LINK #1
LINK #2
  LINK # 7
LINK  # 6
  LINK # 8

                  Suzy Blitz
Behind the Scenes in Garland, Tx.                                                                    

LINK #10
You are solely responsible for the content of your posts. This website does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or reliability of any comments, advice, opinion or statements made by the users.  Opinions expressed in the guestbook are those of the users only, and do not necessarily reflect Behind The Scenes.   You may not post material in the guest book that contains libelous, defamatory, false, obscene, indecent, lewd, pornographic, excessively violent, abusive, threatening, harassing or disruptive remarks, or remarks that violate the law.  Any liability for remarks is strictly that of the user.   If you are aware of any objectionable posts made in the guest book or elsewhere,  send an e-mail  request  to seltek@flash.net and they will be removed.   
LINK #11









             

Sign InView Entries
To read the commentary  --- click on the Link
email me

                         Election Day is April 8, 2008  
       
  Be an informed voter.  Attend the Candidate Forums.  
        Listen to those who want to represent  you  and  ask 
        meaningful  questions.  

        Any   Republican supporting Eddie Bernice Johnson
        is a  disgrace to the Republican Party.  Click Link #5               and  read for yourself the voting record of Eddie
        Bernice Johnson.  

        Candidate forums will be posted on this website when
        dates become available.       



May 31, 2008     The Demise  of the White American Male

Three months ago the Dallas Morning News ran a story about a family  who relocated  to Garland after Hurricane Katrina.   Supposedly their  house had been   burglarized and the "N" word spray painted on the walls of their home.  This prompted a former black Plan Commissioner to write an email to Councilman Jeffus expressing outrage.   

We should all feel outrage when innocent people are victimized.  But why did this former Plan Commissioner consider  this  incident   a city wide problem of "regional bias and bigotry"  that Councilman Jeffus was  somehow responsible to change? 

The  question the writer  posed  to Jeffus was,  "how  do you propose we address what appears to be a recurring cancer (racist behavior) that has surfaced in our city over the last few months?" This is an unfair question  because it  implies that Jeffus  was   closing his eyes to racist behavior by not doing more about this alleged  "recurring cancer"  even  though the  incident was being investigated by the police.  To the writer of the email   it did not seem Council, and Jeffus in particular,   was  doing enough.     

It's  unfortunate that this incident happened  but in my opinion racism,  whether these acts  be directed against whites, blacks or browns,   may  never be entirely eradicated until Jesus comes back.     There will always  be people who hate and discriminate.  Nobody in our society condones it.     We have passed laws that punish the guilty,     but  that does not mean the problem will ever completely disappear.     


Whatever Happened to Equal Opportunity?

It was  Martin Luther King who called for a colorblind,  less race-and-gender conscious society. Unfortunately his "I have a dream"  vision  has   evolved into a government-mandated group spoils system.   Over the last 50 years laws have been passed  making it a criminal offense to engage in the kind of behavior described in the Dallas Morning News article.   Yet, the problem still exists because  what society needs is a change of heart, something only God can bring about.

What is very freightening these days is that  hate-filled and incindiary sermons are coming from some  black  pulpits    fanning the flames of hatred against   people who are not considered minority.   

Laws  are on the books prohibiting    discrimination in employment, in housing, in education, and other areas of life.  Is it  any wonder that white folks are asking why, all things being equal,    a minority with a lower score on a  police sergeant's test is hired over a white man who scored higher?  

These days if one is a  white male trying to get into college,  character and a high grade point average  do not count for much except getting bumped to the bottom of the list in order to accommodate  someone  whose skin color carries priviledge.     With inclusive victimhood, everyone on campus can be entitled to special compassion and programs  except white males who are acutely aware that their institutions have demonstrated little interest in them as a group. 


It was the  1964 Civil Rights Act that created the EEOC   and   Section 703(j) of that act states: "Nothing contained in this title shall be interpreted to require any employer . . . to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group . . . on account of an imbalance." Section 703(a) forbids employers to "limit, segregate, or classify" employees based on their "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."   

If this is the law, how did the Clinton Administration get away with making a statement that  "a white male will not be considered for attorney general?"   Hello, Janet Reno!

And how about the statement made by Clinton appointee Mary Francis Berry,  that   "civil rights laws were not passed to give civil rights to all Americans"—only to "disfavored groups," such as "blacks, Hispanics, and women."    Is it fair that  white males in our society today are  being disenfranchised and discriminated against?       Are white men only needed to toil and pay increasingly higher   taxes in order to pay for  more entitlement programs? 


I applaud the work of MLK, but look what's  happened over the years to his  dream of a level playing field for everyone regardless of  race or gender.  We've come a long way since the 60's, yet today   the white person  is  constantly being challenged to  prove he   is not racist.    Our Council could not  vote to raze Eastgate without a black  man speaking before the Council and   pulling out the race card.     The  white man cringes  at the thought of such an accusation and is constantly turning himself   inside out trying to prove something he may never have been  in the first place ... a racist.       


When I think of where our society is going I feel frustrated and angry.     What started out as a demand for equal opportunity in the 60's has evolved into  ongoing affirmative action, quotos,  entitlements, and reverse discrimination and a mentality that says,  "let's blame the white man for all our problems."   When will this end?    Whatever happened to individual responsibility and accountability? 

The way I see it,  over the last 50 years  politicians  have  created a monster that frequently rears it's ugly head in the form of    "race baiting."      MLK's  vision of society was one in which every person would  be judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin. MLK's vision has morphed into something he never intended.       

Over the last 50 years our "guilt ridden"  and/or  self serving   politicians and educators   have pushed  hiring quotas, affirmative action programs, dumbed down education, bussed kids out of neighborhood schoools, increased entitlements to astronomical proportions,  and offered incentives in every area of life to help minorities improve their standard of living.   And with all this,  the white man is still being blamed ... blamed for deliberately spreading AIDS into the black community, blamed for WW2,   blamed for not supporting the PLO, blamed for the drug epidemic among minorities,   blamed for the high drop out rate among black high school students,   blamed for  9-1-1, blamed for incarcerating too many black criminals, and despite  all the entitlement programs there is  always the underlying accusations that white folks  are not doing enough.   It's never enough .............. never enough .............. never enough.  


DART Board Appointment

Is it understandable that  today some of us are wondering   why  the Mayor is pushing  Council to appoint  his friend and campaign supporter to the DART Board before a search has been made seeking the most qualified individual?     Doesn't this smack of cronyism?  

I can only hope that the Council does the right thing and  appoints the most qualified person to the DART Board.  This was the dream MLK expressed many years ago when he publicly opposed preferential treatment for  anyone.  In keeping with MLK's dream,  let   this Council insist on a  level playing field where everyone has an equal chance based on qualifications.   That will take guts on the part of this Council -- a refusal to  be pressured into making appointments based on anything other than objective criteria.    

7/3/08     PROCLAMATION FOR  UNITY ... MORE  EMPTY WORDS ???    

Recently the Multicultural Commission presented   the Mayor with a  Proclamation that referred to the "insidious disease" of racism that would not be allowed to threaten Garland's diverse community.  Furthermore, it denounced  all forms of communication  that, in someone's opinion, inferred bigotry.  It declared a zero tolerance for race-based behavior which would be appropriately punished.  Although the  Proclamation had no enforcement power, it was a subjective document based on the perceptions of 10 individuals, none of whom were white.   The Proclamation appeared to reflect a  belief   that  the insidious disease of racism is thriving in Garland.  Is there any  documentation to substantiate such a belief?     

This Proclamation came on the heels of a recent email sent to Councilman Larry Jeffus   by B. J. Williams, a former black Plan Commissioner,  who was convinced that  the burglary of a home in Garland on April 2, 2008  was racially motivated.  It read in part:


           Councilman Jeffers:   (name was misspelled)
           Subject: Cancer Continues - Offspring of Jim Crow laws

".... the  criminal and racist incident that occurred targeting a family in District 4.    If the account given in Richard's article is  correct (and I have no reason to believe it is not),     this incident reflects not only a racial bias, but also an undercurrent of a  regional bias that exists toward citizens who were displaced and relocated to Garland due to Hurricane Katrina.

How do you propose we address what appears to be a recurring cancer (racist behavior) that has surfaced in our city over  the last few months?"


Following a police investigation,   two individuals who committed this crime were apprehended. One was Hispanic the other  black.   Nothing in the police report  indicated  this burglary was a racially motivated crime.   Nonetheless,  the writer of the email  could not wait for the police to investigate and, instead  jumped to the conclusion that  this crime was  "racially motivated"  sending his email to  30 people including  one newspaper reporter.    Which brings me back to the original Proclamation which  the Mayor thankfully rewrote,  deleting language that was subjective and offensive.     

Has the Multicultural Commission found Garland to be a "cancer infected"  community where ongoing racist behavior is tolerated?  Where Jim Crow laws are tolerated causing  a continuing cancer in our community?   What did the Multicultural Commission mean when they stated in their Proclamation that  the "insidious disease" of racism  would not be allowed to threaten Garland's diverse community?    If  this problem exists in Garland, how is this cancer being addressed?    If this is not the case,  why are these incindiary remarks  being made? 

Perhaps we should first establish if there is disparity on the makeup of the Multiculural Commission itself.   According to the City of Garland website,  the mission of the Multicultural Commission is as follows:  

The Community Multicultural Commission   is appointed by the City Council,  and consists of 13 members of various cultures and ethnic backgrounds representative of the city's demographics.  The primary focus of the Commission is to serve as an advisory commission, addressing the needs and concerns of the citizens and City Council in the city of Garland. 

THIS STATEMENT IS A LIE!     The present makeup of this  Commission is not representative of the city's demographics having  totally  excluded  the largest segment of our population,  namely WHITE FOLKS,  who make up over 50% of Garland's demographics.       


According to the City staff,  Garland's current demographics are:  56% White, 11% Black, 25% Hispanic, 7% Asian, and .6% American Indian.    

So why is it that of the  13 slots, (3 were still vacant as of Monday)  4 members of this Commission were  African American (40%), 4 were  Hispanic (40%), 1 was  Asian (10%) and 1 is American Indian (10%) and there was not a white face among them?    As of Tuesday night, those numbers  changed. On July 1,    Councilman Jeffus appointed a 17 year old girl by the name of  Xiomara Viera to the Commission and the Mayor appointed Kaushalya Siniwardana.      What's wrong with this picture?  Who is representing the culture and ethnic background of white people?   Are we so short  of   mature white people that we have to appoint kids to this Commission?       

Is there racial bias in Garland?   I maintain there is, not only in Garland but in the nation as a whole.  White people are increasingly being marginalized, denied employment because they do not belong to a protected minority while  brilliant  students are being  denied acceptance to colleges because some arbitrary minority quota has not been met.  At the local level,  emails are sent to multiple recipients charging  racism in the commission of a crime where none was found.  And white folks are  being overlooked for  appointment to a Commission whose vision statement specifically claims to represent various cultures and ethnic backgrounds representative of the city's demographics.   What kind of horse pukey is the City of Garland feeding us? 

Although the Proclamation submitted by the Multicultural Commission had  no teeth, it reflected  a mood  that  I found intolerable because it blatantly violated freedom of speech guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.    If  unity is the Mayor's goal,  the Proclamation read on Tuesday evening  might have  included language to encourage    each person to take responsibility  for their own behavior,   stop blaming others for their  own bad choices,  stop blaming teachers when their  kids fail in school,  stop blaming society when someone  is incarcerated for breaking the law,  and   stop depending on taxpayer funded entitlements as if it were somebody's  God-given right to a never-ending handout.  If a community truly desires unity, every  person  must  pull their  own weight.       People of every color must stand together on a  platform of  responsibility and self control.           

The Mayor's present Proclamation promotes unity on paper,   but it's nothing more than empty words if he does not have the grit to address the many causes of disunity in the first place. 

Perhaps the Mayor can start by answering this question:    Since white people  make up 56% of Garland's population, why are they being excluded from serving on this Multicultural  Commission.   There is one slot left.      Who will be Garland's token white?

THE RED, WHITE AND BLUE
Singer  Rene Marie,  subs 'black anthem' for 'Star Spangled Banner'
'Can you imagine what it would be like if we had a white national anthem?'
Posted: July 02, 2008
1:46 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily


A singer who was to perform the "Star Spangled Banner" at the presentation of Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's State of the City address yesterday substituted the "Black National Anthem" without notifying anyone, because she says as a black, she just doesn't feel American.

"I pulled a switcheroonie on them," Rene Marie said in a report in the Denver Post.

In a video of the event, Marie had been introduced by city council president Michael Hancock, who said she would sing the national anthem. Instead, she sang "Lift Every Voice and Sing," also known as the "Black National Anthem," to the tune of the "Star-Spangled Banner."

Audience members were bewildered, council members outraged and the mayor expressed his disappointment.

"We were as surprised as anyone that jazz singer Rene Marie did not sing our national anthem at today's State of the City ceremony, as our staff had requested. As I listened to her sing, I assumed she would eventually move into the traditional Star Spangled Banner," Hickenlooper said in a statement.

Council member Charlie Brown said, "There is no substitute for the national anthem. Period. This is the State of the City address. It's not an NAACP convention."

Some of the strongest reaction, however, came from Denver area residents who were participating in the forum page on the controversy at the Rocky Mountain News.

"Can you imagine what it would be like for whites if we had a 'white national anthem'?" speculated "Jan8." "I heard someone saying this had nothing to do with race? What?"

"Was she asked to sing the Black National Anthem? Obviously her color is more important to her than this country. Is it a 'black pride thing'? Is she trying to tell us she wished the U.S. were a black country?"

The newspaper reports said the singer explained she had decided months ago not to sing the "Star Spangled Banner" anymore.

The Post reported she was being interviewed by a Russian broadcaster who asked her what it was like to be American.

"And I realized I didn't feel like an American, and that bothered me a great deal," the singer said.



The singer told the Post she deliberately didn't tell anyone her plans, "because I don't think it is necessary for an artist to ask permission to express themselves artistically."

Hancock said the stunt was "inappropriate, and he's been getting hate-filled e-mails over her actions.

"As if I made the decision to do this – I'm receiving a lot of hate mail," he told the paper. "I've received quite a few e-mails that are quite nasty."

Also on the Rocky Mountain News forum page, "Dinty," concluded, "A total lack of respect for the occasion."

Among the hundreds of comments, "scotterjag" added, "all i can say about her, and anyone who supports her, is CLASSLESS! when given the chance to sing The National Anthem, it should be considered an honor, and not one's personal platform to express their views. if you want to express your views like that, I'll buy you a one way ticket to any other country you want to live in, and you can get the hell out of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!"


MORE ON UNITY .. ARE WE DIVIDING OVER THE BASICS?