Diversity and the North, Yesterday and Today

This is a great post from Those Who Can See. Well worth the time to read it:
http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/

We may be less familiar with the old North. Those of us born there have been told all our lives how warmly we opened our arms to these suffering Afros, saving them from the noose or at least the colored water fountain.

Or did we.

Portland, OR, 1943

Enlightened souls in Northern state houses may have decreed a color-blind paradise, but to the man on the street it mattered little. The fact is that then as now, most Euros did not enjoy their encounters with Afros (especially those newly arrived from the South), and did what they could to avoid them.

Interview with Virgil Goode: How Do We Elevate Constitutional Principles?

It was my privilege to interview presidential candidate Virgil Goode, Jr. of the Constitution Party, America’s third largest by membership. We quickly tackled the elephant in the room: does the Constitution Party waste your vote, or even deprive Mr. Romney’s elephants thereby shifting victory to Mr. Obama and his donkeys?

Mr. Goode rebutted that he’s “attracting votes from both parties” and there “are more independents than either Democrats or Republicans.” Moreover, “many old-line Democrats whose families voted Democrat back to FDR are fed up with Obama, but won’t vote GOP.” Appealing to these constituents appears pivotal to Goode’s efforts to “shake-up the big money interests controlling both Democrats and Republicans.”

The former congressman from Virginia, who has represented each major party, predicted a Goode/Clymer win would break the two party stranglehold suffocating America. He beamed that “the Constitution Party doesn’t have any PACs” and its “principles have not been compromised” by special interests.

Like Ron Paul, Virgil Goode has long supported a bill to audit the Federal Reserve, which recently cleared the House. He advocates “currency that is real and backed by gold or silver.” We discussed the moral and economic implications of uncertain money and America’s wavering adherence to the Constitution whereby Goode stressed the “necessity for fixed principles.”

When discussing the application of justice, Goode champions “fair and equitable opportunity, but it’s up to you to use it. Government cannot ensure equal results because every individual differs;” further “success is measured differently by different people.” Goode promises to “check government spending” thereby freeing individuals to thrive.

Of the economic stagnation and looming fiscal upheaval factoring heavily this November, Goode notes, “The biggest problem with the deficit is programs that are unconstitutional and wasteful.” An ardent proponent of balancing the budget, our deficits Goode insists, stem from “spending.” “Taxes should be simple and fair … I’m not for increasing income taxes; if we even have an income tax.”

In contrast to Republicans whose federalism means letting states administer Washington’s initiatives, strings attached, Mr. Goode vows the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, “would still matter if I was president.” Goode would also boost the economy by “slashing and cutting and eliminating unconstitutional agencies; then the bureaucracy stymieing businesses will ease.”

The candidate laments “too much federal involvement in our lives” offering as an example the Department of Education, “should not be involved, schooling should be determined by states and localities … when the Federal Government dictates standards, which shouldn’t be in their purview, students (and taxpayers) suffer.” Goode staunchly resisted No Child Left Behind.

When asked about the source of our rights/liberties, Mr. Goode clarified, “Here in this country we’d say the Constitution, but there is a higher law.” Of the natural rights views Americans have long cherished Goode explained, “The Founding Fathers were religious persons of faith” and that “just government preserves to individuals the liberties included in the Bill of Rights.”

Goode differentiated his platform from the Libertarian Party, which also favors limited government, “Gary Johnson is pro-choice and supports ‘gay’ marriage.” As an obvious devotee of constitutionalism, Goode noted “the Bill of Rights protects life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness stated in the Declaration,” emphasizing the word life.

Regarding the oxymoron of “same-sex marriage” Goode warned, “Government forcibly redefining marriage to include anything other than one man and one woman would be totally foreign to the views of the framers of the Constitution, first ten amendments and Declaration of Independence.”

Goode denies that the Founders, men of “deep-seated values,” would consider a cross on the town square or the Ten Commandments posted at school “as un-constitutional.” Further, public displays “aren’t forcing religion on anyone, but now certain parties wish to erase the principles on which this country was founded.” He continued, “In this era of relativity, we’ve gotten away from the Christian principles which made families stronger, gave a compass to individuals.”

“I believe we’re an exceptional country,” observes Goode “but we must get back to being exceptional. We’re not globalists.” To “balance the budget, we need to step back from foreign entanglements.” The other parties “are prone to extend ourselves into too many areas.” He adamantly opposed our Libyan debacle and questionable legislation emanating from both parties which doesn’t “recognize American sovereignty.”

Goode implores “following the Constitution, we can’t let the UN decide” clarifying “I don’t mind working with allies like we did in World War One and Two, but I’d never let U.S. troops serve under UN command. Under President Obama, he’s more interested in the UN’s approval than declaratory resolutions by Congress.” Goode eschews international meddling, but also lackadaisical enforcement of our own borders.

“I’m totally opposed to illegal immigration and will put a moratorium on new Green Cards until unemployment reduces. Jobs should [go] to U.S. citizens first.” Goode would “eliminate automatic birthright citizenship” for which he has supported past legislation and would “immediately repeal the executive order giving temporary amnesty; a stand Romney won’t take.”

The Constitution “secure[s] the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Affirmative action unfairly lifting new arrivals over native born citizens violates this sacred legacy. Easy welfare welcomes the wrong immigrants. The Constitution Party has long opposed these infamies, but families coming to improve their lot though honest toil bolsters the economy.

Goode’s eagerness to curtail unconstitutional spending, streamline red-tape and solidify the currency will better alleviate unemployment.

Given his passion vis-à-vis immigration reform, I asked if this represented the first item on the presidential to-do list. Goode replied, “It would be high on the list, but we have to get back to the Constitution. I’d repeal all the recent executive orders which don’t appropriately fit in the executive realm.”

As a candidate envisioning a less invasive executive branch, Goode warned of the “ever increasing scope and sphere of a Federal Government intertwined [in] our everyday lives.” He expressed admiration for George Washington as a leader who successfully navigated the lure of power, “He was a man of high principles, referring to the Deity as the source of values and principles” who “inherited a precarious, chaotic situation,” but “didn’t succumb to the temptations of monarchy.”

After successive imperial presidencies Goode appears well worthy of consideration for the legions of Ron Paul supporters seeking limited, constitutional government. Four years ago America didn’t elect “Change,” but “Acceleration.” If conservatism was once, as Bill Buckley suggested, “standing athwart history yelling stop,” saving the Republic now requires more.

The locomotive sped further away from our founding vision towards fiscal tragedy and a moral cesspool. Paul Ryan was the right choice for Romney but the GOP’s failure to staunch the hemorrhaging of America’s constitutional heritage and erosion of cultural values proclaims that a U-turn is needed.

Going the third party route is admittedly precarious even for those who tire of simply accepting the lesser evil. Yet, as Art Carden articulated for Forbes, unless living in a key battleground state, it’s unlikely your vote matters much. Likewise, for the many voters so disengaged they might stay home, pulling the lever for Goode seems sound.

For Ohio and other key states, let conscience prevail.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2012/08/28/interview-with-virgil-goode-how-do-we-elevate-constitutional-principles/print/

Ingrid Carlqvist’s tale i Bruxelles: I want my country back

Ingrid Carlqvist’s speech to the International Civil Liberties Alliance, July 9, 2012 in the European Parliament, Brussels

Ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ingrid Carlqvist and I was born in Sweden in 1960, when the Social Democrats were gonna rule forever and ever and our country was the nicest and safest and most progressed in the world. Now I live in Absurdistan – a country that has the highest figure of reported rapes in the world, hundreds of so called “exclusion areas” where people live outside the Swedish society and with newspapers that hide all these horrible facts to the people.

I feel just like Dorothy Gale in The Wizard of Oz – a tornado came and blew me miles and miles away from home and dumped me in a country I don’t know.

“Toto, I have a feeling we’re not in Sweden anymore.”

Like Dorothy I’m searching for a way to find my home, but on my path I only meet lions without courage, scarecrows without brains and tin men without hearts.

When I grew up our prime minister was Tage Erlander, a Social Democrat. In 1965 he said in parliament, after violent race riots in America:

“We Swedes live in a so infinitely happier situation. The population in our country is homogeneous, not just according to race but also in many other aspects.”

Now I live in a nation that is not homogenous in any respect. Olof Palme that came after him decided that homogeneous was a bad thing and opened up our borders for people from all over the world. And from right to left the politicians told us that there was no such thing as a Swedish culture, no Swedish traditions worth mentioning and that we Swedes should be grateful that so many people with REAL culture and REAL traditions came to us.

Mona Sahlin, a later leader of the Social Democrats, said in an interview 2002 with the magazine Euroturk, when asked what Swedish culture is:

“I’ve often had that question, but I can’t think of what Swedish culture is. I think that is what makes us Swedes so envious of immigrants. You have a culture, an identity, something that ties you together. What do we have? We have Midsummer’s Eve and such corny things.”

She also said: The Swedes must integrate into the new Sweden. The old Sweden is not coming back.

In this New Sweden we have more reported rapes than any other country in the European Union, according to a study by professor Liz Kelly from England. More than 5 000 rapes or attempted rapes were reported in 2008 (last year it was more than 6 000). In 2010 another study reported that just one country in the world has more rapes than Sweden, and that is Lesotho in South Africa. For every 100 000 inhabitants Lesotho has 92 reported rapes, Sweden has 53, The United States 29, Norway 20 and Denmark 7.

In 1990 the authorities counted to 3 exclusion areas in Sweden, suburbs where mostly immigrants live, where very few have a job to go to, almost all of them live by welfare and the children don’t pass their exams. In 2002 they counted to 128 exclusion areas. In 2006 we had 156 and then they stopped counting. In some cities, like Malmo where I live, a third of all inhabitants live in an exclusion area.

What did Tage Erlander mean when he said that the Swedish population was homogeneous, not just according to race but also in many other aspects? I think he meant things like norms, values, culture and traditions. A feeling of fellowship. That we all, in the Old Sweden, had a similar view of what a good society is and how we solve conflicts. He KNEW what the Swedish culture was all about, in contrast to Mona Sahlin.

In the New Sweden we need armed police officers at our hospitals because rivalling families fight each other in the hospital rooms. They gun each other down in open streets and they rob and beat old people up. The crime rate grows by the minute, but the Swedish politicians and journalists tell us that is has absolutely nothing to do with immigration. The fact that our prisons are full of foreign people is just a coincidence or is explained by socio-economic factors.

For many years I was a journalist in the mainstream media. But I was always a bit of a troublemaker, always suspicious of what people said was THE TRUTH. When everybody ran in one direction, I turned around in the other direction to see what was there.

In January 2011 something happened to make me lose my last hope about Swedish journalists. I was the vice chairman of The Society of Publicists in Malmo and had invited the Danish journalist Mikael Jalving to talk about his coming book “Absolute Sweden – a Journey in the Country of Silence”. One day the chairman phoned me and said: We must cancel Mikael Jalving because he is going to talk at a meeting arranged by a newspaper called National Today.

It didn’t matter to him, or to anyone else on the board of this society for journalists that Jalving was going to talk about his book. If he went to that meeting he would be infected by nationalist ideas and probably he would become a Nazi.

You see, everyone with a different opinion in Sweden really IS a Nazi!

That’s the way it works in the New Sweden, the country I call Absurdistan. The country of silence.

I was furious and left the board of that society. That led to my being invited to The Danish Free Press Society to talk about the strange country of Sweden and that led to my founding of The Swedish Free Press Society.

That is how Lars Hedegaard and I found each other. But we didn’t settle for running one Free Press Society each, since we both have a solid background as journalists we decided to start a newspaper. A good old, old-fashioned printed newspaper. We decided to call it Dispatch International because our vision is that this newspaper will become worldwide one day. But first we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin. Or rather – first we take Scandinavia and then we take the world!

Dispatch will be printed in two versions – one Danish and one Swedish – but all the stories are the same. And on the internet you will be able to read our stories in English and German as well. We will write about politics in our countries and in the world. We will write about all those things that mainstream media have been hiding for so many years now. We will distinguish between news stories and commentaries and the tone will be subdued. We will let the facts talk, the facts that mainstream journalists hide from people.

The situation in Sweden is far worse than in Denmark. In Sweden NOBODY talks about immigration problems, the death of the multiculti project or the islamisation/arabisation of Europe. If you do, you will immediately be called a racist, an Islamophobe or a Nazi. That is what I have been called since I founded the Free Press Society in Sweden. My name has been dragged through the dirt in big newspapers like Sydsvenskan, Svenska Dagbladet and even my own union paper, The Journalist.

So now I need you all to be my Glinda, the Good Witch of the North, and help me find my home again! I don’t think it will work to tap the heels of my ruby slippers together three times as Dorothy did to wake up in her bedroom in Kansas. But if you support Dispatch by taking a subscription or become a shareholder or just donate money to us, you will take me one step closer to home. To the Sweden that once was, the Sweden I want back.

http://www.sappho.dk/i-want-my-country-back.htm