statehood. The Perez decision focused on “the importance to an individual of the freedom ‘to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice.’ “

No, there’s nothing shocking about gay marriage. The only people who were surprised were the ones who having been paying attention, while they’ve been busy praising interracial marriage and equality to high heaven. Which pretty much describes most conservatives and Christians for the last 30 years. And they shouldn’t be shocked in a few years, when the same courts start stripping away their tax exemptions for violating public policy with their anti-gay marriage stance, just like they did to Bob Jones University for banning interracial dating

U.N to investigate America for ‘Racism”

As a reward for paying 22% or more of it’s entire budget, the UN is handing down it’s decrees to the American people. No death penalty, welcome all 3rd world immigrants, special treatment for blacks and Muslims, ban guns, and elect Obama says UN tin hat wannabe tyrants.

According to the New York Sun, the United Nations has decided to investigate the US Presidential election for “racism.” Apparently, if Barack Obama does not become our next president, it means America is a “racist” country.

From New York Sun…

The special rapporteur on “contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance,” Doudou Diène of Senegal, will arrive in America Monday for a two-week tour that will take him to Washington, New York, Chicago, Omaha, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Miami, and San Juan, Puerto Rico, according to the statement.

Mr. Diene “is scheduled to hold meetings with representatives of the government, both at national and local levels, and with members of the legislative and judiciary branches,” the statement said. He will also hobnob with “non-governmental organizations, community members, representatives of political parties, academics, and other organizations and individuals working in the field of racism and discrimination.”

America has accepted Mr. Diene’s request for an investigation. “As an open society, we will not shy away from investigation of our practice,” a spokesman for the American mission to the United Nations, Benjamin Chang, said. “We need to lead by example” in the field of openness to outside investigation, he added.

Last March a special Human Rights Council panel demanded an end to “racial profiling” of Americans of Arab, Muslim, and South Asian descent and to ensure “immigrants and non-nationals are not mistreated,” Reuters reported. It also criticized the use of the death penalty, which it said may be racially-based.

Rapporteurs are independent experts, and they report to the Human Rights Council – a U.N. organ that since its creation two years ago has been heavily criticized in America for concentrating most of its work on Israel. Last week the council failed to convene a meeting to address the growing human devastation in Burma. America has declined to run for a seat on the 47-member council, but it is the largest contributor to its budget. The General Assembly is expected to hold an election for new membership on the Human Rights Council next week.