by Keltie Zubko (March 2001, from Friends of Freedom)

Steve Bracks, Premier of Victoria and Minister for multiculturalism for the southern Australian state has introduced a draft bill which he calls "Racial and Religious Tolerance Legislation." He says, "It makes acts of racial and religious vilification un-lawful," even in Victorian's "private lives." There is scope here for a bureaucrat to investigate what was said at a backyard barbeque.

What is racial and religious vilification? It boils down to what the subjective feelings of the group representative make it. This is a "Model Bill." It is not yet law, but it is very scary to any thinking person, and a warning to other countries, whose governments have not yet gone so far. Steve Bracks has invited all interested individuals, groups and organizations to make a submission on the form (but not the substance) of the Model Bill.

We will however ignore their admonition, and focus briefly on the substance of this new invasion of privacy and freedom, and hope that you will too.

Criminal proceedings are contemplated for vilification offences to be heard in magistrate's court. No jury will be possible and the magistrates are appointed by Victoria.

Incitement is "to encourage, stir up, or urge other people to do a certain act." This definition is vague and emotive; no evidence is really required, but likelihood is subjectively determined by the magistrate.

Religious belief or activity is defined as: "holding or not holding a lawful religious belief or view." Notice that the state is claiming the right to define a "lawful religious belief or view." This would encompass anything the state wishes to include, and implies religion is subject to state approval, much like the Soviet and Chinese system.

"Racial vilification refers to [notice that it doesn't say 'means' so it can be an expanding definition] communications which "speak evil of, abuse or are derogatory of people on the basis of their race." (How will a magistrate decide who is "speaking evil?" And what about truth?)

"Religious vilification refers to communications which "speak evil of, abuse, or are derogatory of people on the basis of their religious beliefs." If Satanism is a lawful religious belief (which it presumably could be, under the definitions of these legislation) it would be a criminal act for anyone to speak evil of it. The religious freedom defence of Canada's section 319(3)(b) is not included in the proposed Australian law. That defence would remove from criminality a bona fide religious belief which a person might have, even if it exposed someone to hatred. In Canada, that defence still exists. In the Australian state of Victoria, it would be gone.

The explanation of what actions will constitute vilification does not require a public statement or even one which is likely to incite a breach of the peace. The proposal makes clear "this would include ... a serious contempt for or severe ridicule of a person on basis of race or religion." The catch words of hatred contempt or ridicule come from Canada's section 13(l) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is designed to be vague, and anyone who attempts a defence under these words will soon find that out.

"The offensive conduct could include verbal or written statements, gestures or sounds. It could be conduct such as wearing of symbols or uniform." (Obviously it is anything a religious or racial group doesn't like because it is not all symbols or all uniforms that could be cause for a charge, just some.) It could even be conduct such as "ostracism or encouraging others to ostracize," which is clearly Stalinist.

There are three options for a venue for the offence. Public, private and public, or where there is possible observation by a third party, like your backyard barbeque. Even an overheard conversation in a cafe is covered, and makes you wonder how nice it will be to always be looking over your shoulder for a nasty snoop who may hear your latest joke.

The state of Australia also wants to be able to shut down websites which "vilify." Notice how they ignore the private nature of electronic communication with a website.

Always the theme emerges in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK that government grows, intrudes and controls not acts, but words. Only the United States presents a liberty-defending constitution, but this is increasing under attack as well.

Specifically excluded as a defence is the whole range of religious beliefs. The academic, artistic, or scientific debate exemption would only apply if you could prove it and only in so far as the communication was not made "in an inflammatory manner," or go "beyond what is reasonably necessary to promote a view for objective discussion." Even reason able necessity and objective discussion is up to the magistrate to define.

The proposed legislation is intended to have penal (jail time) consequences.

The specific sections of the proposed law are also interesting. Section 6 makes motive irrelevant, even if the motive is to tell the truth or rectify an injustice.

There is a defence under section 9(l) if you can prove that you intended your words to only be heard by "themselves." How many "themselves" is never, specified but it must mean only two or the communication becomes public. If one person talks to another in a completely isolated place, they would meet the exemption. All else is dubious. If you I ought reasonably to expect that it may be heard or seen by someone else, then the privacy exemption does not apply.

You can be summoned in section 11 to something called a "compulsory conference" (i.e. a meeting with the thought police). Section 11 also makes it an offence to say that anyone has made a complaint under the legislation or has even produced a document, or given evidence. This makes it impossible to identify someone in private or public conversation, who has a reputation for making complaints, as this would "victimize" them.

Under section 14, employers or principles are vicariously liable for what employees say. This enlists anyone who owns or manages a business to become thought police as well.

Under section 16(4) representative bodies (i.e. special interest groups which are usually well-funded and state-sponsored) can make a complaint if it affects their group, actually or even merely potentially.

Section 18 requires the state-funded commission to assist the complainant. The Canadian precedent deems that the accused however will be denied legal aid.

Section 20 makes complaints against "unincorporated associations" possible, so that any loose- knit group can make guilt by association possible. By simply having friends you adopt thereby their ideas!

In brief, the Australian legislation is the latest and most severe intrusion into the freedom and privacy of the individual. The effects will be self-censorship, and the suppression of new ideas which may be valuable to society, in an atmosphere of fear and oppression. The legislation will indeed create the exact opposite of what it purports to desire, intolerance instead of tolerance, and divisions between people with different values and ideas, rather than a live and let live attitude.

Canada started its hate law in 1970. England's public order act in 1975 went further. British Columbia (Canada) went after journalists like Doug Collins in 1993 with their new Human Rights legislation. Now Victoria in Australia has gone further than anywhere else. The state will keep pushing and taking your freedom until you start defending your freedom, and resisting.

Further information on this bill is available on the government website or by phone to Victoria office of Multicultural Affairs at 03-9651-6465. You can contact the Victorian Office of Multicultural Affairs @ Department of Premier & Cabinet, 1 Treasury Place, Melbourne, Australia 3002 or fax 03-9651-5944.

Any person has a dichotomy in respect to his beliefs and his behavior. Behavior often is not connected to a belief and a belief does not necessarily precipitate behavior. Myself, Eric, and I also believe Maguire, can be considered racist for we believe that race does exist, that it affects behavior and that all accumulated evidence concludes that white people are superior relative to our definition of superiority, that is, primarily in technical achievements. I look out my window and observe a squirrel. Based upon my premiss, I am superior to that squirrel. I can cut down the tree he lives in but he cannot do the same. I can kill it anytime I choose, but that does not imply that I hate it or even mind its presence in my trees. One might even kill something he loves, such as a comrade dying while in the throes of excruciating pain. I do fear this trend of automatic coupling a bit of imaginative mind reading with an unacceptable behavior. If a synagogue is defaced, for example, it does not necessarily follow that it was from some dislike for the jews, or places of worship. Perhaps it was the first building a low level criminal reached when the urge to vandalize popped into his truant cranium. This idea of motive is a difficult one and to avoid the problem by waving the hand and proclaiming that it was "hate", or whatever bit of faddish asininity one could conjure up, is an insult to all intelligent people.

Mr. Curtis performed illegal acts and for that alone he should be called to account. Our system has always operated on the basis that if a person repents, sees the error of his ways, shows remorse, and so on, then part of the judicial objective was achieved -- the possibility of the convicted repeating these acts is minimized. I throw bricks though your window. I am nailed. I not only have to pay for the damage I caused -- thus restoring conditions -- but I suffer the additional penalty of having my ass whipped. Payment for damages is not punishment. The ass whipping serves the purpose of reminding society that those acts are no-nos. The whipping also carries with it the possibility that I will henceforth be a little more selective as to what I choose to toss bricks at.

Most people will do anything to save themselves from harm. They often kill other people and certainly will pay some price for having any punishment reduced. (The torture/confession method is based upon this.) This is not new now and has never been. The Inquisition often gave people the option of publicly denouncing their god and suffering a small ordeal or in being burned alive while shouting to the hilltops their unwavering conviction. There is no formula nor any prediction which can ever correctly map the course some particular individual, at some moment in time, will choose to take.

I have no sympathy for Mr. Curtis relative to his criminal behavior. I do not condemn him for the way he chose to reduce his penalty. His disservice to our cause was not in the plea bargain, but in the way he conducted his personal life. I applaud vandalism not.

To those who would have wished him to have defiantly reiterated his beliefs I have little to say. He could have done that although I am at a loss to find justification for his criminality. Suppose he had. Then what?  We all know he'd been worse off. He could have thumbed his nose at the judicial authority and perhaps the inevitably harsher sentence would have led to his demise at the hands of racist blacks. In that case, his blightwing critics would have had another foolish martyr to celebrate annually with some beer drinking vigil.

The enemy is charging and our company retreats save Pvt. Sock-it-to-me, who chose to stay behind and take on 37 advancing Tiger tanks with his bolt action Springfield. It would serve propaganda purposes to award the man some medal for bravery but the fact remains, our company was diminished in strength and we could have surely used him during the counter offensive.

Kinetic energy is a function of the velocity of some particle of matter. Temperature is one of the measures of kinetic energy. Matter usually exists in three states: Solid, where the molecules/atoms remain in a some sort of pattern, bumper to bumper. Fluid, where the molecules are still rubbing shoulders but are able to roam around on their own. Gas, where lots of space separates the molecules which are more free to do their thing than ever before. As the temperature of a substance rises (the energy of motion increases) substances change form one state to the other, gas being where they are exceeding the speed limit. The state can thus be identified by temperature. That all sounds fine and dandy except for one thing. All molecules are not equal.

My freezer has a temperature of 5°. In it is solid water which we call ice. If this ice warms up to 32°, it becomes the fluid water. At 212° it is the gas we refer to as steam. All of these molecules have group characteristics: solid, liquid and gas.

One might surmise, incorrectly, that in an ice cube all of the molecules have the same temperature (same velocity). The fact is that some of them -- on the surface -- are moving fast enough to be classified as gas and that is exactly what they are. They leave the cube as vapor. This is what we observe when foods seem to dry put during long periods in the freezer (freezer burn). We call this sublimation -- the change from solid directly to gas. Evaporation - the change from liquid to gas -- is more commonly known. No matter what the state, some molecules are faster, and some slower, than the other in its group. This is why we need to tighten up our definition of temperature. Temperature is a measure of the AVERAGE kinetic energy of a mass of substance.

We know valuable things about ice because we judge the water molecules AS A GROUP. The physics and chemistry of water is meaningless unless we judge that substance AS A GROUP of molecular particles. Imagine a ship builder, ready to launch his construction, but hesitating because he's doing the politically daffy thing -- judging not the water as a whole, but trying to ascertain whether the individual molecules are solid, liquid or gas, or voted for Hillary.

The matter remains. Individuals are necessarily judged by the group to which they contribute their attributes. Dalmatians weigh between 40 and 64 pounds. We can expect most of them to weigh between 45 and 59 pounds. Evaluating the 40 pounder tells us nothing about the others but the others tell us a whole lot about him. Only a nincompoop looks at the individual apart from his group.

Feed a dog whole corn. He chews it not and digests it not. The kernels are excreted hardy changed. The liberal, when viewing a dog turd and judging only that individual kernel, would conclude that he had discovered a pile of edible material -- his next meal, I presume. Some of them look and think as if that were their normal fare.

Imagine some meat head, trying to cross an African river, concerning himself with individual evaluation of the lazy crocodiles he sees. "Which might not be hungry?" "Which might be an equal opportunity employer?" "Which can swim the fastest?" And so on.

Once, while wandering alone down Clark Street in Chicago, I saw a herd of young male blacks coming towards me. Did I go through the routine of -- in that group there just has to be a kind, gentle soul I'd take home to dinner -- in that group there's at least one mean, ugly white-hating bastard -- did I? You bet you ass that I'd let some liberal figure that one out while I popped onto the nearest "el".

I can hear some whimpering fart brain oozing, "But we're not ice cubes, we're human." Yes, creep, we're not the planet Mongo either, but what's that have to do with the price of eggs. You do your sick trick. I have no death wish.

Email screw-ups and non access to web pages are more apt to be the result of electronic congestion and incompetence than any other cause. Since ZOG recruits, and fill jobs, on a quota basis, they don't have the top notch people they claim to have. Besides, what ever happened to letting the government know where you stand so they could "redress your grievances"? Like all of those "chip implants" does anyone have any idea of what total population surveillance really amounts to? If you fear the FBI is sniffing email for "trigger words" then why not spam the works with letters such as this?:

Dear Horny: Yesterday I went to a party. It was a blast. Jenny came in dressed to kill. By the looks of Sam's drooling lips, she must have really murdered him. Henry really got bombed. At one point his words were really explosive, that is, before he passed out. What a gas that was. Benny shot in like a bullet which nearly blew the powder from Betty's TNT. Chick fainted. You know he takes nitroglycerine for his heart. Dick must have done something because Joan gave him a big crack in the nuts. She has a short fuse. After we ignited the fireplace we sat down and listened to Wally play his jews' harp. Pete and I left just after Don burned out the driveway in his Olds rocket 88. See you at the toenail contest, Jack.

In the 1960s, dissidents would gather and listen to speakers. I attended one planet of the apes session where a black called for open war on white men and a raping of their women. I pointed out that blacks, like the Injuns, would be dependent upon whites for their weapons and especially ammunition, and considering their numbers, they'd lose in the end. At the close, I understand, an obliging blond serviced him and this probably drained the revolution right out of him. But what of today? Where can I go to listen to the speaker who calls himself thumpajew14.org ?

I don't like spinach. It leaves me alone and I leave it alone. What really singes my short hairs is when some yodel head distorts this to mean that dislike is tantamount to a desire to eradicate spinach from the planet. Relative to myself, an expressed dislike for spinach is a very long way from perpetrating a spinach holocaust. One must have shit for brains to believe so.

BULLET-POINTS

SCIENCE AND THE SWASTIKA

Retreating before revisionist exposure of their money-sucking holocaust hoax the Jewish-controlled media is counter attacking with pseudo-documentary television programmes.

These recycled repeats of previously debunked research are always preceded by salvoes of press releases, freebies and inducements.  These hijack the newspaper press to give maximum publicity to their anti-German/Gentile propaganda.
On March 19th British Television Channel 4 is screening a four-part ‘documentary’, Science and the Swastika. It purports to explore the relationship between qualified accredited German scientists and so-called Nazi atrocities. It has already received the thumbs down as serious television around the world.

Its Jewish documentary-maker Saskia Baron concedes that as ‘these events’ happened over 50 years ago there are few living witnesses. How strange that the grim reaper never catches up with the multiplying holocaust survivors?

SOME CONFESSIONS?
This propagandist, born of Polish Jewish parents, unlikely to be without manic prejudice, recycles previously discredited post war propaganda.  She even has the impudence to cite ‘evidence’ drawn from the Nuremberg and military trials at which it was later admitted that horrific torture was routinely used to extract ‘confessions.’

She says, “The excuse at countless trials of medical personnel was that ‘they had only been following orders’. This deeply flawed woman misses the point.  Modern day Britons are increasingly averse to drawing conclusions from ‘evidence’ extracted from terrified tortured victims being fed through the victorious allies equally flawed ‘justice’ system.

It is now well known that at the Dachau US Military Tribunals, interrogators posed as priests to extract confessions.  The American judge, Edward L. Van Roden, one of the three members of an American Army Commission set up to investigate claims of maltreatment found:

TORTURE OF PRISONERS
"Posturing as priests to hear confessions and give absolution; torture with burning matches driven under the prisoners' fingernails; knocking out of teeth and breaking jaws; solitary confinement and near-starvation rations.  The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four, and five months.... the investigators would put a black hood over the head of the accused and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses. All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair.  This was standard operation procedure with our American investigators."
Sakia Baron and her kind can shove their distorted pro-Zionist hate. The evidence is that these so-called documentaries like Science and the Swastika are a big turn-off. The endless recycling of these sick Jewish distortions repels millions of Britons save those who believe the storylines of B movies.

MICHAEL WALSH -- NEWS DESK www.ety.com/HRP

Instead of pulling Abe into the gutter with what is intended to be a smear film, it will make many lackadaisical Americans realize that they are not alone in their beliefs and that men far greater them themselves never entertained foolish and destructive egalitarian notions.

There are things we need to remind ourselves on a continual basis. (1) ZOG hates white. (2) ZOG especially hates whites who are proud to be white. (3) ZOG fully intends to eradicate such people, one way or the other.

If you are boating in a river and you notice that the current is getting more swift, and you start to hear a faint roar in the distance, doesn't that tell you something? We are in that boat but the din of sports and entertainment drown out the warning signs of the approaching white eradication. Notice the tightening of the noose around our testicles:
(1) Whitey kept in line by the threat of being tossed into a mud-dungeon filled with ravenous biological refuse.
(2) Laws backed up with, and penalties increased dramatically, by being associated with a "negative" thought -- i.e., hate.
(3) Soon, the 'hate' will be separated from its companion and made into a separate class of crime.
(4) Later on, as in Zimbabwe and other 'civilized' regions, just being white will be made a crime.

Before stage 4 is reached, I suspect that whitey will be given an opportunity to refuse breeding with his own kind. A federal subsidy perhaps, as now occurs when a white takes on a black business partner. We are at stage (2) and if any white man is nailed for any offense, however petty, he stands the chance of being examined for naughty thoughts. If his house is searched, for whatever reason, the mere possession of anything deemed politically incorrect (read: anything not on the approved ZOG list), will turn a parking ticket into a federal crime. All aware whites are living in a state of fear -- a fear of their OWN government and a fear of being a victim of one of ZOG's special people, and even more pervasive is the fear to voice your own opinion.
What in hell happened to the America of my childhood? A wondrous place none of our young ever experienced and our old choose to forget as they vegetate in their bullet-proof condos and walled communities.

It is apparently human nature to believe that if one personally does not rock the boat, then the wolf will choose some other rabbit. Reality tells us that a hungry wolf cares not how sweet a rabbit you've been or whether it donated to the Wolf Preservation Society. What we are living in, and what shall positively increase in tempo, is the direct result of the communist victory of WW II. Make no mistake, those 'trusted leaders' you eagerly run to the pools to elect, are directly responsible, for they care not about their people but only for their immediate gain. As long as the American politic chooses to swallow thumbtacks to relieve their intestinal pains, we can only except things to deteriorate more rapidly.

To further destroy a part of your delusion, remember the ex post facto laws which were enacted in order to execute brave and honorable Germans "legally" at that farce called the Nürnberg trials? Even Attila the Hun was more honorable than this -- he announced he'd have you killed simply because he didn't like you. If ZOG declared that all expressions of what THEY DEFINE as hate, is to be outlawed, and people such as myself were to suddenly go mute, we'd soon be rounded up anyway and convicted for what we legally voiced, or published, in the past. Do you really believe that this legal poppycock about 'justice' is reality? It has NOTHING TO DO with RIGHT! It has all to do with POWER and ZOG has, at the present, all of the guns. ZOG is not America. To stand by the country does not mean one stands by its government. As an aside, I recently heard a middle-aged woman voice, so that all could hear, "I hate this f--king government!" We are not alone it seems.

At the present time it is still "legal" (read: ZOG feels it's not a great problem at this time) to voice opinions and make them available to others. I doubt this will continue. Don't make their job easy for them. Don't do the idiotic vandalism stuff perpetrated by Mr. Curtis and others. It only serves ZOG's purposes. No matter what, if they want your ass, they'll get it -- legally or otherwise. Much of America is still in the Judge Roy Bean era -- "We'll give him a fair trail before we hang him."

Are we thus doomed? No. Individually we might suffer but collectively we have truth and right on our side and the omnipotent Mother Nature will surely step in if we do not falter. Disease, per capita, is rapidly increasing. Affirmative action incompetence is gaining ground. The greed hounds in the something-for-nothing investment rackets have sown the seeds for their own destruction. Water and power shortages are popping up with greater frequency. The whole western world is under a severe stain and there is a limit -- the last straw. What it will be and how it shall present itself, is unknown, and it won't be pleasant. But to a people who send their machines into the depths of space and provide the total of all technology to a planet filled with other peoples who cannot do the same, we should remain true to what propels our kind -- white folks -- to perform the 'magic' unknown to all of the other species, so-called 'races'. The gods will assuredly  not help those who do not help themselves. They WILL provide our opportunity. We must be ready so that our grandchildren's children can look back at all of this as a period of insanity. If you choose to hide under a rock, then do not be surprised someday when you hear the hunter say, "O there you are. I've been looking for you."

In Toronto, there is a Hospital for Sick Children. Is there a hospital for well children? The drug business/racket claims they are "safe guarding your health". Since when does the ingestion of drugs equate to health? Being healthy means you do not need drugs. Vitamins became "nutrition" and hence, food, which they are definitely not. The public acceptance of such folderol boggles the mind.

A healthy person is one who DOES NOT get a disease. Taking drugs usually means an attack upon symptoms and not the cause. One takes Viagra to induce something aimed at energizing his hard only to find that the drug damages his heart. A transient gain paid for by a shortened life.

The basic to all health is a sound genetic structure and this doesn't mean a little jerk water "engineering" after the fact. It means that the breeding population should be sound and that demands segregation as even the brown rat appreciates. Secondly, we must drop the notion that man can improve upon nature in the food business. No vitamin and mineral enriched batch of waste can ever compete with food even though the "scientists" tell you so. We are now feeding shredded newspaper, and bovine and sheep offal , to those animals all in the name of profit and the demand of the turd-world for more food as if they have a right to our efforts. Just as Purina found out decades ago -- starving dogs will eat chicken feed -- we now penalize our canine friends with such "scientific" diets. Dogs, we are told live about 12 - 14 years. Dogs eating whole bloody rabbits and 'chucks' can live to be nearly 20. My Dalmatian died at age 16 which surprised the vet because Dals are pegged at 11 - 12. Spot ate mostly  eggs, liver, milk, steak, bones and an occasional squirrel. (He wasn't interested in the neighbor's cat.) And let there be no mistake, those low-energy old timers, barely breathing, even though they EXIST until they are 94, are NOT ALIVE in a true sense so that bolshoi about being healthy because you live longer, is just that -- bolshoi.

White man. Think! A recent radio belch had a Ph.D. -- after years of tax-funded research, I suppose -- issue some flatus which stated the benefits from using coffee filters which help in the cholesterol business as they take out the coffee oil. Coffee oil? According to the U.S.D.A. Food Composition Handbook, there is less that 50 milligrams of "fat" in a cup of coffee. One TEASPOON of butter is about 5000 milligrams so you'd have to drink coffee, 6 cups per day, for 45 YEARS in order to suck up enough coffee oil to be equivalent to that teaspoon of butter.

Ask yourself this: Why, then, if the "experts" have all the answers, are we collectively getting sicker by the decade? Leukemia is on the rise, dramatically. Ever since we started gulping down those new-improved, vitamin enriched, holy blessed, hydrogenated fats, cancer rates have shot up. The horrible "Nazis" warned about this and even American doctors such as George Kastner Sr., in 1948, wrote we'd live to regret eating that crap, especially margarine. How this low-fat nonsense started, or why it is pushed, is beyond me. Stupidity caused by sick egos? Calculated misdirection? Profits? I do not know, but I do know this: There is no magic snake oil, never was and never will be.

This whole sad scenario would be quite comical if it were not for one thing: It has DEPRIVED the white kids from getting a decent education. Of course, the gullible goyim are footing the bill for this exercise in Marxism.

The C.D.C. will issue no truth if it contravenes ZOG's policies -- and never forget that. I was told by a Ph.D., at the C.D.C several years ago, that Legionnaire's was due to the compound nickel carbonyl. Who knows? Keep to your own kind, friend. An ounce of prevention -- never put your neck in the head bar of a guillotine to see if the blade is lined up properly.

"Hate crimes" first popped on the scene coupled with first degree murder. The above mentioned technique, which I call 'kosher slaughter', is a part of it where the murder requirement was no longer part and parcel. In NY, the simpleton they have for governor has just announced that there will be stiff penalties for people involved in auto accidents where a driver shows signs of "rage". The maximum penalty is 7 years in some afro-torture-chamber we choose to call prisons. This, HA HA HA, attempt to outlaw emotion will eventually lead to misuse. I suppose that after some nitwit just ripped off the right side of your BMW, you are expected to get out, smile, and say, "Thanks, old pal, I wanted to buy a new one anyway."

We are being conditioned daily, by the jew tube, to accept all of this as just a day in the life of plain Bill. A NYPD Blue episode, if I have the name correct, featured the very, very hideous -- gawd, he's ugly -- honcho jew pointing to a pentacle on the wall at a murder scene, and remarking, "That's a jew's star." After I stopped laughing at that one, I saw his Aryan assistant correct him, then drop to his knees in order to examine the simian victim, and commented, "It's looks like a hate crime, to me." Get it? Got it? The trend is that any assault upon an ape is to be eventually considered as hate, and therefore illegal. In India, sacred cows defecate in the scared rivers, and rats, monkeys and cockroaches are free to intrude as they see fit.

The march of the politically ridiculous continues. I saw a brief moment on some brain dead audience type of interaction show where a grandmother  was 'booed' by the audience for using an accurate term for her granddaughter -- half-breed. If any truth is unpleasant, then there should be a law against it. Right?