A federal judge on Wednesday blocked most of Arizona’s anti-immigration law just hours before it was to take effect, spitting in the face of the majority of the American people.
U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton in Phoenix issued a temporary injunction against the parts of the law that would require police to determine the status of people they lawfully stopped and suspected were in the country illegally.

Bolton also ruled that Arizona can not make it a state crime to not carry immigration documents, and struck down two other provisions as an unconstitutional attempt by Arizona to undermine the federal government’s efforts to enforce immigration policy.  What efforts?

Bolton (a Clinton appointee) declared in a 36-page decision that the provisions would have inevitably “swept up” legal immigrants and were “preempted” by the federal government’s immigration authority.

 She also wrote:

The court by no means disregards Arizona’s interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime. 

 But, she added:

It is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws.

It most certainly is, your honor, since the Obama Adminstration refuses to.
By the way, does this mean that Americans don’t have to carry their driver’s license and proof of insurance in their cars anymore?

Gov. Jan Brewer said that there would be a swift appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

We would have liked to have seen it all upheld, but a temporary injunction is not the end of it.   I look at this as a little bump in the road.

Immigrant rights advocates, some of whom had been bussed in for protests after the law takes effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday, were simply joyous.

Lydia Guzman, president of Somos America, or We Are America proclaimed:

It’s a victory for the community.  It means justice will truly prevail.

Not for Arizona Rancher Robert Krentz, God rest his soul.

Half of all people stopped for entering the country illegally are detained on Arizona’s southern border.

Civil rights groups and then the Obama administration sued, after Gov. Brewer signed the law, protesting that the measure would lead to racial profiling and interfere with the federal government’s ability to regulate immigration. 

Obama’s administration does a poor job of regulating immigration now.  And this is not going to help the situation any. 

The Justice Department said in a statement:

While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive .   States can and do play a role in cooperating with the federal government in its enforcement of the immigration laws, but they must do so within our constitutional framework.

Bolton allowed some technical parts of the law to go into effect.  She preserved a clause that forbids any local entity from creating a policy of less than full enforcement of federal immigration laws, as well as a provision that makes it a misdemeanor to block traffic to solicit work or hire a worker, an effort aimed at getting rid of day laborers.

In Arizona, where American citizens cannot even go into some parts of our own National Parks because the Mexican Drug Lords have taken them over, the discussion was less about legal details and more about how illegal immigration has changed the state.

Faye Yanez, 65, a school teacher said:

The state should have a right to take care of the state because the federal government isn’t doing anything.

Preach, sister, preach.

Susie Baker, 53, who remodels homes in Tucson, felt differently:

I am thrilled.  I think Jan Brewer is out of her mind. She is bringing harm to Arizona.

Baker said she often hires Latinos on home projects, and doesn’t ask them their immigration status:

To me, it doesn’t matter.  They are willing to do the work.

Plus, she doesn’t have to pay them as much as American citizens.

Politicians’ reactions were heavily split down party lines (I’m shocked!) on whether they supported the bill.  It received votes from all Republicans in the state Legislature and no Democrats.

The state’s two Republican U.S. senators, John Kyl and John McCain said in a statement that they were disappointed by the ruling:

Instead of wasting tax payer resources filing a lawsuit against Arizona and complaining that the law would be burdensome, the Obama administration should have focused its efforts on working with Congress to provide the necessary resources to support the state in its efforts to act where the federal government has failed to take responsibility.

Outside the federal courthouse in Phoenix, Vice Mayor Michael Nowakowski, a Democrat and strong foe of the law, said debate over SB 1070 had been a political sideshow that didn’t make the state safer. He completely negated the polls showing a majority of voters in Arizona and in the U.S. back the measure.

“Polls are for politicians before elections; they’re not for civil rights,” said Nowakowski, contending that many civil rights laws would have polled poorly in the 1950s and ’60s.

Hey, Mikey!  Let’s look at some of those polls, shall we?  Per rasmussenreports.com:

Fifty-four percent (54%) of U.S. voters say the Justice Department should take legal action against cities that provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants.

Regarding the administration challenging the Arizona law in court, a recent Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% of U.S. voters oppose such a challenge.

Just 26% believe the Justice Department should challenge the legality of Arizona’s law in court. Eighteen percent (18%) are undecided in the survey conducted May 26 and 27.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters, in fact, favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state.

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters believe a police officer should be required to check the immigration status of anyone stopped for a traffic violation or violation of some other law if he suspects the person might be an illegal immigrant.

Arizona voters support the state’s new immigration law overwhelmingly, with 71% in favor of it.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe the federal government by failing to enforce immigration law is more to blame for the current controversy over Arizona’s new statute than state officials are for passing it.

The law’s author, state Sen. Russell Pearce, has predicted in a television interview that the measure will be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote. 

The Supreme Court is already scheduled to consider another Arizona law this fall. That law dissolves any business that repeatedly and knowingly hires illegal immigrants. How they rule in this decision may give us a clue as to its view of SB 1070.

First, Gov. Brewer and the citizens of Arizona will have to take their fight to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,  the most liberal Circuit Court of Appeals in the land.  If they rule against her and her state there, then it’s on to the Supreme Court.  The administration, in its arrogance, seemingly has not cared about the damage that a long, drawn out legal fight could do to the Democrats’ chances in the Mid-term Elections.  Just as it did with Obamacare, this administration is trying to force their view of illegal immigration as a civil rights issue down the throats of the American public.  It is very evident that, in the eyes of this administration, the safety of American citizens comes in a distant second to securing new Hispanic Democrat voters in their brazen effort to keep themselves in power.

Sources:  drudgereport.com, latimes.com

A Mexican man is beaten up and his backpack stolen walking home from a soccer game and the Mexican Government promises:

We will act decisively in order to protect our citizens and will actively promote that those guilty of these vicious attacks are brought to justice expeditiously. We are working hand-in-hand with local authorities on all levels.

Big deal.  Just another day in the chaotic, violent country below our southern border.  Right?

Wrong.  This incident happened in Staten Island , New York, in the good ol’ U.S.A.

Police are investigating the assault in Staten Island as a possible hate crime, and the Mexican government is now getting involved as well.

Five men mugged the 40-year-old Mexican man Friday night as he was walking home after a soccer game at Faber Park, a police spokesperson said. The story is that they beat him while shouting anti-Mexican epithets. The man suffered head trauma, a fractured jaw and needed ten stitches above his eye, officials said.

The men made off with his backpack.

At least the sixth violent, ethnically-charged incident that has taken place in the neighborhood since April has community leaders urging residents to stay alert.

Consul General of Mexico in New York, Ruben Beltran, made the promise to “protect our citizens“ that I alluded to earlier  in an e-mail to the Staten Island Advance.

The muggee is a construction worker who has made the United States  his home (illegally) for the last five years, said Beltran. Police are looking for five suspects in this latest case, which is being investigated as a hate crime.

Beltran has asked the NYPD to “conduct a thorough investigation” of the alleged hate-crime cases. Beltran has offered “extensive cooperation and all the necessary support to ensure that justice is served.”  After all, the victim is a citizen of Mexico.

According to the Advance, this latest incident has promoted the Mexican Consulate to post personnel in Staten Island until further notice. This move is an effort to safeguard the rights of individuals and effectively assist and provide information to the Mexican residents of this area.

The Guardian Angels, lead by Curtis Sliwa, have also promised to patrol the area.  Make the Road New York, a local community group that serves the communities of Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island is organizing a march that will take place on Wednesday.

Mexican officials have also created an information line that for (illegal) immigrants to contact if they are afraid to contact authorities directly, the number is 1-800-724-7264.

Meanwhile, an anti-immigration group want the Obama administration to ensure a safe exodus for illegal immigrants who are fleeing the U.S. due to the weak economy and Arizona’s strict new immigration law.

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) wants Americans to put pressure on the White House and the Homeland Security Department to create “safe departure” border checkpoints along the U.S. border for illegal immigrants so they can flee the country without the threat of being detained or prosecuted for immigration crimes.

 The president of the group, William Gheen, said in a written statement:

The peaceful and gradual exodus of illegals from Arizona shows there is no need for comprehensive immigration reform amnesty.  Comprehensive immigration enforcement works and has the desired effect without mass deportations.

According to Gheen, the safe passage would allow illegals to:

…leave in an orderly fashion, instead of trying risky desert crossings, paying money to the cartels for passage south, or fleeing to other states.

This is about the only situation we would ever advocate that our immigration laws be waived. We want to encourage the illegals to leave America on their own and thus we ask Obama to provide them safe passage out of America.

So far, the White House and Homeland Security have not responded.

All this is going on while the Obama administration is waiting on the judge’s ruling in federal court on their injunction to block Arizona’s immigration law, set to take effect on Thursday.  The now-famous law would make illegal immigration a state crime and require police to check the residency status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. A ruling on the case is expected by this morning.

It is estimated that 100,000 illegal immigrants have left Arizona in the past two years as it cracked down on illegal immigration and its economy was rocked by the recession.  A Department of Homeland Security report on illegal immigrants estimates Arizona’s illegal immigrant population peaked in 2008 at 560,000, and a year later dipped to 460,000.

No one knows how many illegals have left since the new law passed in April. Some are fleeing the U.S. and others are heading to neighboring states.

A pro-immigrant group called the safe passage proposal “a little suspicious.”

Sarahi Uribe, a regional organizer for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network said:

I think it’s clearly part of the attrition strategy. Make things so horrible for immigrants that they will self deport.  But while it’s true some people are leaving Arizona, a great deal of people are staying.  Spin, Senora, spin.

Uribe dismissed Gheen’s idea as a “thinly disguised” strategy to “drive people out of the state of Arizona.”

It’s kind of sick they would paint this as humanitarian relief when Arizona’s immigration law has created a humanitarian crisis.

Gheen told FoxNews.com that he would not want safe passage for illegal immigrants accused of serious criminal offenses, such as murder or rape.

“The main thing is, we just want them to leave,” Gheen said, adding that if all immigration laws were enforced, the number of illegals would be reduced to less than 1 million in 10 years.

Now let me get this straight.  A Mexican consul is demanding protection for a Mexican citizen who has claimed squatter’s rights for 5 years in a country that he entered illegally.  Meanwhile, he has been enjoying our freedoms with none of our responsibilities.  I’m very sorry he and others have been attacked.  That’s wrong and those attacks are isolated incidents.  However, just as breaking and entering a home or business is a crime, so is sneaking into a country.  As more states pass similar laws to that Arizona, illegals will be looking to either move to another state or go home to Mexico.  The idea of safe passage is fine, if it will work.  The proposed pathway to citizenship idea, while a noble idea, unfortunately,  has a lot of political issues attached to it. 

So, let’s take this one step at a time.  Secure our borders.  Enforce the anti-illegal immigration laws.  And if the Federal Government won’t, the states, like Arizona, will have to pass their own laws.  America became a great nation because it is a melting pot of American-born and legally-immigrated citizens with a shared allegiance, not a multi-cultural United Nations with everyone loyal to their home country.

Sources:  nbcnewyork.com, foxnews.com

We live in perilous times.

North Korea has announced it would counter U.S. and South Korean joint naval exercises with “nuclear deterrence” after the Obama administration feebly warned the government in Pyongyang shouldn’t take any provocative steps.

According to the Korean Central News Agency, their National Defense Commission said North Korea will:

…legitimately counter with their powerful nuclear deterrence the largest-ever nuclear war exercises to be staged by the U.S. and the South Korean puppet forces.

The maneuvers, will involve 20 vessels and 200 aircraft from the U.S. and South Korea   They pose a threat to the country’s sovereignty and security, Ri Tong Il, an official with North Korea’s delegation to the Asean Security Forum, claimed to reporters in Hanoi on Saturday.

Ri’s comments followed North Korean Foreign Minister Pak Ui Chun sitting in the same room with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Hanoi for a security meeting of Asia’s largest powers. Clinton blasted North Korea for being “on a campaign of provocative, dangerous behavior,” urging Kim Jong Il’s regime to change.

Still, the “door remains open for North Korea,” Clinton later told reporters:

We are willing to meet with them, willing to negotiate, to move toward normal relations.

… if North Korea commits itself to giving up its nuclear weapons program, she said.  I’m sure they will comply, Hillary.

U.S. State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley said in Washington on Saturday that North Korea:

would be better served by reflecting on the current situation, not taking any further aggressive actions or provocative steps.

Meanwhile, in Washington, a former CIA director says military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the U.S. does diplomatically, Tehran keeps building nuclear weapons.

Michael Hayden, a CIA chief under President George W. Bush, says that while he was serving, a strike was “way down the list” of options. But he tells CNN’s “State of the Union” that such action now “seems inexorable.”

Hayden says Iran will build its program to the point where it’s just below having an actual weapon. He believes that would be as destabilizing to the region as the real thing.

U.S. officials say that military action remains an option if sanctions fail to deter Iran.

Iran deflects criticism by claiming its nuclear work is for peaceful purposes such as power generation.

As if these to situations weren’t being mishandled enough by Obama and his minions, our government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be “far preferable” to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.

Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Edition of The London Times shows that the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.

The outrageous intervention, which brought the wrath of the US relatives of those who died in the attack, was agreed upon by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.

Acquired by a well-placed US source, the document illuminates a tremendous prevarication in Obama’s claim last week that all Americans were “surprised, disappointed and angry” to learn of Megrahi’s release.

Scottish ministers mistakenly viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as “half-hearted” and a sign it would be accepted.

The Obama administration has tried to keep the letter secret.  They refused to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the flimsy excuse that releasing it would prevent future “frank and open communications” with other governments.

In a letter sent on August 12 last year to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and justice officials,  Mr LeBaron wrote that the US wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned because of the nature of the crime.

The note added:

Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose.

Mr LeBaron also claimed that freeing the bomber and exiling him to Scotland:

…would mitigate a number of the strong concerns we have expressed with regard to Megrahi’s release.

Obama’s administration lobbied the Scottish government more strongly against sending Megrahi home, under a prisoner transfer agreement signed by the British and Libyan governments, in a deal now known to have been linked to a pound stg. 550 million oil contract for BP.

Megrahi was released by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill on the grounds that he had three months to live, making his sentence effectively spent.

A probe was launched by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee after The Sunday Times revealed this month that Megrahi’s doctors thought he could live for another decade.  It’s a miracle!  Did this guy meet up with Benny Hinn?

According to a source close to the Senate inquiry:

The (LeBaron) letter is embarrassing for the US (adminstration) because it shows they were much less opposed to compassionate release than prisoner transfer.

Last week, a succession of British politicians, including former justice secretary Jack Straw, delivered a diplomatic snub to the committee by refusing to fly across the Atlantic to answer questions at the Senate’s hearing on Thursday (US time) about their role in Megrahi’s release.

Then, right in the middle of the controversy over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and Megrahi’s release, news broke over the weekend that BP is planning deep-water drilling off Libya.

And BP boss Tony Hayward is rumored to be resigning this week when the company announces its half-year results, London’s Sunday Telegraph reported.

What a coincidence.

In an article posted on April 10, 2009, columnist Gerald Warner of telegraph.co.uk coined the title President Pantywaist for Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).  He gave him this nickname after Obama:

…recently completed the most successful foreign policy tour since Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow. You name it, he blew it. What was his big deal economic programme that he was determined to drive through the G20 summit? Another massive stimulus package, globally funded and co-ordinated. Did he achieve it? Not so as you’d notice. 

Given the way America’s enemies are laughing at America and spitting in our face, the way that Obama has arrogantly alienated our foreign allies, and the President’s Steve Urkel-esque naiveté as exhibited by his Smart Power Foreign Policy, I would say Mr. Warner hit the nail on the head.

Sources:  Bloomberg.com, yahoo.com,theaustralian.com.au

Please listen to this audio from the Mike Gallagher show.  Mike and Sarah Palin hit the nail on the head.

September 11, the year of Our Lord 2001

8:43 A.M. – The FAA notifies NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector of the suspected hijacking of United Airlines Flight 175.

8:45 A.M. – American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into the north World Trade Center tower (1 Tower).

8:46 A.M. – Jet fighters are scrambled from Otis Air National Guard Base in Fallmouth, Massachusetts.

9:03 A.M. – United Airlines Flight 175 crashes into the south World Trade Center tower (2 Tower).

9:08 A.M. – The FAA bans all takeoffs of flights going to or through New York airspace.

9:17 A.M. – The FAA shuts down all New York City-area airports.

9:21 A.M. – All bridges and tunnels into Manhattan are closed.

9:24 A.M. – The FAA notifies NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector of the suspected hijacking of American Airlines Flight 77.

9:25 A.M. – The FAA orders shutdown of all airports nationwide, banning takeoffs of all civilian aircraft.

9:31 A.M. – President George W. Bush makes a statement from Emma Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida calling the crashes an “apparent terrorist attack.”

Almost 3,000 innocent victims lost their lives in the cowardly attack.

What motivated these Muslims to commit this heinous act?

Mohamed Atta was a planner of the Sept. 11 attacks as well as an instrument of al Qaeda’s will. Having discovered a cause for which they were ready — indeed, often eager — to sacrifice their own lives, the 19 young jihadists followed orders as precisely and dutifully as a Nazi Storm Trooper.

Not one of them seems to have come from a military background, and there was little in their youth to suggest that they would become terrorists. The pilot of the first plane to hit the World Trade Center, Atta, came from “an ambitious, not overtly religious middle-class household in Egypt” and had led “a sheltered life” until he arrived in Hamburg, Germany, in 1992 to do graduate study in architecture.

The pilot of the second plane, Marwan al-Shehhi, was an amiable, “laid-back” fellow from the United Arab Emirates who had joined the UAE army, “not the world’s most effective fighting force but one of its most generous, paying [its scholarship] students monthly stipends of about $2,000,” which was probably his primary reason for enlisting.  This enabled him to go to Hamburg, though there is little evidence that he “had any serious scholarly ambitions.”

They both joined many other young Muslims in Hamburg, Germany for prayer and discussion, sometimes at a mosque called al Quds (the Arabic name for Jerusalem), sometimes in one of the various group houses where the men lived austerely and piously.  Per Terry McDermott in his book “Perfect Solders”:

That young men from good backgrounds would leave homes and families without fanfare or discouragement was evidence of the broad support within Saudi Arabia for jihad.  The men were trained in hand-to-hand combat in the Al Qaeda camps [in Afghanistan], taught the physical skills they would need for the sole task given them — to physically overpower flight crews. The pilots were the leaders. The new men would be the muscle.

To a considerable extent, America did not recognize the advent of a new age but whether anyone knew it or not, an era of religious terror had arrived. Intermingling religious and political goals had been the norm for most of human history. Islam itself came into the world with secular as well as sacred aims. What had changed in this latest incarnation had more to do with the world it was in than Islam itself. By the latter half of the twentieth century, the movement toward secular government had triumphed almost everywhere except in the Islamic world. The advocates of political Islam became aberrant simply by outlasting the political ambitions and empires of other religions. They might have been mere curious anachronisms had not the modern world provided them the means to wed their old beliefs to new, readily accessible technologies. The outcome of that union is terror on a scale not previously known.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was asked the other day what his position was concerning Rick Lazio’s call for an investigation into the Cordoba Initiative, the Islamic group constructing this mega mosque near Ground Zero. The mayor protested that any investigation into the mosque would be “out of character for what this nation stands for and the way we conduct ourselves.”

Bloomberg added:

I don’t think we’re going to go and start investigating funding sources for religious organizations or vetting people who preach or pray in religious organizations.

Like the Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Cuomo, the mayor is hiding behind a false proclamation of religious freedom to try to avoid having to investigate the obviously shady Imam Rauf and his organization that is behind the Cordoba Institute.

The Cordoba Institute paid in cash nearly five-million dollars for the property at Ground.   Where they got the money from is not entirely known. 
However, we do know that Imam Rauf of the Cordoba Initiative longs for the introduction of Sharia law in the U.S:

Throughout my discussions with contemporary Muslim theologians, it is clear an Islamic state can be established in more than just a single form or mold. It can be established through a kingdom or a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of Sharia that are required to govern. It is known that there are sets of standards that are accepted by [Muslim] scholars to organize the relationships between government and the governed. [emphasis added]

Current governments are unjust and do not follow Islamic laws.

New laws were permitted after the death of Muhammad, so long of course that these laws do not contradict the Quran or the Deeds of Muhammad … so they create institutions that assure no conflicts with Sharia. [emphasis in translation]

If Sharia law comes to our shores, it will usurp the Constitution and inhibit religious freedom, free speech and women’s rights.  And that’s mild stuff compared to other facets of Sharia Law.

The questions on everyone’s lips are:  Why are NYC politicians behind this desecration of hallowed ground?  Why are they bending over backwards to allow the Muslims a symbolic propaganda triumph that will be heard around the world?  And if it isn’t a symbolic “holy” mission of Islamic extremist propaganda, why are they building a mosque on Ground Zero, the site of the worst Terrorist attack ever on American soil?  And why are they insisting on having their Grand Dedication of the 10th anniversary of that heinous, cowardly attack?

Wise up, Mayor Bloomberg and the rest of you useful idiots.  You’re being used.

Sources:  youtube.com, patriotresource.com, washingtonpost.com, examiner.com

Charles M. Sherrod, husband of the now-famous Shirley Sherrod, was born in Petersburg, Virginia.   He went to college at Virginia Union University (B.A., 1958, B.D., 1961) and attended Union Theological Seminary in New York, receiving a master’s in sacred theology in 1967. From 1961 to 1967 Sherrod was Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee field secretary in Albany, Georgia.  He also directed the Southwest Georgia Project for Community Education (1961-87) and New Communities, Inc., a cooperative farming project, from 1969 to 1985.   He served on Albany City Commission from 1976 to 1990 and in 1996, he ran unsuccessfully for Georgia state senate.  Sherrod currently works as chaplain at Georgia State Prison, Homerville, Georgia.

You may have heard of the SNCC before.

As a prime example of student activism in the 1960s, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC, popularly called Snick) was a prime force behind major initiatives in the civil rights movement. At the forefront of integration efforts, SNCC volunteers had the spotlight focused on them for their lunch counter sit-ins at whites-only businesses, and later for being involved in historic demonstrations that helped pave the way for the passage of landmark federal civil rights legislation in 1964 and 1965. SNCC made significant gains in voter registration for blacks in the South, where it also ran schools and health clinics.

Charles Sherrod was sent in 1961 with other members of the SNCC to organize the black population in Albany, NY. 

This protest did not receive support from local NAACP  and other civil rights leaders as they saw SNCC as troublemakers.

Albany’s bus center was targeted. The law forbade segregation in interstate travel services; however, segregation still existed and this is what forced the students to protest. Hundreds were arrested. Albany’s city authorities refused to desegregate the bus station despite pressure from the Attorney-General, Robert Kennedy.

Someone in the Albany civil rights movement invited Martin Luther King to join the protest. This angered SNCC who wanted the protest to stay led by locals.

King led one protest march and got arrested.  Charles Sherrod later wrote a paper about his experience in Albany.  Here’s an excerpt:

Charles Sherrod – Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (1961)

The Albany we found in October when we came down as SNCC field workers was quite different from the Albany we now know. Naturally, though, many things remain the same. The swift flowing, cool waters of the Flint River still cut off the east side of the city from the west. The paved streets remind visitors that civilization may be thought to exist in the area while the many dusty, sandy roadways in residential areas cause one to wonder where tax money goes. Beautiful homes against green backgrounds with lawns rolling up and down hills and around corners held up by the deep roots of palm and pine trees untouched by years of nature’s movement, sunny days with moonlit nights–this was the Albany we had been introduced to in October. But this was not the real Albany; the real Albany was seen much later.

Albany is known by its people to be “liberal.” Located in the center of such infamous counties as “Terrible Terrell,” “Dogging Douglas,” “Unmitigated Mitchell,” “Lamentable Lee,” “Unbearable Baker,” and the “Unworthy Worth County.” It stands out as the only metropolitan area of any prominence in Southwest Georgia. It is the crossroads of rural people in villages and towns within a radius of ninety miles. It was principally because of its location that Albany was chosen as the beachhead for Democracy in DEEP Southwest Georgia.

Initially, we met with every obstacle possible. We had come down with the idea of setting up office in Albany and moving on shortly to Terrell County. This idea was short-lived. We found that it would take more time than we thought to present this city of 23,000 Negroes with the idea that freedom is worth sacrifice. . . .

The first obstacle to remove . . . was the mental block in the minds of those who wanted to move but were unable for fear that we were not who we said we were. But when people began to hear us in churches, social meetings, on the streets, in the poolhalls, lunchrooms, nightclubs, and other places where people gather, they began to open up a bit. We would tell them of how it feels to be in prison, what it means to be behind bars, in jail for the cause. We explained to them that we had stopped school because we felt compelled to do so since so many of us were in chains. We explained further that there were worse chains than jail and prison. We referred to the system that imprisons men’s minds and robs them of creativity. We mocked the systems that teaches men to be good Negroes instead of good men. We gave an account of the many resistances of injustice in the courts, in employment, registration, and voting. The people knew that such evils existed but when we pointed them out time and time again and emphasized the need for concerted action against them, the people began to think. At this point, we started to illustrate what had happened in Montgomery, Macon, Nashville, Charlotte, Atlanta, Savannah, Richmond, Petersburg, and many other cities where people came together and protested against an evil
system. . . .

The term “Black Power” came to prominence when Stokely Carmichael became the leader of the organization.  During his leadership, which began in 1966, SNCC started its’ decline as an organization.  

Along with the new rhetoric came new policies.   SNCC kicked out the white members from its organization, declaring that they should work to rid their own communities of racism. When SNCC members began carrying guns, Carmichael explained that his philosophy was different from past leaders:

We are not King or SCLC. They don’t do the kind of work we do nor do they live in the same areas we live in.

The organization subsequently deepened this division by pulling out of the White House Conference on Civil Rights.

By the way, during this turbulent time, Carmichael’s leadership  was supported by his friend and Chicago SNCC and Weather Underground member “Bomber” Bill Ayers.  In 2005, Ayers wrote a paragraph for the inside dust cover of Carmichael’s book, “Road to Revolution”. 

Sherrod stayed for a year after Carmichael became chairman of the SNCC, leaving in 1967.

Interesting side note:  In his book, “Dreams of my Father”, President Barak Hussein Obama wrote about attending a speech by Stokely Carmichael while attending Columbia University:

In search of some inspiration, I went to hear Kwame Toure, formerly Stokely Carmichael of SNCC and Black Power fame, speak at Columbia. At the entrance to the auditorium, two women, one black, one Asian, were selling Marxist literature and arguing with each other about Trotsky’s place in history. Inside, Toure was proposing a program to establish ties between Africa and Harlem that would circumvent white capitalist imperialism. At the end of his remarks, a thin young woman with glasses asked if such a program was practical given the state of African economies and the immediate needs facing black Americans. Toure cut her off midsentence. “It’s only the brainwashing that you’ve received that makes it impractical, sister,” he said. His eyes glowed inward as he spoke, the eyes of a madman or a saint. The woman remained standing for several minutes while she was upbraided for her bourgeois attitudes. People began to file out. Outside the auditorium, the two Marxists were now shouting at the top of their lungs.

“Stalinist pig!”

“Reformist bi#@*!”

It was like a bad dream. I wandered down Broadway, imagining myself standing on the edge of the Lincoln Memorial and looking out over an empty pavilion, debris scattering in the wind. The movement had died years ago, shattered into a thousand fragments. Every path to change was well-trodden, every strategy exhausted. And with each defeat, even those with the best intentions could end up further and further removed from the struggles of those they purported to serve.

Charles Sherrod is now a prison chaplain and probably, at this moment, one of the most famous husbands in America.  I hope that he, like his wife has claimed about herself, has moved beyond any narrow-mindedness of the past. 

Just a thought…the number of “ex” and current radicals associated with this administration is mind-blowing, isn’t it?

Sources:  primarysource.edu, loa.org, answers.com, learningsite.co.uk, weeklystandard.com, abcnews.go.com

Rural Development Leadership Network Graduate and Board Vice Chair Shirley Sherrod was appointed Georgia Director for Rural Development by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack on July 25.  Only days earlier, she had learned that New Communities, a group she founded with her husband and other families, had won a thirteen million dollar settlement in the minority farmers law suit Pigford vs Vilsack.

In announcing the appointment of Shirley and other new officials, Secretary Vilsack said:

These individuals will be important advocates on behalf of rural communities in states throughout the country and help administer the valuable programs and services provided by the USDA that can enhance their economic success.

Shirley was a graduate in the first group of RDLN Leaders and served as Vice Chair of their Board of Directors.  She served as Georgia leader for both the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund and the Southern Rural Black Women’s Initiative (SRBWI).

New Communities, Inc. was the land trust that Shirley and Charles Sherrod established, with other black farm families in the 1960’s.  At the time, with holdings of almost 6,000 acres, this was the largest tract of black-owned land in the country.  

In 1969, New Communities received a planning grant from the Office of Economic Opportunity and was “encouraged” to expect a bunch of funding for implementation, but Governor Lester Maddox blocked further funds for the group to come into the state. 

Even without the funding, New Communities built up farming operations to help retain the land.  They had highway frontage where they had a farmers market to sell their crops.  They raised hogs and had their own smokehouse that they built on the highway where they sold meat.  Their sugar cane mill on that same highway also attracted customers.  They raised eight acres of Muscatine grapes, which are now widely grown in the area.  They also had 1,500 acres of row crops, including corn, peanuts and soybeans.

New Communities claimed that over the years, USDA refused to provide loans for farming or irrigation and would not allow New Communities to restructure its loans.  Gradually, the group had to fight just to hold on to the land and finally had to wind down operations. 

In 1985, Shirley entered the RDLN program. She got a master’s degree, helped orient all succeeding groups of RDLN Leaders, and became vice chair of RDLN’s Board of Directors.  She  also chaired the board of the Farmers Legal Action Group.  New Communities received approximately $13 million ($8,247,560 for loss of land and $4,241,602 for loss of income; plus $150,000 each to Shirley and Charles for pain and suffering).  There was also an unspecified amount in forgiveness of debt. This was the largest award in the minority farmers law suit (Pigford vs Vilsack).

Yesterday, Shirley Sherrod lost her government job.  All because C-Span cameras were at a speech she gave to the NAACP in March.  

Andrew Breitbart released an excerpt from this speech on Monday.  The video showed Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, making a speech at an NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia.  Ms Sherrod was relating a story about providing only minimal help to a white farmer who came to her for help.

Tuesday, Sherrod told CNN that the video was taken out of context.  She said that a video of her entire speech would show that she described the 24 year old incident as a turning point in her life.   Ms Sherrod said that was the point where she learned it was not all about race, it was about poverty. (Share the wealth!)  She says that she eventually helped that white farmer to keep his farm and even became friends with the farmer and his wife. 

Shortly after Shirley Sherrod  resigned, the NAACP President Ben Jealous (What a great name.  How long have you been jealous, Ben?  And what are you jealous of?) released a statement condemning her:

We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farmers of color and female farmers.  Her actions were shameful.  While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicament of working people of all races, she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man.

The NAACP changed their mind Tuesday afternoon.

NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous issued a statement saying that they were “snookered” into believing that USDA employee Shirley Sherrod expressed racist sentiments at a local NAACP meeting in Georgia earlier this year. Jealous accused conservative activist Andrew Breitbart of deceiving millions of people by releasing only partial clips. He said the full video makes clear that Sherrod was telling a story of racial unity:

The tape of Ms. Sherrod’s speech at an NAACP banquet was deliberately edited to create a false impression of racial bias, and to create a controversy where none existed.  This just shows the lengths to which extremist elements will go to discredit legitimate opposition.

Sure.

Meanwhile, at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C., Agriculture Department spokesman Chris Mather said Sherrod was “let go” because of what she said in March, not due to her actions in regard to the farmer two decades ago:

She was asked to resign because of the comment she made when she was a political appointee. It’s not what happened decades ago. It’s the comments she made in March.

Mather also claimed that the White House played no part in Sherrod’s resignation. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack asked for her resignation and he accepted it when Sherrod gave it, Mather said:

This is the Secretary’s decision. There was no pressure from the White House.

Vilsack said in an earlier statement:

Our policy is clear.  There is zero tolerance for discrimination at USDA and we strongly condemn any act of discrimination against any person. We have a duty to ensure that when we provide services to the American people we do so in an equitable manner. But equally important is our duty to instill confidence in the American people that we are fair service providers. 

A White House official claimed that President Barack Obama was briefed after Vilsack made the decision on Sherrod and that the decision was Vilsack’s alone but that the White House backed the decision.

This official also said the White House, contrary to what Sherrod is telling everyone who will listen, did not pressure the Agriculture Department to fire her.

In her CNN interview, Sherrod said she received “at least three calls telling me the White House wanted me to resign… and the last one asked me to pull over to the side of the road and do it.”  According to Shirley, the administration was afraid that Ms. Sherrod was going to be seen on Fox News’ Glenn Beck Program.

And now, just as I am about to publish this article, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said this morning he will reconsider the department’s decision to fire Sherrod:

The NAACP showed a serious lack of judgement when they issued their resolution condemning the Tea Party Movement as racist.  While it is clearly evident that the Far Left leaders of the Democratic Party had a hand in pushing the presentation of this resolution, I do not believe that they realized the intensity of the response that they would receive.   The Liberals exist in an isolated world, divorced from the realities that face average Americans.   I guess they thought that Americans were going to believe their propaganda.  Guess again.  The “If you don’t support Obama, you’re a Racist” message does not work, Libs.  In fact, it never did.

Sources:  rural development.org, biggovernment.com, msn.com, daily caller.com

As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) desperately attempts to clear the schedule in order to try to ram cap-and-trade down Americans’ throats, Senate and House Democrats are not helping him by threatening to fight with each other this week over funding for U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

They’re squabbling over $22.8 billion House appropriators added to the supplemental bill.   House lawmakers point out that it’s fully paid for with offsets, such as $11.7 billion in rescissions to government programs that no longer need funding.

The problem for Senate Democratic leaders is that the House bill may not be able to pass with the extra spending, including $10 billion for an Education Jobs Fund to supposedly save 140,000 school jobs over the next year.

President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) has further complicated passage by the Senate with threatening to veto the bill.  Scooter does not like the House idea to pay for the education fund by rescinding money for the administration’s “Race to the Top” initiative, which rewards academically improved schools with grants.

A Senate Democratic aide said leaders are still going to go ahead and schedule a vote on the House legislation. If it fails, the aide said, “we’ll have to figure out what to do.”

Senate sources say Reid is scheduling the vote to prove to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) it can’t pass the Senate.   Reid would then ask the House to accept the Senate version, which costs $58.8 billion and provides $33 billion for the troops.

According to Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Senate Republicans on Tuesday that if Congress didn’t come up with the money by month’s end, he could not pay the troops.

Senate Democrats have to work on unemployment benefits and small-business legislation before they can even address the military funds situation.
Carte Goodwin will take the oath of office to replace the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) this afternoon, giving Democrats 59 Senate seats.  The Senate will then move to end a Republican filibuster of legislation to extend jobless benefits through November. The legislation will also extend, by three months, the filing deadline for the homebuyers tax credit, a proposal sponsored by Reid.  I’m shocked.

The deadline to claim the tax credit was June 30, but many homebuyers with contracts missed it because of a backlog in paperwork.  The problem is especially bad in states with high foreclosure rates, such as Nevada.  Harry’s trying to get re-elected.

Democratic leaders expect to have 60 votes to file cloture and advance the bill once Goodwin joins them. Reid scheduled a vote on a similar measure before the July 4 recess. It fell one vote short after Republican turncoats Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Olympia Snowe (Maine) voted for it.

Republicans could insist on using the full 30 hours of post-cloture time mandated by Senate rules if they have the intestinal fortitude to wreck the Democrats’ carefully planned schedule.   However, Dinghy Harry believes he can work out an agreement with the BeltwayRepublicans (over cocktails) to move quickly to the small-business and supplemental bills.

 Reid bragged to colleagues late last week:

The Republican leader and I are working on a way to move forward on small business.  I think we have a pretty good path of what we’re going to do on that. After we finish that, it’s my intention to move to the supplemental appropriations bill.

Reid said he would need to file another motion to stop a filibuster of the military spending bill, but added, “I think we can work out the time on that so it doesn’t take an inordinate amount of time.”

Time is Reid’s biggest enemy.  He has promised to start the cap-and-trade debate the week of July 26.   That would allot the Democrats just two weeks to pass energy reform and confirm Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan by the August recess, scheduled to begin Aug. 6.

Reid has threatened to cut a week off the Senate recess if the Senators do not kick it into gear.

Reid told colleagues, referring to the work period that began on July 12:

As everyone knows here, we’re going to be here four or five weeks.  The two leaders, Democrat and Republican, were betting on four weeks rather than five weeks, but we’ll need a little cooperation to get that done.

What’s the rush?  The Mid-term Elections aren’t until November.

Mark Halperin in his Time.com article espouses a theory:

Under pressure, the Democrats are cracking. On both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, there is a realization that Nancy Pelosi’s hold on the speakership is in true jeopardy; that losing control of the Senate is not out of the question; and that time, once the Democrats’ best friend, is now their mortal enemy. Since January, when Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts Senate seat, the President’s party has tried to downplay in public what its pollsters have been saying in private: that Obama’s alienation of independents and white voters, along with the enthusiasm gap between the right and the left, means that Republicans are on a trajectory to pick up massive numbers of House and Senate seats, perhaps even to regain control of Congress.

…What has kept the easily panicked denizens of Capitol Hill from open revolt until now was a shared confidence that there was still plenty of time to turn things around, and that the White House had a strategy to do just that. 

The two-part scheme was pretty straightforward. First, Democrats planned a number of steps to head off, or at least soften, the anti-Washington, anti-incumbent, anti-Obama sentiment that cost them the Massachusetts seat. Pass health care, and other measures to demonstrate that Democrats could get things done for the middle class; continue to foster those fabled green shoots on the economy, harvesting the positive impact of the massive economic stimulus bill passed early in the Administration; heighten the contrast between the two parties by delivering on Wall Street reform and a campaign-funding law to counteract January’s controversial Supreme Court decision. Use all of those elements to contrast the Democrats’ policies under Obama with the Republicans’ policies under Bush, rather than allow the midterms to be a referendum on the incumbent party.

The second strand of the Democrats’ plan was more prosaic and mechanical. Recruit strong candidates for open seats. Leverage the White House and congressional majorities to raise more money than the other side. Make mischief by playing up the divisions between the Tea Party and the more traditional elements of the Republican Party, in part to increase the chances that more extreme, less electable candidates edge out moderates in GOP primary battles. Do extensive opposition research and targeted messaging in the fall to delegitimize Republican candidates in the minds of centrist voters. Coordinate below the radar with labor unions, environmentalists and other allies on get-out-the-vote efforts, focusing on young, nonwhite and first-time voters who came out for Obama in 2008.

The problem the Democrats face is a big one.  The sleeping giant has awakened and he’s in a foul mood.  And unless the Beltway Elitist Republicans starting legislating like they remember who elected them, they’ll have a lot in common with their Democrat colleagues:  funemployment.

Sources:  drudgereport.com, thehill.com, time.com