Sea level Rise is Already Costing Coastal Property Owners

Coincidentally, as I happened upon this Washington Post article that focuses on Charleston, South Carolina, but which is all too applicable to coastal Virginia, we received the annual flood insurance premium invoice and it's almost as much as I paid for the first car I bought new after graduating from law school.  The premium is  up about 8% over last year's amount and like some of the property owners cited in the article, the value of our waterfront property has plateaued (but, thankfully has not fallen  since the 2008 housing market collapse) due to the increased concerns over rise sea levels and past flooding episodes.  Meanwhile, of course, Republicans at both the Virginia level and Congressional level are claiming that climate change is a hoax and sea levels are not rising.  And meanwhile, many coastal communities are seeing their tax base eroded as properties become more difficult to sell.  Parts of Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, Suffolk, Hampton and York County are approaching what is described in the article.  Here are article excerpts:

CHARLESTON, S.C. — Elizabeth Boineau’s 1939 Colonial sits a block and a half from the Ashley River in a sought-after neighborhood of ancient live oaks, charming gardens and historic homes. A year ago, she thought she could sell it for nearly $1 million. But after dropping the price 11 times, Boineau has decided to tear it down.

In March, the city’s Board of Architectural Review approved the demolition — a decision not taken lightly in Charleston’s historic district.

“Each time that I was just finishing up paying off the bills, another flood would hit,” Boineau said.

Boineau is one of many homeowners on the front lines of society’s confrontation with climate change, living in houses where rising sea levels have worsened flooding not just in extreme events like hurricanes, but also heavy rains and even high tides. Now, three studies have found evidence that the threat of higher seas is also undermining coastal property values, as home buyers — particularly investors — begin the retreat to higher ground.

The sea has risen about eight inches since 1900, and the pace is accelerating, with three inches accumulating since 1993, according to a comprehensive federal climate report released last year. Scientists predict the oceans will rise another three to seven inches by 2030, and as much as 4.3 feet by 2100.

Meanwhile, mapping has become increasingly precise, providing near-exact elevations that let researchers predict when individual properties could be underwater.

[R]esearchers at the University of Colorado at Boulder and Pennsylvania State University found that vulnerable homes sold for 6.6 percent less than unexposed homes. The most vulnerable properties — those that stand to be flooded after seas rise by just one foot ­— were selling at a 14.7 percent discount, according to the study, which is set to be published in the Journal of Financial Economics.

The study found the drop in prices appears to be driven primarily by investors buying multiple properties or second homes. Such buyers tend to be wealthier and better educated than owners who occupy their coastal homes . . . . “Sophisticated buyers . . . demand a discount to bear the risk of future sea level rise,” Lewis said in an email.

The most-studied market has been Miami-Dade County, parts of which have for years been experiencing regular sunny-day flooding. In a separate paper published in April, researchers at Harvard University found that properties at higher elevations were appreciating faster than properties at lower elevations, a phenomenon they dubbed “climate gentrification.”

Last month, the nonprofit First Street Foundation released the first analysis to single out Charleston, a gracious port city founded in 1670. The analysis suggests that exposed homes in Charleston have lost $266 million in value since 2005 due to coastal flooding and expectations of still higher seas. (Using the same method, the First Street researchers found a $465 million loss in Miami-Dade County.)

Home prices on the coast are “going up along with market trends. They’re just not going up as fast as other places,” said Jeremy Porter, a Columbia University researcher who conducted the First Street study with Steven McAlpine, the group’s head of data science.

Boineau put her house on the market last August priced just shy of $1 million, after repairs from two straight years of flooding that had come up under the house but left the interior largely unaffected. Then in September, the remnants of Hurricane Irma inundated the first floor of the house with eight inches of water. . . . .she dropped the price down to $599,900 and went through a lengthy process to get permission for demolition.  Now, Boineau says, a new buyer can build a new elevated property on the lot. When that’s done, her real estate agent, Robin Reeves, said the property should “go for 1.3 to 1.4 million dollars.”

Charleston Mayor John Tecklenburg (I) — himself a former real estate agent — said the city is looking for other ways to protect property values. Officials are considering a “comprehensive set of flooding and sea-level-rise strategies,” including improving pumping systems and raising Charleston’s Battery, a sea wall at the tip of the peninsula.

But those are expensive and complex solutions, Tecklenburg said; even if Charleston had the money, designs are not even in place yet for all of the potential engineering projects.

As city officials adjust, so do Charleston residents. Unable to find a buyer willing to purchase and then repair the home, Boineau decided to demolish it and sell the lot in Harleston Village. She is now renting a condo just across the river from the city’s central peninsula in West Ashley, where her new neighbors have assured her there has been no flooding. She hopes to buy there after the Harleston lot sells. “Charleston,” she said, “is still an incredible place to live.”

In our home we have installed three industrial sump pumps and a whole house generator (to the tune of $20,000) and after the 2009 Nor'Ida storm more or less waterproofed the first floor by installing marble floors and non water absorbent wainscoting.  The combined effect?  No standing water in the house and merely mopping out any water that may seep into the house in any future storm.  Numerous homes in our neighborhood are much more vulnerable than our home. Yes, sea level rise is costly. 

Don Lemon Slams CNN's "Homophobic" Coverage of Virginia Shooting

As previously noted in prior posts, the far right is having orgasms over the fact that Virginia shooter, Vester Falangan was gay.  Adding to their thrill and titillation is the fact that Flanagan apparently had two gay porn domain names registered in his name.  None of this, of course, has anything to do with Flanagan's top reason for his killing spree: racism and a delusional response to Dylann Root's effort to start a race war through the murder of black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina.  Sadly, now some other mainstream media outlets have jumped on the gay website connection (ignoring, of course the reality that the (i) vast majority of porn sites are for heterosexual porn, and (ii) the highest per capita viewership is among Bible Belt evangelicals) to drum up more sensation and, in the process, reinforce the societal idea that there is something wrong or perverted about being gay.   As Pink News reports, CNN anchor Don Lemon had enough of the bigotry and let loose at his own network.  Here are story highlights:

This week WDBJ-TV reporter Alison Parker and videographer Adam Ward were shot and killed during a live TV news report on Wednesday morning in Virginia. Inexplicably, CNN appeared to suggest a link between suspect Vester Flanagan’s (pseudonym Bryce Williams) ownership of legal gay porn sites.

CNN host Don Lemon has since criticised the “gay shaming” reports by his network, whilst condemning the tragedy.

In a video posted by Media Matters he says: “The gay porn site thing, to me, I don’t really see the relevance of it.

“If it’s not illegal, then what’s wrong with him owning gay porn sites or straight porn sites or as a journalist forming a media company like Dan Abrams did? I don’t see anything wrong with it. He’s an entrepreneur, he’s an American — as long as it’s two consenting adults, I don’t see what difference it makes.”

He went on to say: “I don’t want to gay-shame him. There’s nothing wrong with being gay. I’m sure he probably faced some discrimination, as we all do, and that’s horrible. But it still does not condone his actions two days ago.”

Despite CNN’s coverage never explicitly drawing a link between the gay porn sites and the shooting, correspondent Drew Griffin called the revelation “just another disturbing twist” in the incident.

Kudos to Lemon (in the interest of disclosure, we are Facebook friends)! CNN has never been my preferred news outlet and now, I will watch it even less.

Right Wing Jumps on Sexual Orientation of Black, Gay Shooter in Virginia

By now I suspect almost anyone in America who is not living under a rock has heard of the horrific murder of two WDBJ-TV (Channel 7) employees - reporter Alison Parker, 24, and cameraman Adam Ward, 27 - during an on air broadcast by a disgruntled former WDBJ-TV employee.  The shooter, Vester Lee Flanagan II’s, a/k/a Bryce Williams, obviously had serious mental problems, yet under Virginia's ridiculous gun laws was able to easily purchase a gun.  Governor MsAuliffe (who I saw last evening) has rightly cited the murders as yet more proof that Virginia needs to change its lax gun control laws - Virginia is a major source of illegal guns in New York City.  The Christofascists and whores of the gun lobby have a different take.  According to them, the whole tragedy is the result of the evil of disaffected gays (and by inference, cry baby minorities) and the Democrat Party.   First, blogger friend Joe Jervis looks at the poison being disseminated by Christofascists and right wing extremists such as little twerp Ben Shapiro who seemingly has no credentials to make him a knowledgeable commentator on anything.  Here are highlights:

According to Ben Shapiro, the Virginia shooter was driven to murder by the left’s enabling of his gay black victimhood status.

Bryce Williams’ self-described victim status, even while murdering innocents, will merit no rethinking of the divisive politics in which he apparently bathed. We won’t have a conversation about whether pushing a perennial picture of victimhood for blacks and gays in the most black-friendly, gay-friendly country on the planet could drive supposed victims to violence.

It is true that statistical outliers should not be used to club entire movements into submission. But leftists protesting at the linkage between Williams and their favored political causes have no ground on which to stand – they consistently blame conservatives for outlier events with no statistical basis. Moreover, Williams’ violence is part of a larger trend, not of black men killing white people (that still happens disproportionately, but the numbers are down), but of black men using supposed American racism as a rationale for violence more generally, and of gay people using supposed American homophobia as a rationale for violation of others’ rights.

Sample Breitbart comment: “Who should I despise more? Sick queers or low IQ blacks?”

Not a word out of Shapiro on Virginia's lax gun laws which have seen little change since the Virginia Tech massacre.  Likewise, not a word out of Shapiro on the role racism and the murders in Charleston by white supremacist Dylann Root played in today's carnage.  As ABC News reported, a portion of the shooter's rambling manifesto stated as follows:

Flanagan "writes what triggered today’s carnage was his reaction to the racism of the Charleston church shooting:"

“Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15…”

“What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them."

It is unclear whose initials he is referring to. He continues, “As for Dylann Roof? You (deleted)! You want a race war (deleted)? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE …(deleted)!!!” He said Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act.

I am in no way condoning today's murders, but in must be noted that those like Shapiro have consistently supported unlimited guns access to crazies under the guise of "protecting" the 2nd Amendment and have regularly fanned the flames of homophobia and white racism yet then complain about the consequences of their own handiwork and, as seems to be the norm, immediately play the role of the victim even thought they are the real aggressors.  

How America Can Free Itself from Guns

The recent horrific murders in Charleston have revived debate and posturing on America's insane gun ownership policies that help make gun violence off the charts compared to the rest of the developed world.  Advocates for unrestricted gun ownership cite the 2nd Amendment and believe their rights - much like the Christofascists do on religious belief - trump the rights of everyone else.  It is no surprise that both groups are core constituencies for the Republican Party that places the rights of the extremist few above the rights of the majority.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at strategies to end the gun insanity that plagues the nation.  Here are highlights:

Advocates of a saner approach to guns need a new strategy. We cannot go on like this, wringing our hands in frustration after every tragedy involving firearms. We said “enough” after Sandy Hook. We thought the moment for action had come. Yet nothing happened. We are saying “enough” after Charleston. But this time, we don’t even expect anything to happen.

What’s needed is a long-term national effort to change popular attitudes toward handgun ownership. And we need to insist on protecting the rights of Americans who do not want to be anywhere near guns.

None of this should mean letting Congress off the hook or giving up on what might be done now. So kudos to Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) for saying on Tuesday that they are looking for ways to bring back their proposal that would require background checks for gun sales. 

Lest anyone doubt that gun control measures can work, a study released this month by the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins University found that a 1995 Connecticut law requiring a permit or license contingent on passing a background check was associated with a 40 percent drop in gun homicides.

But as long as gun control is linked to ideology and party — and as long as the National Rifle Association and its allies claim a monopoly on arguments about individual rights — reasonable steps of this sort will be ground to death by the Washington Obstruction Machine.

That’s why the nation needs a public service offensive on behalf of the health and safety of us all. It could build on Sandy Hook Promise and other civic endeavors. If you doubt it could succeed, consider how quickly opinion changed on the Confederate battle flag.

My friend Guy Molyneux, a progressive pollster, laid out how it could happen. “We need to build a social movement devoted to the simple proposition that owning handguns makes us less safe, not more,” he told me. “The evidence is overwhelming that having a gun in your home increases the risks of suicide, domestic violence and fatal accidents, and yet the number one reason given for gun purchases is ‘personal safety.’ We need a public health campaign on the dangers of gun ownership, similar to the successful efforts against smoking and drunk driving.”

When we talk about guns, we don’t focus enough on the reality, reported in the 2015 Annual Review of Public Health, that nearly two-thirds of the deaths from firearm violence are suicides. Yes, people can try to kill themselves with pills, but there’s no coming back from a gunshot to the head. Those in the throes of depression who have a gun nearby are more likely to act on their darkest impulses.

Nor do we talk enough about accidental deaths when children get their hands on guns, or what happens when a domestic argument escalates and a firearm is readily available. The message is plain and simple: Households that voluntarily say no to guns are safer.

“This is not about the government saying you cannot own a handgun. This is about society saying you should not have a gun, especially in a home with children.”

“Those of us who want to live, shop, go to school and worship in gun-free spaces also have rights,” Molyneux said. “In what way is ‘freedom’ advanced by telling the owner of a bar or restaurant they cannot ban handguns in their own place of business, as many states now do? Today, it is the NRA that is the enemy of freedom, by seeking to impose its values on everyone else.”

The nation could ring out with the new slogans of liberty: “Not in my house.” “Not in our school.” “Not in my bar.” “Not in our church.” We’d be defending one of our most sacred rights: The right not to bear arms.

Dylann Storm Roof - The Last Rhodesian

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that Family Research Council ("FRC") president Tony Perkins has ties to the Council of Conservative Citizens.  Here in Virginia, the leading hate group, The Family Foundation, has ties to Perkins and FRC. When is the mainstream media going to cease giving Perkins and TFF president, Victoria Cobb, a platform? 

Try as the far right might, it cannot escape responsibility for creating an atmosphere and outlets for propaganda that helped to poison the mind of Charleston mass murderer Dylann Storm Roof.  Blogger friend Bob Felton has found a website apparently authored by Roof called The Last Rhodesian which has been taken down.  Before it was removed, however, Bob copied some of the ramblings of Roof.  Like most white supremacists, Roof's hatred was not limited to blacks.  Also on his list were Jews and Hispanics(although he surprisingly liked some Asians).  Basically, in general he disliked anyone who wasn't a Christian Caucasian.  And it is note worthy that he credits the beginning of his "education" on race to the Council of Conservative Citizens.  Here's what the Southern Poverty Law Center has to say about this group (note its views on gays):

The Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) is the modern reincarnation of the old White Citizens Councils, which were formed in the 1950s and 1960s to battle school desegregation in the South. Among other things, its Statement of Principles says that it “oppose[s] all efforts to mix the races of mankind.” Created in 1985 from the mailing lists of its predecessor organization, the CCC, which initially tried to project a "mainstream" image, has evolved into a crudely white supremacist group whose website has run pictures comparing the late pop singer Michael Jackson to an ape and referred to black people as "a retrograde species of humanity." The group's newspaper, Citizens Informer, regularly publishes articles condemning "race mixing," decrying the evils of illegal immigration, and lamenting the decline of white, European civilization.

Most Americans learned of the CCC in late 1998, when a scandal erupted over prominent Southern politicians' ties to the brazenly racist group. After it was revealed that former Congressman Bob Barr (R-Ga.) gave the keynote speech at the CCC's 1998 national convention and that then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) had spoken to the group five times, both claimed they knew nothing about the CCC. However, an Intelligence Report investigation, publicized by national television and newspaper reports, made clear what the CCC really was: a hate group that routinely denigrated blacks as "genetically inferior," complained about "Jewish power brokers," called LGBT people "perverted sodomites," accused immigrants of turning America into a "slimy brown mass of glop," and named Lester Maddox, the now-deceased, ax handle-wielding, arch-segregationist former governor of Georgia, "Patriot of the Century." 

According to a 2004 Intelligence Report review of the Citizens Informer, no fewer than 38 federal, state and local elected officials had attended CCC events between 2000 and 2004, most of them giving speeches to local chapters of the hate group. 

One can readily guess the political party affiliation of politicians addressing CCC chapters.  Indeed, much of the CCC racist propaganda could come straight from the Tea Party circles of today. But.  back to Roof. Here's a reprint form Bob's blog in an effort to make sure that the poison Roof imbibed will be documented:

It’s ugly stuff, so be prepared. As poorly written as it is, I’m having a difficult time believing these are the observations, and conclusions, of a 21-year old; whether at home or someplace else, or online, this moron has spent a lot of time amongst egregious racists.

I was not raised in a racist home or environment. Living in the South, almost every White person has a small amount of racial awareness, simply beause of the numbers of negroes in this part of the country. But it is a superficial awareness. Growing up, in school, the White and black kids would make racial jokes toward each other, but all they were were jokes. Me and White friends would sometimes would watch things that would make us think that “blacks were the real racists” and other elementary thoughts like this, but there was no real understanding behind it.

The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case. I kept hearing and seeing his name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I read the Wikipedia article and right away I was unable to understand what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right. But more importantly this prompted me to type in the words “black on White crime” into Google, and I have never been the same since that day. The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens. There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored.

From this point I researched deeper and found out what was happening in Europe. I saw that the same things were happening in England and France, and in all the other Western European countries. Again I found myself in disbelief. As an American we are taught to accept living in the melting pot, and black and other minorities have just as much right to be here as we do, since we are all immigrants. But Europe is the homeland of White people, and in many ways the situation is even worse there. From here I found out about the Jewish problem and other issues facing our race, and I can say today that I am completely racially aware.

Blacks
I think it is is fitting to start off with the group I have the most real life experience with, and the group that is the biggest problem for Americans.
Niggers are stupid and violent. At the same time they have the capacity to be very slick. Black people view everything through a racial lense. Thats what racial awareness is, its viewing everything that happens through a racial lense. They are always thinking about the fact that they are black. This is part of the reason they get offended so easily, and think that some thing are intended to be racist towards them, even when a White person wouldnt be thinking about race. The other reason is the Jewish agitation of the black race.
Black people are racially aware almost from birth, but White people on average dont think about race in their daily lives. And this is our problem. We need to and have to.
Say you were to witness a dog being beat by a man. You are almost surely going to feel very sorry for that dog. But then say you were to witness a dog biting a man. You will most likely not feel the same pity you felt for the dog for the man. Why? Because dogs are lower than men.
This same analogy applies to black and White relations. Even today, blacks are subconsciously viewed by White people are lower beings. They are held to a lower standard in general. This is why they are able to get away with things like obnoxious behavior in public. Because it is expected of them.
Modern history classes instill a subconscious White superiority complex in Whites and an inferiority complex in blacks. This White superiority complex that comes from learning of how we dominated other peoples is also part of the problem I have just mentioned. But of course I dont deny that we are in fact superior.
I wish with a passion that niggers were treated terribly throughout history by Whites, that every White person had an ancestor who owned slaves, that segregation was an evil an oppressive institution, and so on. Because if it was all it true, it would make it so much easier for me to accept our current situation. But it isnt true. None of it is. We are told to accept what is happening to us because of ancestors wrong doing, but it is all based on historical lies, exaggerations and myths. I have tried endlessly to think of reasons we deserve this, and I have only came back more irritated because there are no reasons.
Only a fourth to a third of people in the South owned even one slave. Yet every White person is treated as if they had a slave owning ancestor. This applies to in the states where slavery never existed, as well as people whose families immigrated after slavery was abolished. I have read hundreds of slaves narratives from my state. And almost all of them were positive. One sticks out in my mind where an old ex-slave recounted how the day his mistress died was one of the saddest days of his life. And in many of these narratives the slaves told of how their masters didnt even allowing whipping on his plantation.
Segregation was not a bad thing. It was a defensive measure. Segregation did not exist to hold back negroes. It existed to protect us from them. And I mean that in multiple ways. Not only did it protect us from having to interact with them, and from being physically harmed by them, but it protected us from being brought down to their level. Integration has done nothing but bring Whites down to level of brute animals. The best example of this is obviously our school system.
Now White parents are forced to move to the suburbs to send their children to “good schools”. But what constitutes a “good school”? The fact is that how good a school is considered directly corresponds to how White it is. I hate with a passion the whole idea of the suburbs. To me it represents nothing but scared White people running. Running because they are too weak, scared, and brainwashed to fight. Why should we have to flee the cities we created for the security of the suburbs? Why are the suburbs secure in the first place? Because they are White. The pathetic part is that these White people dont even admit to themselves why they are moving. They tell themselves it is for better schools or simply to live in a nicer neighborhood. But it is honestly just a way to escape niggers and other minorities.
But what about the White people that are left behind? What about the White children who, because of school zoning laws, are forced to go to a school that is 90 percent black? Do we really think that that White kid will be able to go one day without being picked on for being White, or called a “white boy”? And who is fighting for him? Who is fighting for these White people forced by economic circumstances to live among negroes? No one, but someone has to.
Here I would also like to touch on the idea of a Norhtwest Front. I think this idea is beyond stupid. Why should I for example, give up the beauty and history of my state to go to the Norhthwest? To me the whole idea just parralells the concept of White people running to the suburbs. The whole idea is pathetic and just another way to run from the problem without facing it.
Some people feel as though the South is beyond saving, that we have too many blacks here. To this I say look at history. The South had a higher ratio of blacks when we were holding them as slaves. Look at South Africa, and how such a small minority held the black in apartheid for years and years. Speaking of South Africa, if anyone thinks that think will eventually just change for the better, consider how in South Africa they have affirmative action for the black population that makes up 80 percent of the population.
It is far from being too late for America or Europe. I believe that even if we made up only 30 percent of the population we could take it back completely. But by no means should we wait any longer to take drastic action.
Anyone who thinks that White and black people look as different as we do on the outside, but are somehow magically the same on the inside, is delusional. How could our faces, skin, hair, and body structure all be different, but our brains be exactly the same? This is the nonsense we are led to believe.
Negroes have lower Iqs, lower impulse control, and higher testosterone levels in generals. These three things alone are a recipe for violent behavior. If a scientist publishes a paper on the differences between the races in Western Europe or Americans, he can expect to lose his job. There are personality traits within human families, and within different breeds of cats or dogs, so why not within the races?
A horse and a donkey can breed and make a mule, but they are still two completely different animals. Just because we can breed with the other races doesnt make us the same.
In a modern history class it is always emphasized that, when talking about “bad” things Whites have done in history, they were White. But when we lern about the numerous, almost countless wonderful things Whites have done, it is never pointed out that these people were White. Yet when we learn about anything important done by a black person in history, it is always pointed out repeatedly that they were black. For example when we learn about how George Washington carver was the first nigger smart enough to open a peanut.
On another subject I want to say this. Many White people feel as though they dont have a unique culture. The reason for this is that White culture is world culture. I dont mean that our culture is made up of other cultures, I mean that our culture has been adopted by everyone in the world. This makes us feel as though our culture isnt special or unique. Say for example that every business man in the world wore a kimono, that every skyscraper was in the shape of a pagoda, that every door was a sliding one, and that everyone ate every meal with chopsticks. This would probably make a Japanese man feel as though he had no unique traditional culture.
I have noticed a great disdain for race mixing White women within the White nationalists community, bordering on insanity it. These women are victims, and they can be saved. Stop.

Jews

Unlike many White naitonalists, I am of the opinion that the majority of American and European jews are White. In my opinion the issues with jews is not their blood, but their identity. I think that if we could somehow destroy the jewish identity, then they wouldnt cause much of a problem. The problem is that Jews look White, and in many cases are White, yet they see themselves as minorities. Just like niggers, most jews are always thinking about the fact that they are jewish. The other issue is that they network. If we could somehow turn every jew blue for 24 hours, I think there would be a mass awakening, because people would be able to see plainly what is going on.
I dont pretend to understand why jews do what they do. They are enigma.

Hispanics

Hispanics are obviously a huge problem for Americans. But there are good hispanics and bad hispanics. I remember while watching hispanic television stations, the shows and even the commercials were more White than our own. They have respect for White beauty, and a good portion of hispanics are White. It is a well known fact that White hispanics make up the elite of most hispanics countries. There is good White blood worht saving in Uruguay, Argentina, Chile and even Brasil.

But they are still our enemies.

East Asians

I have great respent for the East Asian races. Even if we were to go extinct they could carry something on. They are by nature very racist and could be great allies of the White race. I am not opposed at all to allies with the Northeast Asian races.

Patriotism

I hate the sight of the American flag. Modern American patriotism is an absolute joke. People pretending like they have something to be proud while White people are being murdered daily in the streets. Many veterans believe we owe them something for “protecting our way of life” or “protecting our freedom”. But im not sure what way of life they are talking about. How about we protect the White race and stop fighting for the jews. I will say this though, I myself would have rather lived in 1940’s American than Nazi Germany, and no this is not ignorance speaking, it is just my opinion. So I dont blame the veterans of any wars up until after Vietnam, because at least they had an American to be proud of and fight for.

An Explanation

To take a saying from a film, “I see all this stuff going on, and I dont see anyone doing anything about it. And it pisses me off.”. To take a saying from my favorite film, “Even if my life is worth less than a speck of dirt, I want to use it for the good of society.”.

I have no choice. I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight. I chose Charleston because it is most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country. We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me.

Unfortunately at the time of writing I am in a great hurry and some of my best thoughts, actually many of them have been to be left out and lost forever. But I believe enough great White minds are out there already.
Please forgive any typos, I didnt have time to check it.

There is a .zip file of photos, which I am downloading now and may make available depending upon what’s in it. That’s going slow, however, probably because about a million other people are trying to download it before the host kills the site.

It's pretty ugly - and scary.  Especially since there are other Dylann Roofs being fed this same poison who are only too ready to believe it.  Meanwhile the GOP continues to send out its dog whistle messages fanning racism. 

Rick Perry: Charleston Massacre An 'Accident' Due To Drugs, Manipulated By Obama To Ban Guns

The sickness of the far right continues to be demonstrated by the unbelievable thinks being said by Republicans and others to avoid admitting that the mass murders in Charleston were a racially motivated act of domestic terrorism.   It seems that any and every excuse is more acceptable than admitting reality - and the responsibility of the GOP's dog whistle racism and refusal to pass laws that would lessen the insane number of guns in the hands of those who do not need to have them.  As Barack Obama noted, no other advanced nation has the gun carnage that is the norm in America.  Exemplifying the right's batshitery, Rick Perry (there REALLY must be something in Texas' water) described the murders as an "accident" fueled by drugs that Barack Obama has manipulated.  True to form, Perry later claimed he had "misspoken."  Meanwhile, Charles Cotton, a longtime board member of the National Rifle Association, blamed the deaths on one of the victims for opposing concealed carry laws.  Right Wing Watch looks at Perry's lunatic comments:

In an interview today with Steve Malzberg of Newsmax, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry described the mass shooting at an African American church in Charleston earlier this week as an “accident” that was possibly caused by the over-prescription of medication.   A Perry campaign aide now says that the former governor misspoke in the interview when he used the word “accident.” 

Perry and Malzberg kicked off the discussion of the shooting by attacking President Obama for mentioning the failure to pass gun reform. Perry, a GOP presidential candidate, said that the president is trying to “take the guns out of the hands of everyone in this country.”

“This is the MO of this administration, any time there is an accident like this — the president is clear, he doesn’t like for Americans to have guns and so he uses every opportunity, this being another one, to basically go parrot that message,” Perry said.

Instead of talking about guns, Perry said, we should be talking about prescription drugs.  . . . He added that while the shooting was “a crime of hate,” he didn’t know if it should be called a terrorist attack.

As for Cotton's batshitery,  here are excerpts from Mother Jones:

Gun rights activists have been out in force since the massacre at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, once again blaming the slaughter on so-called gun-free zones, and claiming that an armed citizen could have otherwise stopped the attack. It's an argument that the gun lobby has used for many years, but on Thursday afternoon it was marked by a brazen new low with comments from Charles Cotton, a longtime board member of the National Rifle Association. Cotton wrote on a Texas gun-rights forum that slain pastor and South Carolina state Sen. Clementa Pinckney was responsible for the murders of his congregants because of his opposition to looser concealed-carry laws.

"Eight of his church members, who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church, are dead," Cotton said. "Innocent people died because of his political position on the issue."

No one who has watched the horror unfold in Charleston doubts that the killer's motivation was infused with racial hatred. And to suggest that gun restrictions were the root cause of the bloodbath isn't just callous—it's also plain wrong.

As Mother Jones has previously reported, there has never been any evidence that mass shooters picked their targets based on gun regulations; to the contrary, data from scores of cases shows perpetrators had other specific motivations for where they attacked, including racial hatred. The idea that armed citizens stop crimes in the United States has also been wildly exaggerated by the gun lobby, as a new study based on federal data reaffirms.

Cotton's comments have since been deleted from TexasCHLforum.com, where he is listed as a site administrator. He did not reply to a request for further comment. In a statement on Friday to Politico, the NRA distanced itself from Cotton's rhetoric, saying individual board members "do not have the authority to speak for the NRA."

Why the Right Doesn't Want to Call Charleston an Act of Terrorism

Had the murders in Charleston the night before last been committed by a Muslim, Fox News and other right wing outlets would have been screaming about terrorist attacks to the high heavens.  However, since the apparent shooter was white, there is either silence from these mouth pieces or attempts to dissemble and avoid calling Dylann Storm Roof what he is - a domestic terrorist.  Be he mentally imbalanced or not, his actions were certainly no more insane than that of Islamic suicide bombers.  The real issue is that the right doesn't want to admit that their ideology encourages extremist to commit acts of violence and fans hatred.  A piece in the New York Times looks at this hesitancy to admit that acts of terrorism are committed by right wing Americans.  Another looks at Roof's growing adherence to white supremacy views.   Here are highlights from the former:

The massacre of nine African-Americans in Charleston has been classified as a possible hate crime, apparently carried out by a 21-year-old white man who once wore an apartheid badge and other symbols of white supremacy. But many civil rights advocates are asking why the attack has not officially been called terrorism.

Against the backdrop of rising worries about violent Muslim extremism in the United States, advocates see hypocrisy in the way the attack and the man under arrest in the shooting have been described by law enforcement officials and the news media.

Assaults like the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013 and the attack on an anti-Islamic gathering in Garland, Tex., last month have been widely portrayed as acts of terrorism carried out by Islamic extremists. Critics say, however, that assaults against African-Americans and Muslim Americans are rarely if ever called terrorism.

Moreover, they argue, assailants who are white are far less likely to be described by the authorities as terrorists.

“We have been conditioned to accept that if the violence is committed by a Muslim, then it is terrorism,” Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a civil rights advocacy group in Washington, said Thursday in a telephone interview.

“If the same violence is committed by a white supremacist or apartheid sympathizer and is not a Muslim, we start to look for excuses — he might be insane, maybe he was pushed too hard,” Mr. Awad said.

“We have a man who intentionally went to a black church, had animus toward black people and assassinated an elected official and eight other people,” he said. “It seems he was motivated by a desire to terrorize and kill black people.”

Webster’s New World College Dictionary defines terrorism as “the use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate and subjugate, especially such use as a political weapon or policy.”

Civil rights advocates said the Charleston attack not only fit the dictionary definition of terrorism but reflected a history of attempts by the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups to terrorize African-Americans.

“The first antiterrorism law in U.S. history was the Klan Control Act, so really, this has been the definition of terrorism,” William Jelani Cobb, a writer and director of the Africana Studies Institute at the University of Connecticut, said in a Twitter post.

Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, a venerable civil rights group, said the Charleston massacre looked like terrorism to him.

“While the terrorist label is often applied to attacks, plots and conspiracies carried out on behalf of designated terrorist organizations such as ISIS and Al Qaeda, politically motivated violence is not the sole domain of supporters of designated terrorist groups,” Mr. Foxman said in a statement.

Expect more dissembling from the right as it tries to dodge the consequences of its own rhetoric.

 

New GOP Low: Santorum Calls Charleston Shooting "Assault On Religious Liberty"

Despite the fact that all of the evidence available so far indicates that the massacre at the historic black church in Charleston was motivated by racial hatred and white supremacist views, on the campaign trail today the ever delusional Rick Santorum sought to label the hate crime as an "attack on religious liberty."  Sadly, Santorum was not alone in trying to divert the subject from the real motivation for the crime and pander to the ugliest elements of the GOP party base.  Joining in the disinformation campaign was all to predictably GOP presidential candidate and, of course, Fox News, a/k/a Faux News on this blog.   Talking Points Memo reports on Santorum's disingenuous lies.  Here are highlights:

Presidential candidate and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) on Thursday called the attack by a white gunman on a historic black church in Charleston, S.C. part of a broader assault on "religious liberty" in America.

"It’s obviously a crime of hate. Again, we don’t know the rationale, but what other rationale could there be?" Santorum said on the New York radio station AM 970.

"You’re sort of lost that somebody could walk into a Bible study in a church and indiscriminately kill people,” he added.

Santorum called for a broader pushback against the "assaults" on religious liberty.

"You talk about the importance of prayer in this time and we’re now seeing assaults on our religious liberty we’ve never seen before.

The nastiest, tawdry whore has more integrity and moral decency than Santorum.  As for Fox News' effort to avoid responsibility for inciting people like Dylann Roof, Huffington Post looks at the campaign of lies.  Here are highlights:

Analysts on Fox News floated the theory on Thursday that the shooting at a historically black church in Charleston, South Carolina, on Wednesday night was motivated by religious animosity toward Christians, rather than by racism.

Host Steve Doocy suggested on "Fox & Friends" that religion was the likely motivation for the terrorist attack. 

"Extraordinarily, they called it a hate crime," Doocy said in an interview with a pastor Thursday morning. "And some look at it as, well, it's because it was a white guy, apparently, and a black church. But you made a great point just a moment ago about the hostility toward Christians, and it was in a church, so maybe that's what it was about."

Doocy's co-host, Brian Kilmeade, also tried to cast doubt on the idea that the gunman, whom authorities believe to be 21-year-old Dylann Storm Roof, was motivated by race, asking a guest, "Is it a church that has white congregants as well as black?"

But the gymnastics that Fox commentators engaged in to find some other motive is disconcerting. Why were they so afraid the attack might prove to be racially motivated?

 

Charleston Hate Crime Suspect Captured - Did He Drink Right Wing Kool-Aid?

More and more details are emerging about the murder of nine people last night in the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, and it is becoming more and more evident that hate and racism may have been a motivating factor.  The suspect, who was captured this morning in North Carolina, Dylann Storm Roof, 21, is reported to have made racist statements during the shooting spree and his Facebook profile picture shows him wearing a jacket decorated with the flags of two former white supremacist regimes, in apartheid-era South Africa and in Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe.  The New York Times and 13 News Now have details.  Of equal note is a piece in Esquire, which focuses on why the horrible event is not "unthinkable" or "unspeakable."  We have Republican politicians and "family values" organizations constantly sending racist dog whistle messages to their followers.  Is it any surprise that some take the message to heart and decided to act?  While Roof acted alone, in many ways he did not.  He had lots of encouragement from GOP politicians, Fox News and many far right pundits. First, these highlights from the Times piece:

The gunman wanted in the killing of nine people at a prayer meeting at a historic black church in this city’s downtown area was taken into custody Thursday morning in North Carolina.

The police here have said Mr. Roof, who is from the Columbia, S.C., area, is the white gunman who walked into a prayer meeting, sat down with black parishioners for nearly an hour, and then opened fire — a burst of violence that officials described as racially motivated.

Mr. Roof’s Facebook profile picture shows him wearing a jacket decorated with the flags of two former white supremacist regimes, in apartheid-era South Africa and in Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe.

Sylvia Johnson, a cousin of Mr. Pinckney, told NBC News that she had spoken with a survivor of the shooting who told her the gunman reloaded five times. The survivor, she said, told her that the gunman had entered the church and asked for the pastor. Then he sat next to Mr. Pinckney during the Bible study before opening fire.

“I have to do it,” the gunman was quoted as saying. “You rape our women and you’re taking over our country. And you have to go.”

13 News Now adds this:

The suspect's uncle, Carson Cowles, 56, tells Reuters that he recognized the young man in the surveillance photo as his nephew.

"The more I look at him, the more I'm convinced, that's him," Carson Cowles, 56, tells Reuters in a phone interview.

Cowles said Roof was given a gun by his father as a 21st birthday present in April.

 As noted, the Esquire piece makes the case as to why thee should be little surprise that such an event could occur.  Here are excerpts:

What happened in a church in Charleston, South Carolina on Wednesday night is a lot of things, but one thing it's not is "unthinkable." . . .What happened in a Charleston church on Wednesday night is a lot of things, but one thing it's not is "unspeakable." We should speak of it often. We should speak of it loudly. We should speak of it as terrorism, which is what it was. We should speak of it as racial violence, which is what it was.

We should speak of it as an attack on history, which it was. This was the church founded by Denmark Vesey, who planned a slave revolt in 1822. Vesey was convicted in a secret trial in which many of the witnesses testified after being tortured. After they hung him, a mob burned down the church he built. His sons rebuilt it. On Wednesday night, someone turned it into a slaughter pen.

It is not an isolated incident, not if you consider history as something alive that can live and breathe and bleed. We should speak of all these things. What happened in that church was a lot of things, but unspeakable is not one of them.

Not to think about these things is to betray the dead. Not to speak of these things is to dishonor them. Let Nikki Haley, the governor of South Carolina, look out her window at the flag of treason that is flown proudly at her state capitol and think about these things, and speak of them, before she pronounces herself so puzzled at how something like this could happen in South Carolina, the home office of American sedition.

The country must resist the temptation present in anesthetic innocence. It must reject the false comfort of learned disbelief and the narcotic embrace of concocted surprise. There is a ferocious underground fire running through American history. It rages unseen until it flares again from the warm earth. It has raged from the death of Denmark Vesey in 1822 to the death of the Reverend and state senator Clementa Pinckney on Wednesday night.

This was not an unspeakable act. Sylvia Johnson, one of only three survivors of the massacre, is speaking about it.

"She said that he had reloaded five different times… and he just said 'I have to do it. You rape our women and you're taking over our country. And you have to go.'"

There is a timidity that the country can no longer afford.This was not an unthinkable act. A man may have had a rat's nest for a mind, but it was well thought out. It was a cool, considered crime, as well planned as any bank robbery or any computer fraud. If people do not want to speak of it, or think about it, it's because they do not want to follow the story where it inevitably leads. It's because they do not want to follow this crime all the way back to the mother of all American crimes, the one that Denmark Vesey gave his life to avenge. What happened on Wednesday night was a lot of things. A massacre was only one of them.