Illegal Protest

Hold the phone people - but new best friend of Barack Obama, Al Gore, has a FATHER who as a Senator, voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So as Drinking with Bob aptly puts it [video]- if Al Gore’s father had his way, Barack Obama would have been picking cotton and sitting in the back of the bus instead of running for President of the United States in 2008. How strange that Barack Obama feels that people like Al Gore are his friend and that he tries to portray Republicans as racists when in fact, the majority of people who voted FOR the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were REPUBLICANS.

I thought this little tidbit was important enough to post on my Illegal Alien Protest site.. because .. frankly, we are in DEEP DO DO if Barack Obama becomes our next President. Not only does he have very little experience in general - he’s only been in the Senate for ONE TERM and most of that term he spent running for President. Do we REALLY want such inexperience in the White House??? Do we really want someone like AL SHARPTON for our next President??? Here is a handy link to his voting record - starting in 2005… According to one tally he has spent 143 DAYS in elected office.

Here are the GOREY details - muahahahah

It is easy to control the minds of a people. All one has to do is change history by lying about the past. This is exactly what has happened with the legacy of former Democratic U.S. Senator Al Gore, Sr. of Tennessee - the father of our current vice president - and his mythical “support” of civil rights.

In a recent speech to the NAACP, Vice President Gore said his father lost his Senate seat because he supported civil rights legislation. Fellow black Americans, let me set history straight. Al Gore, Sr., together with the rest of the southern Democrats, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Congressional Quarterly reported that, in the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as opposed to 80% of Republicans (138 for, 38 against). In the Senate, 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Act while 82% of Republicans did (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrats voted against the Act.

In his remarks upon signing the Civil Rights Act, President Lyndon Johnson praised Republicans for their “overwhelming majority.” He did not offer similar praise to his own Democratic Party. Moreover, Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, an Illinois Republican, collaborated with the White House and the Senate leadership of both parties to draft acceptable compromise amendments to end the southern Democrats’ filibuster of the Act. It was Dirksen who often took to the Senate floor to declare, “This is an idea whose time has come. It will not be denied.” Dirksen’s greatest triumph earned him the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights Award, presented by then-NAACP Chairman Roy Wilkins, for his remarkable civil rights leadership.

Read more

A very appropriate video (below) for our most patriotic holiday. Does anyone remember what July 4th actually stands for I wonder? It seems most associate it with fireworks and family barbecues and vacations and the original reason for July 4th has been superseded by the advertising whores of this country. How sad…

Some facts about where our July 4th holiday originated from Wikipedia:

During the American Revolution, the legal separation from Great Britain occured on July 2, 1776, when the Second Continental Congress voted to approve a resolution of independence that had been proposed in June by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia.^[1] After voting for independence, Congress turned its attention to the Declaration of Independence, a statement explaining this decision, which had been prepared by a committee with Thomas Jefferson as its principal author. Congress debated and revised the Declaration, finally approving it on July 4. A day earlier, John Adams had written to his wife Abigail:

The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.^[2]

Adams’s prediction was off by two days. From the outset, Americans celebrated independence on July 4, the date shown on the much-publicized Declaration of Independence, rather than on July 2, the date the resolution of independence was approved in a closed session of Congress.^[3]

One of the most enduring myths about Independence Day is that Congress signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.^[4] The myth had become so firmly established that, decades after the event and nearing the end of their lives, even the elderly Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had come to believe that they and the other delegates had signed the Declaration on the fourth.^[5] Most delegates actually signed the Declaration on August 2, 1776.^[6]

So… not only is abortion against the moral principles BIG time in the Catholic religion, but it just also happens to have violated state and federal laws because it seems these charities get federal money to the tune of $7 MILLION to place illegal alien children in foster homes(?) until they are reunited with their families. I guess the Catholic Church will start having to rely on illegal aliens for essentially all of their income soon since real Americans should tell the Catholic Church to shove it up their ass in my opinion.

H/T to Kathleen Appell for sending me this story. Unbelievable!

Va. charity probed for helping teen get abortion

By DIONNE WALKER – 3 days ago

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Authorities are investigating whether a Catholic charity violated state and federal law by helping a 16-year-old illegal immigrant who was in the organization’s care get an abortion.

Workers with Commonwealth Catholic Charities helped the girl travel to and from the procedure in January and signed a consent form for the abortion, Joanne Nattrass, the charity’s executive director, said in a statement Thursday. She declined further comment.

Four of the Richmond-based charity’s workers were fired, according to a letter by David Siegel, head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ refugee resettlement program.

The federal department is looking into the charity’s actions and the role played by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The conference receives $7.6 million a year in federal funds to place unaccompanied illegal immigrant children in foster care until they’re reunited with relatives, sponsored, or returned to their homeland. The girl is from Guatemala but was living in Virginia when the abortion took place.

Federal law bans the use of federal money to pay for abortions with exceptions for rape, incest or threats to the life of the mother. Virginia law requires parental consent for an abortion for a girl under 18.

Commonwealth Catholic Charities serves children in the Richmond area as a subcontractor of the bishop’s conference. The conference “appears to have been aware of Commonwealth Catholic Charities’ actions,” Siegel wrote in his April 23 letter to HHS’ deputy inspector general, Timothy Menke.

In a letter nearly a week later, the conference acknowledged some responsibility for the incident and said it has revised agreements with the more than 1,700 Catholic Charities offices nationwide to explicitly bar services that contradict Catholic teachings. Catholics are strongly opposed to abortion, and it isn’t clear why the organization assisted the teen.

“There were significant supervisory errors that resulted in a failure to do everything possible to avoid the abortion,” said the letter, signed by Bishops Francis X. DiLorenzo of the Richmond diocese; John C. Wester of the Salt Lake City diocese; and Michael P. Driscoll of the Boise, Idaho diocese. All have some link to the youth resettlement program.

Federal officials were surprised and disappointed that the Catholic charity used funding to help a minor get an abortion, said Kenneth Wolfe, a spokesman for the Administration for Children and Families in HHS.

“That is at odds with federal policy and is a possible violation of Virginia state law, so we have referred this case to HHS’ inspector general,” Wolfe said in a statement. “Our agency is one that supports human life and we take that responsibility seriously.”

Here we have a national newspaper, apparently showing it’s bias for the elites and the North American Union and the entire globalist agenda that seeks to end the sovereignty of our great nation. They showed this bias by not allowing a letter to the editor from DA King of the Dustin Inman Society. You can read about the details here from DA King’s site, as well as comments by Digger from Digger’s Realm, Jake from Freedom Folks, Mark Krikorian from National Review Online, Peter Brimlow of VDARE

So, since the Washingto Post did not see fit to print DA King’s letter, I reprint it here for the blogosphere and the Interent - which further proves that print media is a dying breed. They hasten their uselessness when they seek to silence those who do not share in their biased opinions. Please keep in mind this bias when reading anything in the Washington Post!

Dear editor,

In his June 1 column, Jim Hoagland writes about forming an “American Union that pools sovereignty”.

“Pooling sovereignty” is merely a transparent way of saying that we should sacrifice ours in order to form a more profitable market- place that happens to be located in the middle of North America and was once a proud, independent nation of laws with defended, defined borders and a common language.

The majority of Americans will oppose this long held nation busting agenda of the elite.

However “déclassé” of us.

Hoagland and the rest of the open borders crowd must be hoping that we will not realize that with the present convoluted interpretation of the 14th amendment to the US constitution (remember that?), we would make American citizens of much of the hemisphere in but one generation. We would soon all merely be “citizens of the continent” and no doubt pledge allegiance to the commerce for which it stands.

Ben Franklin’s challenge in his answer when asked what government was created by the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was ” a Republic …if you can keep it”.

He must have seen Hoagland & Co. coming.

Not on my watch Mr. Hoagland.

D.A. King

DA King is responding to this op-ed article in the Washington Post by Jim Hoagland

I met DA King in Washington DC last year for the Hold Their Feet to the Fire event. He organized the Sunday rally in Lafayette Park that kicked off the week and a big success it was. DA King is a great guy and I am proud to have him as a fellow patriot fighting illegal immigration.

The list I am sure the Washington Post is going by can be found here at the Southern Poverty Law Center - which they call the “Intelligience Project” - what a joke! - which has included patriotic groups of citizens made up of sweet little white haired ladies and branded them a racist hate group. What is telling about this list is that you will notice that absent from their list is any Hispanic racist hate group such as MeCHA or The National Council of La Raza or MS 13. I went through the newest list and it seems they are trying to appear non-biased by included La Voz de Aztlan in their California list but they have a LONG way to go to be fair and balanced with this list. According to the SPLC, whites seem to have the corner on hate groups but that is totally false. There is hate between the races on ALL sides of this story SPLC - not just the white side of the street.

I don’t know what could be any more racist than calling to “kill whites” or “kill the gringo” but yet that does not seem to qualify them to be on the SPLC’s list of racist hate groups. Doesn’t that make you stop and think that maybe the SPLC is not exactly objective at all? Why do so many people take them at their word without even checking how these groups qualified to get on the list? If anyone did check, they would find that simply being patriotic or proud of one’s race is enough to get you on the list. Why also is it that being proud of the white race and supporting others in the white race is considered supremacist, but that same ruler is not applied to being proud of being black or proud of being hispanic as is the case with The National Council of La Raza or the NAACP? Double standard? Indeed!

Let me just add this. The SPLC has a category in their “hate group” list called “Anti-Immigrant”.  This is totally ridiculous because… illegal aliens are NOT IMMIGRANTS. That is an insult to all legal immigrants!! Furthermore, there are plenty of LEGAL IMMIGRANTS who are against illegal aliens as well so to call a group that is against illegal aliens an “anti-immigrant” group is totally bogus and false.

Legal immigrants have made this country a great country but ONLY because the LEGAL immigrants came here and made it their own country, respected our culture, our customs and our laws as well as saluted our flag. The ILLEGAL variety of invaders do none of these things - so to lump them together with IMMIGRANTS is an insult to all legal immigrants!

Here is the mission statement of The Dustin Inman Society headed by DA King:

With a focus on Georgia, The Dustin Inman Society is dedicated to educating the public and our elected officials on the consequences of illegal immigration, our unsecured borders and the breakdown of the rule of law in our Republic.

Named for one of the thousands of Americans who have paid the ultimate price for those unsecured borders, The Dustin Inman Society is a non-partisan coalition of citizens of all ethnicities and from all walks of life who recognize that illegal immigration and homeland security are the most critical issues in America today.

The obvious illegal immigration crisis is not a “federal problem” - it is a national problem - with Georgia having one of the largest and fastest growing populations of illegal aliens in the nation.

It is not un-American to demand equal protection under the law.

Now you tell me why you think the Washington Post would be against a group like The Dustin Inman Society! Pure hogwash is what I say!