It is time to recognize Sept 11, 2001 as a “Hate Crime”

Most Americans would agree that the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York City and Washington, DC -- along with the hijacking and destruction of a passenger jet over Pennsylvania -- were crimes motivated by hate.  In the aftermath of the attack, no less than the President and the United States Attorney General agreed with this assessment. 
 
Now go to the U.S. Justice Department's Uniform Crime Report for 2001.  The report counts 12,020 victims of crimes that were the result of the "offender's bias."  7,768 of these were victims of "crimes against persons", with another 4,176 counted as victims of "crimes against property." 
 
Among the victims counted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Hate Crime Data Collection Program were 554 victims of "anti-Islamic" bias crimes.  According to the official USDOJ/FBI figures for 2001, just 10 people died (murder/non-negligent manslaughter) in the United States as the result of crimes motivated by hate.  By our count, that is 3,037 victims short. 
 
The count of homicides in New York City for that year does not reflect the 2,823 victims of mass murder at the World Trade Center; or the 184 victims at the Pentagon; or even the 40 victims in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.  They were all left out of the murder count.    
 
If you read the official homicide figures for 2001, you will find that the deadliest month in 2001 was July -- and that September actually experienced a drop in homicides from August before rising again in October.  This is not the fault of the FBI, who do their best, but who are, after all, servants of a political class more interested in the preservation of power than in honest and transparent government.
 
Isn’t it time that the United States government recognize the victims of September 11 ,2001, as victims of a “Hate Crime”?
 
How meaningful is the term “hate crime” when the victims of September 11, 2001 are not counted?  The term is a scam, a hypocrisy, when it ignores those dead.
 
Of course, we know the term “Hate Crime” is a very subjective one and too often it has been used as a tool of partisan politics by less than honest folks trying to score points against their opponents. 
 
Congressman Tom Malinowski likes to change the subject and direct us to the fashionable new threat of “white supremacy”.  You are encouraged to spy on your neighbor because he or she might be a “terrorist”.  Malinowski ignores the fact that he’s supported by Action Together New Jersey, a group that works with CAIR (the Council of American-Islamic Relations) which has been named a “terrorist organization” by one of America’s closest Islamic allies.   

 Hey, says Malinowski, what does an actual Islamic government know about what motivates Islamic terrorism anyway? Why should we listen to them? And so he goes on aiding and abetting while trying to focus the attention of Americans on each other.

Of course, Tom Malinowski really doesn’t give a hang about actual Muslim people anyway. He totally dissed the Muslim Rohingya minority in Myanmar, as they were suffering from what the United Nations called "genocide". This was when Malinowski was a top official at the State Department. Later, Tom Malinowski joined a business venture that sought to build Myanmar’s economy while the government of Myanmar was exterminating actual Muslims in an actual case of genocide.

Apparently the term “Islamophobia” only applies to speech… not to genocide.

Democrats like Congressman Malinowski (and, it must be said, quite a few Republicans) appear unable to call out acts of hate motivated by a belief in radical Islam or by the impasse between Palestine and Israel. But as Democrat Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard points out, these same Democrats (and their GOP counterparts) are quite content to support actions against Islamic civilians and send the American military into the field to fight and die against an Islamic enemy.

The great hypocrisy of woke Democrats is to support war-making candidates for President (and, with Tulsi Gabbard pushed out of the debates by the Democrat Establishment, they are ALL wannabe “warriors”) while complaining about “Islamophobia” in others.

Hey Establishment Democrats!!! If you really care so much about ill-will between working class Americans and Muslims, then stop sending working class Americans to war against Muslims. Stop telling people to be careful about what they say, but that it is okay to kill (when instructed) or to support policies that kill. Stop the violence you are doing instead of trying to monitor the speech that is a natural result of the violence that YOU send people to commit.

In the end, this is all about the absolution of sin. The people screaming “white supremacy” the loudest know their policies kill actual everyday Muslims, so they seek to change the focus so that they can feel good about themselves. The fact that they blame the very people who they send to war to fight Muslims is horrific.

Perhaps such hypocrisy itself should be labeled a “Hate Crime”?

Message from the Kids Rally: Tomorrow belongs to me

"We are the voices of the new generation... We want change, and those who try to stop us cannot stand in our way. We will outnumber you, we will outvote you, and we will outlive you." (High School student, March 24, 2018, Newton, NJ)

This has all happened before.  The same words were used by another generation of students who demanded security over freedom.  They ended up with neither.

What began as a modernist dream ended in retching sadness. 

"I have a message for all of those politicians... Your thoughts and prayers are not going to stop this from happening over and over again, like it has for the past 20 years." (Ibid)

Yes.  We are going to need to address our rotting culture.  A culture, by the way, that many of those young marchers have totally bought into. 

Twenty years ago... In the aftermath of the Columbine shootings, President Bill Clinton first highlighted the problem of violence in our culture and how it was being marketed for profit.  Psychologists had long noted how violent media content acts like a drug on childhood development, chemically altering a child's brain. 

It was President Clinton who pointed out that study after study, and the marketing documents of the entertainment industry itself, all pointed to the entertainment industry's premeditated marketing of violence to children and their undeveloped brains.  All the evidence was there.  Then he went further and ordered a study by the Federal Trade Commission.  The study, released on September 11, 2000, can be accessed below:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2000/09/ftc-releases-report-marketing-violent-entertainment-children

In response, the entertainment industry increased its campaign contributions by 1,000 percent and spent hundreds of millions on lobbying and soft money to convince Congress to forget every study it had ever read.  Then September 11, 2001, occurred and concerns over media violence were ignored in the run-up to war.  Some in the entertainment industry never forgot, and when another Clinton ran for President, they derailed her by supporting a first-term senator named Barack Obama. 

Does our young high school student really believe that government will be able to eliminate the illegal possession of firearms any better than it has eliminated the illegal possession of narcotics?  Is there any high school in America free from illegal drug use?

President Richard Nixon declared war on drugs in 1971.  That's before most parents of today's high schoolers were born.  Are we any closer to winning that war -- or have we started to surrender, making up reasoning for decriminalization of those things long warned against?

Gun-free school zones have been disastrous failures.  Will trying to make all of America "gun-free" fare any better?  Instead of carrying the agenda of pre-existing movements, like the anti-NRA Brady bunch, shouldn't students be separating themselves from the failed paradigms of the past?

Of course, that would take thinking in place of emotion and a "be-in" is always cooler than a think-in.  Rallies, like dance parties, stir the emotions.  And the emotions of the young have always been a target for hijacking and abuse by political authoritarians.

If you want to protect children in schools make that the priority.  In other nations, including those on the front line in the battle with terrorism, school shootings are rare.  Despite schools being a prime target for terror attacks, in Israel there have been just six attacks on schools since 1974. 

America doesn't have Hamas or the Fatah al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades or Palestinian Islamic Jihad operating on its borders -- so why does America do such a poor job protecting our schools when other nations, in active battle with terrorist groups, manage it so much better?  Is it simply the case that other nations face facts, while we prefer to bask in emotion and the idea that "it shouldn't happen here" in exceptionalist America? 

We are going to be looking very hard at this and passing along ideas for solutions.  We invite commentary and participation from all.

Sussex Democrats use vigil to attack opponent

Last month, dozens of Sussex County residents met on the Green in Newton to hold a vigil in support of efforts to end opiate addiction.  Most were there for an honest, solemn purpose.  Some were there to get dirt on their neighbors.

It is no secret that Kate Matteson wants Parker Space's job.  She wants it bad enough to try to damage his business.  She wants it bad enough to try to turn a solemn vigil into a political sting operation.  While everyone else was praying to end the community's curse of opiate addiction, Matteson was trying to screw somebody over.

In a Politico column published yesterday, Democrat candidate Matteson admitted that her operatives used the vigil to try to lure her opponent into a conversation, tape it, and then use it as a kind of blackmail.  Perhaps the goal is to force Assemblyman Space out of office, much as the Left has attempted to force President Trump out of office?  This would represent a direct challenge to democracy and the will of the voters because Assemblyman Space is one of the highest vote-getters in the Legislature of either party. 

The question is this:  What kind of person would use a vigil for this purpose?  The vigil was to be a non-political gathering of concerned residents.  Who would authorize such an action?  Who would attempt to sell it to the media?

Democrat Senate candidate Jennifer Hamilton dismissed the whole affair as a personal clash between Matteson and Space, telling Politico that she believed it was about "Parker Space venting his frustration about what he perceived as an attack on his family business.  And that was the premise of the conversation. That was the build-up to that moment.  I don’t feel I need to be brought into peoples’ personal disagreements or battles with one another in terms of their personality conflicts. I think it’s clear from what we’ve seen in our local media that there is conflict between the two of them [Space and Matteson]."

As it turns out, the recording is not a very professional one and contains a number of garbled voices.  It is unclear if Assemblyman Space's is even among the voices present on the tape, while another voice (a woman's voice) apparently agrees with a negative assessment made of candidate Matteson, and still another voice repeats the phrase "elitist one-percenter" when referring to Democrat Matteson, the well-to-do-spouse of a wealthy doctor.

In the article, Matteson, who only began voting in 2016, actually tries to compare Assemblyman Space to President Trump -- fiercely attacking both in the process.  She may have only started voting last year, but she seems determined to make up for it with an extra dose of venom.

This isn't the first time candidate Matteson has used a solemn occasion for political purposes.  On September 11th, she and her running mate, Gina Trish, attended their first 9/11 observance and promptly turned it into a campaign photo opportunity.  It was rather disgusting and occasioned the remarks of many present for its gross lack of class.  Candidate Matteson might be upper class when it comes to having money, but she lacks it when it comes to manners.

Forget Russia, this is how America interferes in elections

We've been hearing for some months how Russia may or may not have interfered in the 2016 presidential election.  Supposedly, this was done through attempted computer hacking, although other ways have been suggested as well.  Some in the media and entertainment industry -- as well as many within the Democrat Party -- have described this as "the worst attack on our country since September 11, 2001."

Wow!  Are we forgetting who we are?  When it comes to "putting your guy in charge," America is no slouch.  And we don't Mickey Mouse around with computers when we do it.

Once upon a time in a faraway land (that Americans got to know real well) called Vietnam, there was this President named Ngo Dinh Diem.  Diem was an ally of the United States... until he wasn't. 

The U.S. government didn't like the political turmoil that resulted when Diem's Roman Catholic party ruled Vietnam at the expense of the Buddhist parties.  There was government-sponsored sectarian violence -- Vietnam's version of "The Troubles" visited upon Northern Ireland or the Waco incident on a grander scale.  So the American government made the decision to involve itself in the politics of another country.  We'll let Wikipedia take over from here:

"DEPTEL 243, also known as Telegram 243, the August 24 cable or most commonly Cable 243, was a high-profile message sent on August 24, 1963, by the United States Department of State to Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., the US ambassador to South Vietnam. The cable came in the wake of the midnight raids on August 21 by the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem against Buddhist pagodas across the country, in which hundreds were believed to have been killed. The raids were orchestrated by Diem's brother Ngo Dình Nhu and precipitated a change in US policy. The cable declared that Washington would no longer tolerate Nhu remaining in a position of power and ordered Lodge to pressure Diem to remove his brother. It said that if Diem refused, the Americans would explore the possibility for alternative leadership in South Vietnam. In effect, the cable authorized Lodge to give the green light to Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) officers to launch a coup against Diem if he did not willingly remove Nhu from power."

"The coup d'état was designed by a military revolutionary council including ARVN generals led by General Duong Van Minh.  Lucien Conein, a CIA operative, had become a liaison between the US Embassy and the generals, who were led by Tran Van Don. They met each other for the first time on 2 October 1963 at Tan Son Nhat airport. Three days later, Conein met with General Duong Van Minh to discuss the coup and the stance of the US towards it.  Conein then delivered the White House's message of American non-intervention, which was reiterated by Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. the US ambassador, who gave secret assurances to the generals that the United States would not interfere...  On 1 November 1963, Minh and his co-conspirators overthrew the government in a swift coup. With only the palace guard remaining to defend Diem and his younger brother Nhu, the generals called the palace offering Diem exile if he surrendered. That evening, however, Diem and his entourage escaped via an underground passage to Cha Tam Catholic Church in Cholon, where they were captured the following morning, 2 November. The brothers were assassinated together in the back of an M113 armored personnel carrier with a bayonet and revolver by Captain Nguyen Van Nhung, under orders from Minh given while en route to the Vietnamese Joint General Staff headquarters.  Diem was buried in an unmarked grave in a cemetery next to the house of the US Ambassador."

Yep, when America interferes in someone else's politics it doesn't do its hacking with a computer... we use a bayonet.

But the story doesn't end here.  In 2003, the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas, released some newly archived tapes that included a telephone conversation from February 1, 1966, between President Johnson and Senator Eugene McCarthy.  Harvard historian and author Monique Brinson Demery came across it and cited it in her 2013 book on the Vietnam of that period.   Here is what the President of the United States, a liberal Democrat icon, had to say about the way in which America interferes in the politics of other nations:

"We killed him (Diem).  We all got together and got a goddamn bunch of thugs and we went in and assassinated him.  Now, we've really had no political stability since then."

That's how we roll.

If you want to hear the President's voice on tape, it's on YouTube:

And that is how we roll...