The American Spectator : A Burr in Their Saddle

Eric Damon| 8.3.09 @ 7:27AM

There's no one in the state that can really challenge Richard Burr, and that would include Roy Cooper even if he ran. I voted for Cooper as AG, and was sorely disappointed when he tried to effectively turn away from the Easley messes with the former governor and the funny business regarding Mary Easley's plum job appointment at NCSU. He came off looking like a political hack who was more interested in protecting one of his own than in seeking justice. And even though the Democrats won the state last year, North Carolina generally is conservative; the Democrats won not because they were so popular, but because they were able to link the GOP candidates to President Bush and his unpopularity. It worked then, but that won't win in the 2010 cycle, and Obama may be the unpopular one then.

Michael L. Hauschild| 8.3.09 @ 8:16AM

Things are going to get so bad that the Democrats are going to be the ones looking for an "alternative" third party. It will be interesting to watch Hillary emphasize with the Palin mystique to fill this role. Who knows, but I suggest she switch her campaign theme song from "I'm a Beleiver" to "Like a Virgin."

Michael Tomlinson| 8.3.09 @ 8:40AM

Please, give it a break on implying Obama and Pelosi's bitches (i.e., blue dogs) are independent. Saying that any of the lapdogs "make a habit of parting company with party leaders on key votes" is just BS. They consistently (80% of the time) roll over and vote for what their master’s command. Shuler and McIntyre are reliable liberal votes for empowering Pelosi and Obama, massive deficit spending, nationalizing health care and killing jobs.

Any conservative who votes for a Democrat lapdog is choosing to empower the left. All Democrats are liberals. Conservatives have got to learn this simple lesson. There is no excuse for a conservative voting for a Democrat. A RINO, for all their frustration, is better than a Democrat under any circumstance.

As for Democrats in North Carolina they are doing for North Carolina what Barack Obama is doing for the nation – killing jobs (11% and rising), raising taxes, recklessly spending and Democrat corruption is so rife in the state it is fast becoming "New Jersey South."

The Big E| 8.3.09 @ 8:54AM

The simple reason that few Dems are up for challenging Burr is because they know he is not really that vulnerable. Obama and his crew of bums carried this state last time, in large part, because McCain had so infuriated his conservative base - which in this state is very conservative - that they stayed home in November. Furthermore, Kay Hagans didn't win last year as much as Elizabeth Dole lost - or more to the point - gave the election away with on of the most inept, poorly run, and idiotic campaigns around.

Louis Jenkins| 8.3.09 @ 9:13AM

…and polls show that many North Carolinians don't know who he is, despite his presence in the Senate for almost six years.

The article is correct in that Burr does not have the name recognition that Mrs. Dole did. Unfortunately, name recognition doesn’t make one effective. Senator Dole was rated as one of the least effective Senators of her day, and hindsight agrees with those past poll(s). After the high profile get ‘er done Helms, Dole was a piece of lint in a whirlwind. And yes, her campaign for re-election stunk. Burr is gaining some steam, in spite of what this article states, as he is now the go to guy for NC conservatives. Hagan? A conservative might as well stub his toe, as she only answers to her Research Triangle liberals supporters. NC politics is guided by the ‘down east’ political machine that has controlled the state for 30 + years or longer. Consider the completion of I-485 loop around Charlotte that has languished for years, while Fayetteville is to receive a completed belt way that is estimated to only see a tenth of the traffic compared to I-485 on any given day. Governor Perdue is one of the three least popular governors in the US, only ranking ahead of the governors of Nevada (I think) and California. Shuler may claim to be a “Blue Dog” Democrat, at least that’s what his website says, but he’s still a liberal from a fortress of liberalism. Asheville, NC, was once a conservative town, but due to an influx of “in betweeners” (people who move to Florida from northern states, find they don’t like Florida, and move to western NC) the western NC cross section population is turning decidedly more liberal in their political views. Cooper, well, he’s shown his colors in the Governor “Big Ease” situation, and his trashcan is overflowing with 'politics as usual'. What else could be expected? NC is a mixed bag right now and the gamblers are betting that NC will soon be rock solid Blue in the future. NC is already the eighth highest taxed state in the Union, it had a dickens of a time balancing its budget without adding more taxation which it has done via a "temporary increase in sales taxes" and we know what that means (its state government even tried adding a 2.5% surcharge on the state tax owed by citizens but that thankfully went bust-credit that one to its governor) , and is decidely non-business friendly. However, do not discount the grassroots movements and tea parties that are beginning to sprout up around the state, and those folks are not happy.

blunted| 8.3.09 @ 9:46AM

All of the republican candidates are weak. The way things are going, they will all fall like Mccain and Palin.

Rebecca| 8.3.09 @ 9:49AM

The truth is that there is a dearth of candidates both Democratic and Republican in North Carolina. That's why Liddy Dole ran here and won. Then she did nothing. Burr has done absolutely nothing here either and we'll have to wait and see on Hagan.

blunted| 8.3.09 @ 9:54AM

People are finally seeing that republican candidates are voting against Obama and not giving two cents about the actual issues. Fox news, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and others are getting so desperate trying to convince the American people of their fatalist agenda that they are saying things that are just plain ridiculous. It's amazing a very small minority are still listening to them like they are god.

blunted| 8.3.09 @ 10:04AM

Ouch, it looks like Burr has approval ratings worse than Dole had two years ago.

blunted| 8.3.09 @ 10:08AM

Elaine Marshall!

Michael Tomlinson| 8.3.09 @ 12:17PM

Burr, (rated higher than Democrat Senator Kay Hagan who has a 32% approval rating) will be reelected next November if for no other reason than Democrat Governor Bev Perdue (one of the worst Governors in the US w/ a 25% approval rating) and the other Obama Democrats in North Carolina are ruining this state. North Carolina Democrats, like all Obama Democrats, are terribly corrupt and shockingly incompetent. Under Obama Democrats North Carolina’s unemployment is in double digits and climbing, deficits are ballooning, sales taxes are skyrocketing, property taxes are high and the only solution Democrats have is following in the footsteps of Maryland and taxing millionaires and working North Carolinians. A recipe for disaster.

Remember every night in the Democrat’s Obamanation more people in North Carolina and around the country are homeless and going to bed hungry than at any time since the great depression.

blunted| 8.3.09 @ 5:39PM

Another one bites the dust:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – The Tennessee state senator said he was opposed to sex outside marriage, but his private life told a different story: He was having an affair with his 22-year-old intern.

When an extortion plot exposed married Republican Sen. Paul Stanley's illicit relationship, he said he would be "clearing up" misimpressions later. He's now clearing out his office, the latest politician caught in a sex scandal, this one made worse by not coming clean.

Mattled| 8.3.09 @ 6:06PM

I see we have another IPDiT.

Internet Personality Disorder Troll.

ADL coverUpCausesMore question| 8.3.09 @ 8:09PM

No, what it is you do not wish Gentiles to speak about Jews, which causes more interest than you could ever hide, I wanted to know what you are hiding. So I have been studing the Jewish Hiostory.

CHAPTER VI

COULDN'T HAPPEN NOW?

THIS argument, "It couldn't happen now," seems quite good enough for a lot of people when it is applied to the matter of Jewish Ritual Murder. It is, perhaps, comforting to the democratic mind to think that "Progress" ensures that such an evil practice, even if it occurred in unenlightened days, could not have survived to-day. I wish I could see any comfort in this argument, but I don't. There are no facts to support it.

That the Aryan peoples have progressed I do-not deny; but I do not think there is any evidence to show any like progress among some of the other races.

Compare the following two happenings, noting the dates:

A.D. 117. From the account of Dio Cassius in 78th Book of his history Chapter 32:

"Then the Jews in Cyrene (on the modern Tripoli coast of North Africa) choosing as their leader one Andreas, slew the Romans and Greeks, and devoured their bodies, drank the blood, clothed themselves in the flayed skins, and sawed many in half from the head downwards; some they threw to wild beasts and others were compelled to fight in single combat, so that in all 220,000 were killed. In Egypt they did many similar things, also its Cyprus, led by one of them named Artemion; and there another 40,000 were slain."

A.D. 1936. From Daily Mail, 17th September (describing the horrors of the Red Revolution in Spain):

"Baena (Cordoba Province): Ninety-one assassinations, mostly by shooting, hatchet blows, or strangling. Others were burned alive. Two nuns who had been dragged from the convent of the Mother of God, had their religious medals with the figure of the Virgin, nailed into the sockets of their eyes.

"La Campana (Seville): Reds, led by a woman, Concepcion Velarde Caraballo, who either killed or was responsible for killing 11 persons in prison. The prisoners were fired on until they fell, covered with petrol, and set on fire. Some were still writhing in the flames when the city was entered.

"Lore del Rio (Seville): 138 assassinated. They were dragged to the cemetery, lined up, and shot in the legs, being buried alive as they fell in a trench. When the town was entered hands could still be seen writhing above the ground."

I cannot see much difference in outlook between the Jewish devils responsible for both these massacres, even though there are 15 centuries between them!

In view of that, why boggle at the idea of Jewish Ritual Murder still surviving?

Why make such a fuss when Jews are charged with the practice of Ritual Murder? Other Asiatics are known to have practised it until 1850, and, if left to themselves, would doubtless have maintained the custom.

In India, from 10,000 to 50,000 murders were perpetrated every year by a religious body known as the Thugs. They were mostly people of Mahommedan extraction, but a number of Hindus were also involved. They used to worship Kali, the Hindu goddess of destruction. Their custom was to club together, generally as travellers, when they would slowly gain the confidence of some innocent person, and at a given signal, would strangle him in a prescribed manner, which they regarded as a religious duty; then they would rob him if he had anything to be robbed of, and bury the body with such skill as to leave no trace. The Thugs actually received the protection of some of the native princes and chiefs who were thoroughly frightened of their power as a secret religious sect. How this reminds us of the attitude of the influential men in this country who adopt the same view of Masonry and Jewry!

Then the British Government decided the thing must stop. After many years of investigation, Sir W. H. Sleeman stamped out the Thug sect, and no Thuggee murders are on record since 1850. He found that Thuggee was hereditary among male members of a family, and he achieved his object by confining in segregation for life all male members of Thug families.

Now my point is that Thuggee happened; and happened in the 19th century until the British put an end to it under Sleeman. It was a long time before the British administration learned of the existence of Thuggee, so carefully was it concealed; another analogy with Jewish Ritual Murder!

"It couldn't happen now." Why not?

And on 13th September, 1937, a telegram was sent to The Times from Delhi reporting the sacrifice of a 17-year-old youth to propitiate the rain-god, in Sirmoor State. The youth was led through the village of Gunpur by a crowd of people headed by a priest and the village headman, and beheaded on a special altar to the accompaniment of devotional songs. The head was found by the police at the foot of the deity in the village temple.

As Aryan rule over India relaxes, Thuggee and other human sacrifices will re-appear.

"It couldn't happen now." Why not, again?

Here is an extract from Magick by the "Master Therion", published in 1929 by the Lecram Press, 26 Rue d'Hautpool, Paris, pp. 94-5:

". . . it was the theory of the ancient magicians that any living being is a storehouse of energy varying in quantity according to the size and health of the animal, and in quality according to its mental and moral character. At the death of the animal this energy is liberated suddenly. The animal should therefore be killed within the Circle, or Triangle, as the case may be, so that its energy cannot escape.... For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable

A footnote on p. 95 says "(4) It appears from the Magical Records of Frater Perdurabo that he made this particular sacrifice on an average about 150 times every year between 1912 e.v. and 1928 e.v."

This footnote refers to the last sentence in the paragraph quoted above.

"It couldn't happen now." Why not, in the Devil's name?

Sir Richard Burton show us that the disappearance of children at Passover was talked of in Rome and in the other towns of Italy throughout the early part of the 19th century when efficient policing was unknown, as also throughout the century at Smyrna and other places in the Levant and in Turkey.

It couldn't happen now? But the Jewish method of cattle slaughter happens now and is specially exempted from the objects of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, which Act orders that all cattle for Gentile food must be stunned with a mechanically-operated instrument before the throat is cut. The Jewish method is cutting the throat from ear to ear without any previous stunning. It has been condemned by a Government Commission held in 1904 as failing in rapidity, freedom from unnecessary pain and instantaneous loss of sensibility. Yet it "happens now" and is protected in this our England, by an English Law, and remains unattacked by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Why couldn't it happen now?

To this day, we learn from Jewish sources (B'nai B'rith Messenger, California, 3rd April, 1936) that the Samaritans, an unorthodox Jewish sect who keep Passover by solar computation, indulge in bloody sacrifices of animals on that feast-day; an account is given of a visit to the scene of sacrifice on Mount Gerizim in the 20th century, and these word, are used:

"I have heard the wild, primitive scream of triumph as the knife is withdrawn from the neck of the lamb of sacrifice."

Here is a paragraph from a periodical which shall be unnamed, of 1936, showing that the urge to the "Mysteries" is not dead:

"The sophisticated Pharisee of the 20th century unceasingly gives thanks that he has outgrown the fables and rituals of the Ancients. The worldly-wise man loves the evident and is exasperated by that which is not evident. Plutocrat and proletarian alike regard themselves as victimised by that person whose words or actions they do not understand. We love the obvious because it flatters us, and hate the mysterious because it damns our intelligence with faint praise. Riddles are irksome. The modern cry is for facts. Yet, with facts for his fetish, the modernist is more foolish than his forebears. Decrying superstition, he is most superstitious; rejecting fancies, he is the fanciful product of a fictitious age. The modern world is bored with its own importance; life itself has become a botheration. Suffering from chronic ennui, how can a world ever become interested in anything but itself? Smothered in their self-complacency, these all-sufficient ones ask for facts. But what facts are there that fools can understand? How can the helpless superficial grasp the hopelessly profound, for are not realities reserved for the wise?"

Alongside this clotted nonsense was a picture of a ritual murder, with the victim crucified, below it, a portrait of the author, an obvious Jew.

I take it that- "it would happen now" if this Jew had his way!

Jewish History Interesting| 8.3.09 @ 8:17PM

CHAPTER VII

JEWISH RITUAL MURDER IN ENGLAND BEFORE THE EXPULSION OF 1290

THE first known case happened in 1144; after that, cases cropped up from time to time until the Jews were expelled from the realm by Edward I. The most famous of these cases was that of Little St. Hugh of Lincoln in 1255. I record these cases in chronological order; and I do not deny the possibility of some of them in which details are lacking, being "trumped-up" ones, where death may have been due to causes other than ritual murder and the Jews blamed for it; but the case of St. Hugh, particularly, was juridically decided, and the Close and Patent Rolls of the Realm record definitely cases at London, Winchester and Oxford. There seems no reason to doubt that many cases of ritual murder have been unsuspected and even undiscovered.
1144- Norwich. A twelve-year-old boy was crucified and his side pierced at the Jewish Passover. His body was found in a sack hidden in a tree. A converted Jew, called Theobald of Cambridge, confessed that the Jews took blood every year from a Christian child because they thought that only by so doing could they ever obtain their freedom and return to Palestine, and that it was their custom to draw lots to decide whence the blood was to be supplied; Theobald said that last year the lot fell to Narbonne but in this year to Norwich. The boy was locally beatified and has ever since been known as St. William. The Sheriff, probably bribed, refused to bring the Jews to trial.

In J. C. Cox's Norfolk Churches, Vol. II, p. 47, as also in the Victoria Country History of Norfolk, 1906, Vol. II, is an illustration of an old painted rood-screen depicting the Ritual Murder of St. William, the screen itself is in Loddon Church, Norfolk, unless the Power of Jewish Money has had it removed. No one denies this case as a historical event, but the Jews of course say it was not a Ritual Murder. The Jew, C. Roth, in his The Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew (1935) says: "Modern enquirers, after careful examination of the facts, have concluded that the child probably lost consciousness in consequence of a cataleptic fit, and was buried prematurely by his relatives." How these modern enquiries arrived at a conclusion like that after all these years, Mr. Roth does not say; nor is it a compliment to the Church to suggest that its ministers would allow the boy's death to be celebrated as a martyrdom of a saint without having satisfied themselves that wounds on the body confirmed the crucifixion and the piercing of the side. And why the relatives should bury the boy in a sack and then dig it up and hang it in a tree would puzzle even a Jew to explain.

John Foxe's Arts and Monuments of the Church records this ritual murder, as did the Bollandists and other historians. The Prior, William Turbe, who afterwards became Bishop of Norwich, was the leading light in insisting that the crime was one of Jewish Ritual Murder; in the Dictionary of National Biography (edited by a Jew!) it is made clear that his career, quite apart from this Ritual Murder case, is that of a man of great strength of character and moral courage.

1160- Gloucester. The body of a child named Harold was found in the river with the usual wounds of crucifixion. Sometimes wrongly dated 1168. Recorded in Monumenta Germania Historica, Vol. VI (Erfurt Annals); Polychronicon, R. Higdon; Chronicles, R. Grafton, p. 46.

1181- Bury St. Edmunds. A child called Robert was sacrificed at Passover. The child was buried in the church and its presence there was supposed to cause 'miracles.' Authority: Rohrbacher, from the Chronicle of Gervase of Canterbury.

1192- Winchester. A boy crucified. Mentioned in Jewish Encyclopedia as being a false charge. Details lacking.

1232- Winchester. Boy crucified. Details lacking. Mentioned in Hyamson's History of the Jews in England; also in Annals of Winchester; and conclusively in the Close Roll 16, Henry III, membrane 8, 26.6. 1232.

1235- Norwich. In this case, the Jews stole a child and hid him with a view to crucifying him. Haydn's Dictionary of Dates of date 1847, says of this case, "They (the Jews) circumcise and attempt to crucify a child at Norwich; the offenders are condemned in a fine of 20,000 marks." Further authority Huillard Breolles Grande Chronique, III, 86. Also Close Roll, 19 Henry III, m 23.

1244- London. A child's body found unburied in the cemetery of St. Benedict, with ritual cuts. Buried with great pomp in St. Paul's. Authority: Social England, Vol. I, p. 407, edited by H. D. Traill.

1255- Lincoln. A boy called Hugh was kidnapped by the Jews and crucified and tortured in hatred of Jesus Christ. The boy's mother found the body in a well on the premises of a Jew called Joppin or Copinus. This Jew, promised by the judge his life if he confessed, did so, and 91 Jews were arrested; eventually 18 were hanged for the crime. King Henry III himself personally ordered the juridical investigation of the case five weeks after the discovery of the body, and refused to allow mercy to be shown to the Jew Copinus, who was executed.

Hugh was locally beatified, and his tomb may still be seen in Lincoln Cathedral, but the Jewish Money Power has evidently been at work, for between 1910 and 1930, a notice was fixed above the shrine as follows:

"The body of Hugh was given burial in the Cathedral and treated as that of a martyr. When the Minster was repaved, the skeleton of a small child was found beneath the present tombstone. There are many incidents in the story which tend to throw doubt upon it, and the existence of similar stories in England and elsewhere points to their origin in the fanatical hatred of the Jews of the Middle Ages and the common superstition, now wholly discredited, that ritual murder was a factor of Jewish Paschal Rites. Attempts were made as early as the 13th century by the Church to protect the Jews against the hatred of the populace and against this particular accusation."

At a recent visit to Lincoln of the Jewish Historical Society, in 1934, the Mayor, Mr. G. Deer, said to them: "That he (St. Hugh) was done to death by Jews for ritual purposes cannot be other than a libel based upon the prejudices and ignorance of an unenlightened age." The Chancellor on the same occasion said: "It was quite obviously one of the very many cases of slander spread about the Jews from time to time. No doubt, the child died or fell down the well."

These people, Jews and Gentiles, bring no evidence whatever for their statements; it couldn't have happened, they say. Why not?

Was Henry III, weak in character as we know him to have been, ever charged with being an immoral man? Did the judges not examine the body, which was only four weeks dead? Is Haydn's Dictionary of Dates (1847 edition) medieval and superstitious when it said of this case "They (the Jews) crucify a child at Lincoln, for which 18 are hanged"? There are no 'ifs' and 'buts' here! Or does Copinus's confession not tally with that of Theobald, quoted above in the first Norwich case? Copinus said, "For the death of this child, nearly all the Jews in England had come together and every town had sent deputies to assist in the sacrifice."

No one questions the historical facts in this case; but Jews and Judaised Gentiles unite in denying the fact of Ritual Murder.

Strack, in his The Jew and Human Sacrifice, written in defence of the Jews against the Blood Accusation, omits all mention of this famous case, which is the subject of the Prioress's Tale (Canterbury Tales) of Chaucer and is referred to in Marlowe's Jew of Malta. Hyamson's History of the Jews in England devotes the whole of Chapter IX to "Little St. Hugh of Lincoln," showing the importance of the Ritual Murder issue in the Jewish mind today.

The following Close Rolls of the Realm refer to the case of St. Hugh: Henry III, 39, m. 2,7.10 1255; 39, m. 2,14.10.1255; 40, m. 20, 24.ii.. 1255; 40,m.13,13.3.1256; 42, m. 6; 19.6.1258. And the Patent Rolls, Henry III, 40,m.20,26.11.1255; 40,m.19,9.12.1255; 40,27.3.1256; and 40,m.5, 20.8.1256.

1257. London. A child sacrificed. Authority: Cluverius. Epitome Historia, p. 541. Details lacking.

1276. London. Boy crucified. Authority: The Close Roll of the Realm, 4, Edward I, membrane 14, 3.3.1276.

1279. Northampton. A child crucified. Haydn's Dictionary of Dates, 1847, says of this case: "They (the Jews) crucify a child at Northampton for which 50 are drawn at horses' tails and hanged." Further authorities: Reiley, Memorials of London, p. I5; H. Desportes, Le Mystere du Sang.

1290. Oxford. The Patent Roll 18 Edward I, mem. 21, 21st June, 1290, contains an order for the gaol delivery of a Jew, Isaac de Pulet, detained for the murder of a Christian boy at Oxford.

Only one month after this, King Edward issued his decree expelling the Jews from the Kingdom. There is, then, every reason to believe that it was the Oxford murder which proved the last straw in toleration.

The reader will see (p. 20) that it was a similar ritual case which was one of the main stimulants to the King and Queen of Spain to expel professing Jews from that country in 1492.

The Jews, in attempting to escape responsibility for these deaths by Ritual Murder, do not hesitate to impugn the probity of two of the Kings of England, against whose moral character no one else has dared to cast a slur. Here are some examples. From the Jewish Chronicle Supplement, April, 1936, p. 8 (speaking of the Lincoln case in the reign of Henry III):

"Henceforth and especially under the zealously Christian Edward I, the Crown and its officers became almost a worse peril to the Jews than mobs intent on loot and led on by fanatic priests and knightly spendthrifts who had borrowed Jewish money. When 18th century writers of history began to examine the old records in a new sceptical temper, some may be found venturing on such unkind surmises as that the alleged crucifictions of Christian children only seemed to happen when kings were short of money." The foul accusation against men of upright character is repeated by the Jew Hyamson (History of the Jews in England, 1928 edition, p. 21), writes: "it has also been pointed out that the Blood Accusation was as a rule made at a time at which the Royal Treasury needed replenishing."

To deny that the cases of St. William of Norwich and St. Hugh of Lincoln were Jewish Ritual Murders is to accuse certain English Kings, certain English Clergy, and certain English administrators, known to be men of good morals, of murdering and torturing Jews to get their money, after accusing them of horrible crimes. In the case of St. Hugh, the sentence was juridical; in the case of St. William, the mob took the matter into their own hands because the Sheriff would take no action himself.

Whom do you believe the Jews or the English?

"It is difficult to refuse all credit to stories so circumstantial and so frequent." So says Social England concerning Ritual Murders in England Vol. I, p. 407, I893, edited by H. D. Traill.

A significant fact is that Haydn's Dictionary of Dates, at least up to 1847, quoted the Ritual Murders in Norman and Plantagenet England as undisputed facts. In later editions in the sixties, all mention of them is extirpated! We may take it that the Jewish Money Power began to dictate to the Press in England somewhere in the fifties of the last century.

Ritual Murders in Palestine| 8.3.09 @ 8:21PM

I wonder if its History repeating it's self, til it get to the point its too disgusting for even America to keep funding mass killings.

History of the Jews| 8.3.09 @ 8:27PM