DebateGate

FLORIDA, July 1, 2012 ? As we all know, this is an election season.

It should go without saying that the topic of illegal immigration is at the forefront once again. As usual, it is burning bridges as if they were firewood, and raising the question of just what it means to be an American.

The economy is another problem. The Great Recession continues to roll along, despite the federal government's series of stimulus measures. Now, illegal immigration threatens to boil over into this quagmire, as President Obama's de facto DREAM Act has allowed upward of 800,000 unlawful aliens to remain in the country. One can only imagine the impact this will have on those looking for work; specifically blue collar jobs.

All the while, our national security hangs in the balance. From increasing dangers abroad to pressing matters on the domestic front, strong policies are needed to promote long term stability.

So, what are David Yeagley's opinions on these key subjects?

****

Joseph F. Cotto: Illegal immigration is, as always, a highly contentious issue. How do you believe that it is being handled by the federal government as of now? From your standpoint, is there a better of way of dealing with this crisis?

Dr. David Yeagley: I know of no country in the world having a constitution that requires that country to receive immigrants.  There is no law which says any and every country must accept any and every people who come to its shores.  This is some unwritten law, that anyone born anywhere in the world has a right to live anywhere he wants.  If this law is true, then nationhood is dissolved, out the window, and nixed forever.  A nations is given away to the first takers.

I don?t think the original Americans, the WASPS, came here to conquer Indians, but rather to get away from Anglican/Roman Catholic persecution.  America is not therefore a nation of immigrants, or even invaders.  It is a nation of exiles, or persecuted fugitives?with original ideas of government.  America is a nation of religio-political experimentalists.  The concept of having open doors, yea, of having an emblazoned invitation to the world, is utterly false and destructive.  America wasn?t made for the world.  American is not a haven for losers, criminals, and populations of failed Third World countries; but, open immigration has made it such.  The Third World is overrun by mindless reproduction, low standards, destructive religion, filth and disease.  To invite such defective masses is suicidal for any nation.   

I think American immigration policy (if there is such) is wholly mistaken in concept, and any concept of charity or good will associated with it has been wholly usurped and perverted by anti-American liberals.  It is intentionally made the means of undoing all that is strong and valuable about American society.  Liberals don?t want America to be great, but common, like the rest of the failed Third World.  This is a conscious effort.   

Cotto: Several years have passed, and yet the American economy continues to wander through the depths of the Great Recession. Do you see a path to prosperity emerging on the horizon?

Dr. Yeagley: To enter at all onto the path of prosperity, having stepped and stayed on the opposite path for so long, will require severe sacrifice.  If the country wants to rid itself of Mexican labor, than who will plant the onions?  Americans may have to do without onions for a while.  To change directions always requires stern determination and sacrifice.  The path out of adversity is not an easy one.  Government regulation (i.e., bureaucracy) is destructive.  Business and free market economy have historically proven to be the path to prosperity.  Changing government bureaucracy, once established, is not likely to happen. 

I see States Rights therefore as the first viable position to counter the federal monster.  More freedom, more independence, can only begin at a smaller, localized level.  The federal government will simply have to be denied, or ?defied? if you will.  The federal government is not exempt from the liability of error, or from the accusation of ?domestic enemy.?  The idea that the federal government cannot be found guilty of anti-American intent is truly a fatal error. 

Without independence from the federal government, I see no likelihood of prosperity.  This is my message to American Indian tribes, in fact.  When I campaigned for chairman of the Comanche Nation (2012), my first platform point was to sell the tribe?to private ownership.  We must sever all financial dependency on the federal government.  What the government funds, the government controls.  This is ultimately the death knell for the tribes. 

Cotto: From foreign terrorism to domestic riots, we live in an increasingly challenging world. In order to face it, America must have a sufficient national security policy. What would you say that this should entail?

Dr. Yeagley: I don?t know that moral behavior can be dictated by the government.  In America?s case, I think the fault lies with failed pastors.  I think the American church failed, long ago.  Where the church failed, the religion of liberalism took over. 

Security has to do with trust and reliability.  This begins with citizenship.  Few people should be allowed citizenship.  It should be made precious.  Very few people should have the right to vote, and that right must be earned with terrible trial and knowledge.  Great testing and examination should be required before citizenship is ever granted.  Being an American is not really valued at all today?except for the opportunities for fame and fortune.  This is wholly degrading to society.  Being American doesn?t mean what it should mean at all.  Security is based on trustworthy people.  We simply don?t have that to the degree we should. 

Government agencies for security are not reliable when the people who comprise them are not reliable.  Again, I believe the weakness is in our underdeveloped concepts of what it means to be an American citizen.  Greek models put a very high price on citizenship.  Proper education was primary.  American Indians also put a deadly price?on manhood itself.  A brave earned his status.  It was not something inherited, or bought.

****

Over the last few years, multiculturalism has gone on the rise, bringing with it a slew of unfamiliar challenges. The presidential race, as stated before, is kicking into high gear. Considering that it might prove to be among the most important in history, this should be anything but surprising.

What are Dr. Yeagley's views about these critical matters?

Part three awaits.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-realist/2012/jul/1/changing-challenges-changing-country/

http://takimag.com/audio/derbradio120629.mp3

Social Capabilities in Decline

Mankind has not been to the moon for a long time, and Bruce Charlton has made the argument that this is because we no longer have the ability. We can say until we're blue in the face, goes the argument, that we haven't sent men to the moon lately because we don't want to, because we feel we have better uses for the money or other projects to which the talent must be devoted, but the simplest explanation is that we don't because we, as a society, can't.

Because the task of getting to the moon was one imposed by politicians, and was not within our technical capability at the time, only the most talented engineers and project leaders were assigned to the task. The leaders had the ability to make crucial decisions without (much) bureaucratic interference. Now, however, government agencies such as NASA recruit personnel on the basis of qualities other than mere smarts and decisiveness, such as diversity, minority membership, obedience to the bureaucracy, and organization-man conformity, and recruiting on this basis means that the agencies don't necessarily have top talent.

Can we use the same argument about other social tasks, such as border control? We haven't controlled our borders for decades now, and the question is whether we can. It takes little technical expertise to do so, so not having top talent in that field shouldn't matter. But, as a society we now give priority to other values, such as cheap labor, diversity, or filling the ranks of voters for socialism. It could be argued that a simple policy change would do the trick, but despite endless polls that show that a large majority of Americans are against illegal immigration, nothing is ever done. So maybe as a society we don't control the borders because we're unable.

Another example might be the prosecution of a war. The U.S. had (has) specific war aims in Iraq and Afghanistan that it has not been able to fulfill. We have not succeeded, for example, in pacifying either country. A good way of looking at the problem is to say that we have not because we can not. Other priorities than war-winning have intruded onto war plans, and these include not looking like a bully to world opinion, an unwillingness to sacrifice American lives (not that that's a bad thing), an unwillingness to be seen killing the "enemy".

So it seems that there are a number of things we can no longer do. California can't build a bullet train because of bureaucratic bungling and environmental concerns. We could probably no longer build an interstate highway system. Oil refineries and nuclear power plants are virtually incapable of being built.

Posted by Dennis Mangan at 12:39 PM

http://mangans.blogspot.com/2012/06/social-capabilities-in-decline.html

Return of the Kings
by Charles A. Coulombe

A specter is haunting Europe?and pace Marx, it is the specter of monarchy. Whenever a ceremony of any sort is performed for or by a deposed ruling family?s members?as has happened in the past few years in France, Germany, and Austria?there is sure to be whining in the media and among the political caste.

This is understandable, since the latter are the heirs of those who seized power and aim to keep it forever?regardless of what their subjects might want. Sundry triumphant pols passed laws forbidding the physical return of royal heirs to their nations?even as visitors. One by one, however, these measures were voided until the European Court tossed out the last of them and allowed the House of Savoy to return to Italy.

The entrenched political class feared that once back, the royals might regain some of their property. To avoid this, recourse was had in several countries (most notably Austria) to the kind of legal chicanery we Americans are used to with the Supreme Court. But the dominant classes? apprehensions were fulfilled in all the Balkan countries?heretofore exposed to the reductio ad absurdum of ?democracy? in the form of exquisitely brutal communist regimes.

With the exception of Greece, which with Anglo-American help had avoided its sister countries? red servitude, the populations of the formerly Marxist region welcomed back their former monarchs (or their heirs) with open arms?going so far as to reverse the theft of much of their former property. The Balkan royals began once again to play supporting roles in their homelands? public life. Simeon II of Bulgaria was perhaps the most successful. Acting as the focus of a grassroots political movement, he was elected prime minister in 2001.

But after leaving office in 2005 with a solid record, the King assumed the same sort of quasi-royal role his brother monarchs of Serbia, Romania, Montenegro, and Albania had. He met secular and religious dignitaries, gave out decorations, and advertised his country abroad. He did everything a reigning constitutional monarch would do, save opening and closing parliament and receiving ambassadors. This satisfying if anomalous position, financed by his regained lands rather than tax dollars, annoyed the class in power. To choke off his activity, they used that weapon so beloved of ?democratic? oligarchs everywhere and took him to court to steal his lands once more. They just won a major victory: The country?s Supreme Court has ruled that Simeon?s hunting lodge at Krichim does not belong to him, opening the legal path to pilfering the remainder of his estates.

So steeped have we become in the politics of envy that the government robbing a rich man?better still, an ex-reigning sovereign?will bring joy to many. This is why the decades-old reduction of Britain?s landed aristocracy from a political force to a band of desperate folk trying (and often failing) to hold onto what is left of their inheritance begets either a smile or a yawn. If Simeon is to continue to play a useful role in his country?s life, he will need to seek justice?paradoxically enough?from the European Court of Human Rights. It is ironic that this is happening under Boyko Borisov?s scandal-ridden prime ministry. The contrast between monarch and politico could not be starker.

Meanwhile, Simeon?s brother sovereigns in the Balkans are doing a sterling job carrying on as shadow heads of state. Crown Prince Alexander of Serbia and his family live in the White Palace in Belgrade. (The president inhabits the Royal Palace.) Sixty-four percent of Serbs support Alexander?s restoration to the throne. After a tumultuous life filled with coups and exile, King Michael I of Romania?the only World War II-era ruler still around?now splits his time between Switzerland (the country that hosted him under communism) and Romania. His oldest daughter, Crown Princess Margarita, and her husband Prince Radu, live full-time in the country on returned property and play a large role in national life. Among other things the prince has become a sort of roving ambassador for Romanian business. Young Crown Prince Leka II of Albania has also found government employment. He acts as special advisor to his country?s ministries of interior and foreign affairs. This sort of ?creeping restoration? has gone furthest in Montenegro, where Crown Prince Nicholas II and his family have had an official position alongside (and paid at the same rate as) the president.

Despite Simeon?s apparent setback, the monarchs? position in the ex-communist Balkans is rosy compared to that of Constantine II of Greece. Since the plebiscite on the monarchy in 1974, he has not been allowed even to visit his homeland for any great length of time. He fought the government in the European Court of Human Rights for his estate at Tatoi and other property. The resulting judgment may have been a moral victory for the King, but it was a financial success for the government.

The Greek Supreme Court banned the monarchist National Hope Party from the May 2012 elections while permitting the allegedly fascist Golden Dawn Party. The court removed the ban for the June elections; perhaps Golden Dawn?s success in May convinced the judges that there are worse things than monarchy. As Europe struggles to retain its identity and its soul, this would be good for the continent?s elites to ponder.

http://takimag.com/article/return_of_the_kings_charles_coulombe/print#axzz1xw8rql6x

UKIP LEADER NIGEL FARAGE TALKING ABOUT THE "EURO SINKING SHIP"!

Europe's post-Nazi stress disorder has brought it to ruin
By Ed West Politics Last updated: May 30th, 2012


The European crisis threatens to re-awaken the old monster of nationalism, military historian Antony Beevor has warned. In an interview with the Telegraph, the author of Stalingrad and Berlin: the Downfall said that:

The great European dream was to diminish militant nationalism. We would all be happy Europeans together. But we are going to see the old monster of militant nationalism being awoken when people realise how little control their politicians have. We are already seeing political disintegration in Europe.

I feel slightly uneasy at the way historians are consulted as if history is going to repeat itself. It never does. It is misleading and dangerous to make sweeping parallels with the Second World War. Politicians like Blair and Bush liked to sound Churchillian or Rooseveltian at times of crisis, but the comparisons of Saddam Hussein to Hitler were preposterous. Eden compared Nasser to Hitler and that led us into the Suez disaster.

Indeed. On the same day The Guardian printed a letter, ?We are all Greek Jews now?, warning against Right-wing extremism, a letter that perfectly captures all the symptoms of Europe?s post-Nazi disorder.

We invite all citizens, political parties, unions, civil society, intellectuals and artists to fight the extreme right by promoting and bringing to life the European dream. We must always remember that this dream was built on the ruins of Nazism. We must never forget about the Shoah. Our dream is of a continent free from racism and antisemitism. It is the project of a society based on "togetherness" ? beyond boundaries.

Second, we must refute the dogma of "the European fortress", which favours the spread of anti-immigrant speeches and the lockdown of Europe's frontiers, especially when a core element of European postwar identity ? its social welfare system ? requires the economic input of immigration to remain sustainable.

Taking aside that they conflate genuinely nasty neo-Fascist parties like Golden Dawn with populist (often quite libertarian) groups such as the Dutch Freedom Party, the European dream is not under threat from a few Greek heavies who look like they?ve stepped out of a Vauxhall nightclub; it?s under threat from itself, because its vision is totally unworkable. The idea of a society without borders in a world where people share their countries is as radical and extreme as the idea that people might share their property ? so don?t be surprised when it doesn?t work.

No political or cultural entity can exist without boundaries; indeed there cannot be any ?togetherness? without boundaries in the first place. The very entity of ?Europe?, or ?Christendom?, came about in opposition to the rise of Islam, and Islam remains the only force that could ever unite Europeans (the Counter-Jihad movement is very pan-European, and Anders Breivik committed his terrible crimes, he said, to save Europe). Otherwise why not just have a ?World Union??

Neither can you build an ?identity? on a social welfare system; quite the opposite. A welfare system relies on a strong sense of national community, something that its earliest proponents, such as William Beveridge, all pointed out. (And I have no idea where they get the idea that welfare requires the economic input of immigrants; the ?replacement? theory of immigration has been blown apart by every body that has ever researched it, and minority communities in every western European country overall receive more welfare than natives.)

Where did this utopian vision come from? My grandparents, like most people in England in the 1930s, hated the Nazis; they hated their militarism, their criminality, their contempt for the rule of law and their racism (a word which was only coined in that decade). But my grandfather did not serve in order to create a world without borders or nation-states; no one did. And I suspect that, were he to see Britain and Europe today, he would conclude that it was in the grips of collective insanity.

Freud has rather gone out of fashion in recent years, but if we could psychoanalyse the people of Europe one might conclude that the continent?s leadership was behaving in a neurotic, self-destructive manner brought about by a horrific trauma.

As the letter writers say, this European dream was built in the shadow of Auschwitz, the aim being from the start the death of nationalism. The EU has been Godwin's Law on a massive scale.

But it?s never been explained why, because of what the Nazis did ? and the Nazis were not normal nationalists anymore than Mark Chapman is a normal music fan ? the Dutch, the French or the English should embrace a utopian vision whereby they become minorities in their own major cities and their countries become provinces of a new Holy Roman Empire.

And, moral though I appreciate this vision might be, is it the best way to stop conflict? Nazism, the Second World War and the Holocaust came about for a number of reasons unique to the period, such as the First World War and the threat of Communism. (Incidentally, on the same day as the "Greek Jews" piece, The Guardian had a letter ? perhaps a spoof ? praising the Soviet Union?s education policy. And yes, I know that the USSR was rather less depraved than Nazi Germany, in the same way that Peter Sutcliffe wasn?t quite as sick as Fred West.)

But Golden Dawn and Jobbik are not going to bring about a new Holocaust ? in fact the overwhelming, dominant threat to Europe?s Jewish community comes from the Arab and Muslim world, where anti-Semitism is unfortunately far more widespread than it was in Germany before Hitler. And the irony is that, out of collective guilt for what happened to Europe?s Jews, Europe imported millions of people from some of the world?s most anti-Semitic countries, made no attempt to counter these prejudices, and even began to adopt the idea that Israel was uniquely responsible for the world?s problems. Instead of preventing future atrocities by defending Israel?s very strong historic legitimacy ? a crucial step on the road to peace ? they are still trying to fight the last genocide, stuck in their solipsistic dreams.

There?s no harm in having dreams, of course, except that when they become nightmares, others are often forced to share them.

The European crisis threatens to re-awaken the old monster of nationalism, military historian Antony Beevor has warned. In an interview with the Telegraph, the author of Stalingrad and Berlin: the Downfall said that:

The great European dream was to diminish militant nationalism. We would all be happy Europeans together. But we are going to see the old monster of militant nationalism being awoken when people realise how little control their politicians have. We are already seeing political disintegration in Europe.

I feel slightly uneasy at the way historians are consulted as if history is going to repeat itself. It never does. It is misleading and dangerous to make sweeping parallels with the Second World War. Politicians like Blair and Bush liked to sound Churchillian or Rooseveltian at times of crisis, but the comparisons of Saddam Hussein to Hitler were preposterous. Eden compared Nasser to Hitler and that led us into the Suez disaster.

Indeed. On the same day The Guardian printed a letter, ?We are all Greek Jews now?, warning against Right-wing extremism, a letter that perfectly captures all the symptoms of Europe?s post-Nazi disorder.

We invite all citizens, political parties, unions, civil society, intellectuals and artists to fight the extreme right by promoting and bringing to life the European dream. We must always remember that this dream was built on the ruins of Nazism. We must never forget about the Shoah. Our dream is of a continent free from racism and antisemitism. It is the project of a society based on "togetherness" ? beyond boundaries.

Second, we must refute the dogma of "the European fortress", which favours the spread of anti-immigrant speeches and the lockdown of Europe's frontiers, especially when a core element of European postwar identity ? its social welfare system ? requires the economic input of immigration to remain sustainable.

Taking aside that they conflate genuinely nasty neo-Fascist parties like Golden Dawn with populist (often quite libertarian) groups such as the Dutch Freedom Party, the European dream is not under threat from a few Greek heavies who look like they?ve stepped out of a Vauxhall nightclub; it?s under threat from itself, because its vision is totally unworkable. The idea of a society without borders in a world where people share their countries is as radical and extreme as the idea that people might share their property ? so don?t be surprised when it doesn?t work.

No political or cultural entity can exist without boundaries; indeed there cannot be any ?togetherness? without boundaries in the first place. The very entity of ?Europe?, or ?Christendom?, came about in opposition to the rise of Islam, and Islam remains the only force that could ever unite Europeans (the Counter-Jihad movement is very pan-European, and Anders Breivik committed his terrible crimes, he said, to save Europe). Otherwise why not just have a ?World Union??

Neither can you build an ?identity? on a social welfare system; quite the opposite. A welfare system relies on a strong sense of national community, something that its earliest proponents, such as William Beveridge, all pointed out. (And I have no idea where they get the idea that welfare requires the economic input of immigrants; the ?replacement? theory of immigration has been blown apart by every body that has ever researched it, and minority communities in every western European country overall receive more welfare than natives.)

Where did this utopian vision come from? My grandparents, like most people in England in the 1930s, hated the Nazis; they hated their militarism, their criminality, their contempt for the rule of law and their racism (a word which was only coined in that decade). But my grandfather did not serve in order to create a world without borders or nation-states; no one did. And I suspect that, were he to see Britain and Europe today, he would conclude that it was in the grips of collective insanity.

Freud has rather gone out of fashion in recent years, but if we could psychoanalyse the people of Europe one might conclude that the continent?s leadership was behaving in a neurotic, self-destructive manner brought about by a horrific trauma.

As the letter writers say, this European dream was built in the shadow of Auschwitz, the aim being from the start the death of nationalism. The EU has been Godwin's Law on a massive scale.

But it?s never been explained why, because of what the Nazis did ? and the Nazis were not normal nationalists anymore than Mark Chapman is a normal music fan ? the Dutch, the French or the English should embrace a utopian vision whereby they become minorities in their own major cities and their countries become provinces of a new Holy Roman Empire.

And, moral though I appreciate this vision might be, is it the best way to stop conflict? Nazism, the Second World War and the Holocaust came about for a number of reasons unique to the period, such as the First World War and the threat of Communism. (Incidentally, on the same day as the "Greek Jews" piece, The Guardian had a letter ? perhaps a spoof ? praising the Soviet Union?s education policy. And yes, I know that the USSR was rather less depraved than Nazi Germany, in the same way that Peter Sutcliffe wasn?t quite as sick as Fred West.)

But Golden Dawn and Jobbik are not going to bring about a new Holocaust ? in fact the overwhelming, dominant threat to Europe?s Jewish community comes from the Arab and Muslim world, where anti-Semitism is unfortunately far more widespread than it was in Germany before Hitler. And the irony is that, out of collective guilt for what happened to Europe?s Jews, Europe imported millions of people from some of the world?s most anti-Semitic countries, made no attempt to counter these prejudices, and even began to adopt the idea that Israel was uniquely responsible for the world?s problems. Instead of preventing future atrocities by defending Israel?s very strong historic legitimacy ? a crucial step on the road to peace ? they are still trying to fight the last genocide, stuck in their solipsistic dreams.

There?s no harm in having dreams, of course, except that when they become nightmares, others are often forced to share them.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100161509/europes-post-nazi-stress-disorder-has-brought-it-to-ruin/#disqus_thread

Newark Star-Ledger admits to censoring race in savage mob attacks

By now many of you are familiar with the brutal racially motivated mob attack on two Virginia-Pilot reporters in Norfolk, Virgina. The pair was attacked by a mob of up to thirty young blacks down the street from the offices of the Virginia-Pilot.

The newspaper news staff refused to report the story. Two weeks later, a writer for the opinion page blew the whistle on her own newspapers' censorship. She also reported on a twitter message from one of the perps. The message boasted that the attack was revenge for Trayvon Martin. She said the police had been reluctant to do anything about the attack.

This story was picked up by Bill O'Reilly and several syndicated radio talk show hosts. Syndicated radio talk show host Alex Jones pointed out "if it was this hard for two reporters to get their own employer to report the attack, just think how many of these attacks are never reported at all." The newspaper, which was still under the leadership of Obama's new deputy HUD secretary when the attack took place, took a beating in the conservative media. Norfolk police were also put on the defensive. Suddenly the police made an arrest and charged the perp with a felony and numerous misdemeanors.

However, media censorship of black crime continues unabated. Over the weekend, the Red Hot Chili Peppers performed at the Prudential Center in Newark, New Jersey. About 20,000 fans packed the arena.

As concert goers walked to their cars after the show, a mob of what the Newark Star-Ledger is calling "teenagers," brutally attacked several people. Five people were injured, some of them very badly. Three of the injured victims are teens. Two of the victims suffered serious facial fractures.

Newark Police Director Samuel DeMaio said the attacks were motivated by a desire to cause injury. He says the perpetrators were laughing during the attacks.

Sounds like the attacks were racially motivated hate crimes right? Well the Newark Star-Ledger only describes the attackers as "teenagers." Any details that would clue the reader as too the race of the attackers appears to be intentionally omitted.

I called the Star-Ledger and asked if they had a policy of omitting the race of at large crime suspects. The first woman I talked to went to ask her superiors. She came back and told me that there is no formal policy, "but we generally do not publish race."

I then asked to speak to crime reporter James Queally who wrote Star-Ledgers' two articles on the attacks.

Queally told me that the police report did list the race of the perpetrators and that he censored this information in his two articles on purpose. He also stated that it was the newspapers' policy to censor race in crime stories.

Then the conversation took a comedic turn. I asked Queally what race was listed in the police report and he refused to tell me. He also said he interviewed three of the victims, but refused to tell me what race they were. Queally did however volunteer that "it's an 80% black area and the concert was full of white rock and roll fans."

​ Queally denied that the attacks were racially motivated. He said that if it was blacks attacking whites, then that was just a factor of probability. Keep in mind that Queally admits knowing the race of the perps and refuses to say.

​I told Queally about numerous other black on white mob attacks all over the nation and explained to him this was part of a trend of racially motivated hate crimes. At this point Queally went from a friendly demeanor to a very arrogant sounding tone. He replied "well somehow myself and everyone else in the media have missed all of these." I told Queally I have been documenting these hate crime mob attacks and would be happy to e-mail him lots of information. Queally then hung up the phone without a reply.

During the conversation Queally hinted at his reasoning for wanting to censor the race of the perpetrators. He asked "if all the attackers were black fifteen year-olds, would you avoid all black fifteen year-olds in Newark?" I told him I would, especially a group of black fifteen year-olds. I told him that avoiding a specific demographic known for brutally attacking my demographic at random was "common sense." Queally replied, "that's your opinion."

In other words Queally places political correctness above public safety, even though "public safety" is one of the topics he is supposed to be covering. The LA Times, for example, is very candid about having a policy of censoring race in crime stories. They say they don't want to "stigmatize racial minorities."

Recently I called WYFF Greenville, an NBC affiliate. I found two articles on their website about attempted burglaries, where a home owner scared the suspect off. One of the stories has detailed information about the perps' clothing, but omits his race. The other story lists the perp as white. I asked why one was censored and not the other. The woman who answers their main phone said that employees of the studio have staff meetings and decide which stories to censor race and which ones not to censor race. She said she wouldn't characterize it as "censorship," but as "making a decision."

She said she didn't know why race would be stated in one attempted burglary story and not the other. I think it is pretty self-evident.

My conversation with Queally reminded me of a funny comedy bit by comedian Patrice O'Neal. He lampooned the agony that a white liberal must feel when they see a dangerous looking black male coming down the street. He said they want to flee, but are afraid of being "racist." His advice was to run away and be safe, and feel guilty later.

I recently had a black man from Columbus, Ohio tell me about being mugged by two young black perps. He said he suspected the men were dangerous and could have gotten away in time. He didn't take evasive action because he decided  that he shouldn't "racially profile." He felt pretty foolish afterward.

Even left-wing icon Rev. Jessie Jackson believes race is a very important piece of information to know when it comes to crime. At a 1993 conference for the Rainbow/PUSH coalition in Chicago, Jessie Jackson said "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved?. After all we have been through. Just to think we can?t walk down our own streets, how humiliating."​

follow me on my new twitter: @kyle_rogers76

http://www.examiner.com/article/star-ledger-admits-to-censoring-race-savage-post-concert-mob-attacks