Patriot Letter. Dated 6/1/05.

Archived by k0nsl.

NOTE: I do not necessarily agree with everything written by Walther F. Mueller: I merely archive this newsletter because it does contain interesting bits worth saving.

I cannot be bothered to reformat it, either.




Dear Fellow Patriot!


Zundel In Germany:

For Zundel updates please visit the above website!

To submit news, information, etc. about Ernst Zundel,
please e-mail


For one or another reason, I was impatiently waiting
for the weekend box-office numbers. To my relief,
“Star Wars Episode III” was number 1 again.

I am not a movie goer, in the contrary, I make it a
point never to see a release in the theaters. I wait
until they are out on DVD.

Anyway, “The Longest Yard” was predicted to be this
weekends number 1 in the box-office. Not so. It’s yet
another remake of Hollywood, replacing the white
actors with minorities and Jews. Adam Sandler and
Chris Rock have taken over the roles of the original

In the last few years, Hollywood has been fooling the
public by re-producing an incredible amount of old
Hollywood movies. Sort of re-making the movie hits of
the past. At the same time, they are replacing the
representation of these movies themes of white culture
with that of minority culture.

I believe that the reasons are three-fold. For one,
previous movie hits will already generate a certain
amount of audience. The story doesn’t have to be
written, a few minor changes, and high-tech, and the
formerly “oldie” becomes yet another box-office hit,
bringing in billions, which had already been made with
the oldie.

Now, here are a few examples:

Disney’s “Cinderella” – played by Vanessa Williams

The recent box-office hit “The Manchurian Candidate” –
with Denzel Washington in the title role

“Dr. Dootlittle” – played by Eddie Murphy

and “Wild, Wild West” with the title role played by
Will Smith.

The “Wizard of Oz” is in the making and will feature a
new black talent as Dorothy.

Another new production of “Julius Cesar” on stage will
feature Denzel Washington as Brutus.

“The Aviator” – another remake of a Hollywood classic
with Leonardo di Caprio playing the part of Orson

“Oceans Eleven”, “War of the Worlds”, “Mission
Impossible” are some more of the remakes of Hollywood.

I think you are getting the drift. Has Hollywood run
out of ideas? I don’t think so. It is my belief that
the people in charge of the entertainment industry are
not capable of producing new “clean” entertaining
movies. So the remake of old Hollywood movies is a
front of attracting somewhat of a more conservative
audience. Of course, the money making is a pleasant
side effect.

You see, Hollywood is not in the hands of the Jews,
and it gradually lost the trades that are so important
for an industry like that. The meaning of
entertainment becomes something totally different in
the mind of a Jew. We have seen the last two years of
blockbusters, and they all involve “bodily fluids.”
Whether it is “American Pie I,II or III”, “Meet the
Parents I and II,” and many more.

One can actually say that the Jews have finally come
out of the closet. Years ago, they tried so hard to
fool their audiences with phony names and family
movies. Today, they blatantly weave in their culture
in almost every movie they make, making Western
culture and Christianity disappear.

Today, their untalented children (Ben Stiller, Adam
Sandler, David Schwimmer, Orlando Blum, Seth Green,
Eliza Wood, and many more) are being promoted and the
propaganda machine actually make their movies hits.
Remember “Meet the Parents.”

So, the ploy is pretty obvious. Replace white actors,
white culture with the untalented world of blacks.
Once I wrote a review of “Cinderella”, criticizing the
cast of Vanessa Williams as Cinderella. I was told
that the color of the skin plays no role in any story.
The imagination of the individual decides that. Ever
heard any bigger manure?

I believe when the Grimm Brothers wrote the fairytale,
they wrote the story in an environment of German
culture and country. The story is tailored to the
history of aristocracy in European countries. I am not
sure about your imagination, but mine won’t go to
Africa and find a castle in the jungle or a fair
maiden. So, Cleary, European stories are about
European history.

Distorting history is what Hollywood is best at. And
you know why? Because it is run by Jews.

But the most sobering thought has to be that Hollywood
assumes that Third World countries don’t have history,
they don’t have fairytales, stories and legends. At
least not in a world where reading and writing is a

The brainwashed American public fell even for a black
Jesus and a black Santa. Hollywood is laying the
foundation for a new “world village.” The lack of
sophistication and IQ from the new residents in their
“world village” makes them steal our legends and
talents and turn them into “Frankenstein.”

Here is a good example from the new release of “The
Longest Yard.” Chris Rock is playing the caretaker in
the remake, which in the original was played by James
Homphen, who specialized in playing Southern white

So, look out for more future remakes, not just from
Hollywood, but also from the TV networks, who are
taking TV legends and turn them into minority heroes.

But picture this: A movie that portrays Pancho Villa
as a white guy or Malcom X or how about Martin Luther
King. A roar of outrage would manifest itself in the

“Toto – I don’t think we’re in Harlem anymore.”


In the nest few days I will re-introduce you to some
of Prof. Faurissons most important work. They are
oldies but then again, they never are:


Prof. Robert Faurisson

Chapter 1: Against the Law

The present work cannot be sold openly in our country.
It is issued and distributed privately.

In France, it is forbidden to question the Shoah.

In application of a law on the freedom of the press
enacted on 13 July 1990, the Shoah, in its three
hypostases the alleged genocide of the Jews, the
alleged Nazi gas chambers, and the alleged figure of
six million Jewish victims of the second world war has
become unquestionable, on pain of imprisonment of from
one month to one year, a fine of from 2,000 to 300,000
francs (305 to 45,800 euros), an order to pay
considerable damages, and still other sanctions. More
precisely, this law forbids the questioning of the
reality of one or more crimes against humanity as
defined in 1945 and punished in 1946 by the judges of
the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, a
court established exclusively by the victors
exclusively to judge the vanquished.

Of course, debates and controversies about the Shoah
also called the Holocaust remain authorised but only
within the confines traced by the official dogma.
Controversies or debates which might lead to a
challenging of the Shoah story as a whole, or of a
part of it, or simply to raise doubt, are forbidden.
Let us repeat: in the matter at hand, even doubt is
proscribed, and punished.

In France, the idea of such a law, of Israeli
inspiration(2), had been formulated for the first time
in 1986 by a certain number of historians of Jewish
origin, among whom Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Georges
Wellers, and François Bédarida, gathered round Chief
Rabbi René-Samuel Sirat(3). The law was passed in 1990
on the initiative of former prime minister Laurent
Fabius, then a member of the Socialist government,
president of the National Assembly, and himself a
Jewish militant of the Jewish cause. At the same
period (May 1990), a desecration of graves in the
Jewish cemetery of Carpentras, in Provence, had given
rise to a media exploitation which nullified all
inclination on the part of opposition MPs and senators
to mount any effective resistance to the bill. In
Paris, about two hundred thousand marchers, with a
host of Israeli flags borne high, demonstrated against
the resurgence of the horrid beast. Notre Dame’s great
bell tolled as for a particularly tragic or
significant event in the history of France. Once the
law had been put on the statute books (appearing in
the Journal officiel on the 14th of July, the national
holiday: in the same issue, incidentally, as P.
Vidal-Naquet’s nomination to the Order of the Légion
d’honneur), the Carpentras outrage was mentioned only,
if at all, with a certain distance, as a mere
reminder. Only the Fabius-Gayssot Act remained.

Under pressure from national and international Jewish
organisations, other countries have since adopted,
each in its turn, laws forbidding all questioning of
the Shoah, after the Israeli and French examples. Such
has been the case for Germany, Austria, Belgium,
Switzerland, Spain, and Lithuania. Still other Western
countries (particularly Canada and the United Kingdom)
have promised the Jewish organisations, more or less
expressly, that they will follow suit. But, in
reality, such a law, of specific nature, is not
indispensable for the hunting down of historical
revisionism. In France, as elsewhere, the practice has
often been to prosecute questioners of the Shoah under
other laws; according to the needs of a given case,
recourse is had to laws on racism or antisemitism, the
defamation of living persons, insulting the memory of
the dead, attempting to justify crimes, spreading
false news, and a source of cash indemnities for the
plaintiffs personal injury.

In France, the police and the judiciary rigorously
ensure the protection thus accorded to an official
version of second world war history. According to this
rabbinical version, the major event of the conflict
was the Shoah, in other words the physical
extermination of the Jews which the Germans are said
to have carried out from 1941-1942 to 1944-1945
(lacking any document with which to assign a precise
time span to the event and for good reason, as it is a
matter of fiction the official historians propose only
dates which are as divergent as they are approximate).



Chuck Baldwin:


Christians No Different From The World
By Chuck Baldwin
June 1, 2005

Recently, pollster George Barna released his research
regarding the beliefs and conduct of today’s
Christians. The results are shocking! According to
Barna, only 9% of America’s born again Christians
have a Biblical worldview. Only 9%!

To determine a Biblical worldview, Barna used the
following 8 point criteria:

*Believing that absolute moral truths exist.
*Such truths are defined by the Bible.
*Jesus Christ lived a sinless life.
*God is the all-knowing, all-powerful Creator and
still rules today.
*Salvation is a gift of God and cannot be earned.
*Christians have a responsibility to share their faith
in Christ.
*Satan is real.
*The Bible is accurate in all its teachings.

As any real Christian can see, these 8 points comprise
basic Biblical truth. To think that more than 90% of
born again Christians would deny any one of these
fundamental truths suggests that the vast majority of
professing Christians today have no clue as to what
being a Christian really means.

As a result, the obvious question that must be asked
is, “What in the world are our pastors and church
leaders teaching their congregations?” It would appear
that whatever they are teaching, it isn’t the Bible!

Barna’s research gets even more disturbing. His survey
reveals that only 3% of Christian parents include the
salvation of their children in the list of critical
parental emphasis. What?? Does this mean that 97% of
America’s Christian parents really don’t think it
“critical” that their own children go to heaven?

At the same time, 39% of America’s Christian parents
believe it is “critical” that their children get a
good education. Compare these sentiments with those of
President Theodore Roosevelt who said, “A thorough
knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college

Barna’s research also revealed that only 36% of
America’s Christian parents monitor or regulate the
time and quality of T.V., music, and other media that
their children were allowed to access. In addition,
45% of America’s Christian parents teach their
children that there are NO moral absolutes. 43% teach
their children that there are SOME moral absolutes.

George Barna summarized his findings by saying,
“Faith makes very little difference in their
[Christians] lives: believers do not train their
children to think or act differently [from the world].
It’s no wonder that they [Christian children] grow up
to be just as involved in gambling, excessive
drinking, and any other unbiblical behavior as
everyone else.”

The problem with America’s Christianity today is that,
for the most part, it doesn’t exist! What passes for
Christianity is instead an anemic, spineless, diluted
substitute without convictions or

No wonder so many unbelievers see nothing in the
church that would draw them to a life-transforming
faith in Christ. No wonder so many political leaders
ignore the church. No wonder that despite some 300,000
evangelical churches, scores and hundreds of
television and radio ministries, and millions of
professing Christians, our nation is still on a
collision course with calamity!

What America needs is real Christianity! The kind of
Christianity that changed the course of history. The
kind of Christianity that changed the face of Europe.
The kind of Christianity that propelled the Pilgrims,
Puritans, and Patriots to shake off the bands of
tyranny and establish this great country called

Christianity of old quenched the flames of oppression,
lit the fires of freedom, and led two continents out
of the darkness of paganism. Today’s Christianity is
known for bingo games, softball
leagues, and milquetoast preachers. Christianity of
old toppled the Roman Empire. Today’s Christianity
cannot even rid the nation of legal abortion.

George Barna’s research suggests that the real mission
field may not be in heathen lands across the seas but
in America’s churches right here at home!

© Chuck Baldwin



Forwarded from Egypt:


Palestinian right of return is feasible
By Laila El-Haddad

Saturday 28 May 2005, 20:19 Makka Time, 17:19 GMT

The US is criticised for its unflinching support of

May marked the 57th anniversary of al-Nakba (The
Catastrophe), when Jews declared their state in
Palestine and thousands of Palestinians were expelled
from their homeland.

Today, the Palestinian refugees number over six
million, comprising nearly one-third of the global
refugee population. interviewed Salman Abu-Sitta, general
coordinator of the Right of Return Congress and
founder of the Palestine Land Society
(, on the issues surrounding al-Nakba
and the fate of the refugees:

Abu-Sitta has worked tirelessly for the Palestinian
Right of Return for several decades, and has over 50
publications to his credit.

Al-Nakba, Abu-Sitta says, was the “largest planned
ethnic cleansing in modern history”.

Abu-Sitta is a refugee himself: he was nine years old
when he was forced, along with the rest of his family,
to flee their home in Beir al-Saba (Beersheba) in

He has documented every detail surrounding the 1948
exodus and historic Palestine. He research has shown
that there is ample space in present-day Israel to
accommodate all Palestinian refugees.

In this interview from his Kuwait office, Abu-Sitta
reaffirmed that the Palestinian right of return is
inalienable, non-negotiable, practical and feasible.

Palestinian refugees number
over six million at present Israeli politicians, as also some
Palestinian politicians, argue that the implementation
of the right of return would mean demographic suicide
for Israel, that it is unrealistic and not practical.

Abu-Sitta: There is nothing in international law or
in our sense of morality that says racist or ethnic
exclusive considerations should overrule principles of

Second, from a practical point of view, the
Palestinians will soon be a majority in historic
Palestine. They are now at parity.

If we apply the principle which the Israelis desire,
it means we give them a licence to annihilate the
Palestinians or expel them en masse, at any moment
when they see that the [Jews] have become a minority.

The Israelis and their supporters in the West must
realise that if this principle is applied, they would
not have the right they enjoy now in America and
Europe where they, as a minority, can flourish and be
successful, and no one says that if their numbers in
neighbourhoods exceed a certain amount they should be
thrown out.

In addition, as I said before, there is nothing called
“Jewish State” even in the [UN] Partition Plan [of
1947]. There is the state in which the community can
be dominant or visible but there is no law in the
world which makes a particular community overrule the
other community and puts them in a second-class
position. Let’s talk about feasibility then.
How can the right of return be implemented?

Abu-Sitta: The other day I received an email from an
English friend of mine and he said “it seems that the
Jewish National Fund (JNF) has stolen a piece of your
writing”, and I said “How?”

He said “go to the website and you’ll find that it
quotes your statement about 80% of the Jews still
living in about 15% of the area of Israel and the site
calls for the Jews everywhere to come and populate
Galilee and the Negev because they are still empty”.

I have found that 80% of Israeli Jews live in 15% of
present-day Israel. Meanwhile, the land of the
Palestinian refugees is controlled only by 1.5% of the
Israeli population.

Refugees in Gaza live near their
homes but cannot return

And we have found by looking at maps, both old and
new, that 90% of village sites are still vacant today.
We also have complete records of who the refugees are,
where they are today, their original villages in
Palestine, and location and extent of their

Now if they admit that and they are calling for more
immigrants, to come to the homes and properties of the
Palestinians, in the year 2005, that is a case of
travesty of justice and no self-respecting civilised
person in this world today should accept that.

By what scale or measure is it that the refugees in
Gaza live only five kilometres away from their homes,
to which they cannot return, and Israel is seeking out
obscure tribes in India and Guatemala, and bringing
them over in a hurry to populate the land which
belongs to the refugees? So if it’s feasible and practical, who
is undermining it and why?

Abu-Sitta: Let me remind you that refugees elsewhere
have returned to their homes in Bosnia, Kosovo, East
Timor, Afghanistan, Rwanda, Iraq and very soon Cyprus.
So the only exception is Palestine.

Why? The reason is obvious: the United States supports
Israel blindly and gives it political support, money
and arms. It is no wonder therefore that US
foreign-policy practice is abhorred by all Muslims and
Arabs – because of its double standards.

It’s no wonder that their calls for democracy in the
Middle East are not taken seriously – because if
democracy is to prevail, then immediately the rights
of those who have been oppressed must be upheld by the
very same power which calls for democracy.

“The rights of the Palestinians have been hindered and
ignored by the US and Israel. In the case of South
Africa, international pressure over the years had
forced the Apartheid regime to collapse”

Salman Abu-Sitta

In fact, the reverse is true. The rights of the
Palestinians have been hindered and ignored by the US
and Israel. In the case of South Africa, international
pressure over the years had forced the Apartheid
regime to c! ollapse.

Now I am confident, although it may take some time.
The weight of public opinion and the increasing wave
of boycotts and isolation of Israel will probably make
the Israeli regime’s ability to continue its racist
policies untenable, if they want to remain acceptable
in the world.

This will take time because the US is always
international censure, but in the end I have no doubt
that justice will prevail and the Palestinians will
regain their rights. In his pre-recorded speech on Nakba
Day, Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas told the
Palestinian people: “Peace, security and stability in
the Middle East are conditional on the finding of a
just and agreed-upon solution to the problem of the
Palestinian refugees, based on UN Resolution 194.” He
also rejected naturalisation as an option.

Do you think this represents a new, firmer stance on
the refugee issue for Abbas, as many Israeli
politicians read it, or was it a diplomatic way to say
“we can’t promise the full right of return”?

Abu-Sitta: No Palestinian leader will remain in his
position if he drops Palestinian rights, foremost of
which is the r! ight of return. If he is a leader of
Palestinians, then he must address and defend their
rights and to Palestinians this right is paramount,
the right of return. I cannot imagine any leader
dropping that right, just as I cannot imagine Sharon
joining Hamas.

That said, I must point out that the language of the
Arab Summit peace initiative [of 2002] is somewhat
confused – it agrees “to find an agreed, just solution
to the problem of Palestinian refugees in conformity
with [UN] Resolution 194”.

To talk about finding a “just solution” as agreed upon
in [UN Resolution] 194 is somewhat a contradiction in
terms, because there is no need to find a just
solution – it is already there.

International opinion has always
favoured right of return

[Resolution] 194 has already determined what the
solution is, and the international community has
confirmed the meaning of the solution, which is the
return of the refugees, therefore a “just solution” is
not required.

When we say “just solution”, it means we will sit down
and negotiate the meaning of a just solution and think
of all kinds of alternatives which can be described as
a “just solution”. And that of course, knowing the
Israeli method of stretching things out over the
years, will never come to fruition.

But the deal breaker is when the statement says “as
agreed”. As agreed by who?

Probably as agreed upon with Israel. Since 1948,
Israeli policy has been: Never to allow the
Palestinians back to their homes because they want
their homes to accommodate Jewish immigrants

So if we expect an agreement with Israel on the return
of the refugees, then we are just giving the Arab
people a false impression.

The statement [by Abbas] should be crystal clear: It
has been repeated by the international community 135
times: the Palestinian refugees must return home. And
that’s that.

There is no need for inventing convoluted statements
which are politically nice but practically
meaningless. What if Israel doesn’t accept this

Abu-Sitta: The answer should be, what was done in
Kosovo and Bosnia. In all these cases the UN
implemented the resolution even sometimes through
force, using Nato soldiers under the banner of the UN.

Now I’m not a dreamer – this is not possible given the
position of the US. But I am certain that steady and
rising pressure of world public opinion and some
governments will make Israel a pariah state as
Apartheid South Africa was made out to be. PLO legal adviser Michael Tarazi once
told “We are not negotiating away [the
refugees’] rights; we are simply negotiating the
implementation of their rights. We are not insisting
they all return; we are insisting they have a choice.”
Are options like compensation or resettlement
acceptable alternatives to the right of return?

Abu-Sitta: When people speak about these options,
especially on the Palestinian side, I don’t think they
mean they will barter away inalienable rights as other

Human rights cannot be b! argained away, and when you
have a right, you are entitled to use it. If you do
not use it, the choice is yours. But you cannot say
you have this choice or that choice, and demand that I
tell you right now which one I choose.

A human right is something which is inherent in human
dignity and respect for human beings. For example, a
youth has a choice to go to high school. If he does
not exercise this right, that does not mean it is

There are millions of Turks in Germany and anyone can
decide to return home anytime.

Same thing with the millions of Greeks in the US, and
the millions of Lebanese in Brazil. They can all go
home when they decide to.

Abu-Sitta says returning home is
not a season ticket that expires

Returning home is not a season ticket that expires. It
is a right that can be exercised whenever you like. It
cannot be offered for a specific period or against
other choices, like compensation. There is no
equivalence between the right of return and

Customary compensation law is very clear: if you cause
anybody harm, you have to compensate them proportional
to the damage done, and for the Palestinians they
insist on that after getting their right of return. In
addition to all of those the reparations for war
crimes must be paid. So of these three elements, right
of return comes first.

What we Palestinians are ready to do after we are
guaranteed the right of return and compensation is to
prepare a plan on how to return, when to return, and
to where. I have put forth one such proposal in my
book, From Refugees to Citizens at Home. You’ve also recently released an atlas
that was more than 10 years in the making. Why did
you write it, and why is it so significant?

Abu-Sitta: In 1949, immediately after the
hostilities, and the Nakba, [Israeli prime minister
David] Ben Gurion formed a committee to erase all
Palestinian, Arab, and historical names of Palestine
and replace them with Hebrew names.

I say wiping out Palestinian, Arab and other
historical names to mean that all the names that had
been used by Palestinians for 5000 years is being
erased. This was part of the effort to silence
Palestinian history after they took Palestinian land
and emptied the land of its people.

The purpose of the atlas is to reaffirm this right and
to record and document 40,000 names which were in use
in Palestine in 1948 and prior. In this atlas we show
the locations and the names of 1300 towns and
villages, 10,000 religious, cultural and historic
landmarks and 20,000 place names. These names are the
vocabulary of Palestinian life.

Before 1948, you could see the names of the wells,
rivers, wadis (valleys), and of special places,
historical events and local events. [The atlas] is so
detailed that the karm, or garden, of an individual
can be identified. So that is one purpose.

The other purpose is looking ahead. This atlas should
be the blueprint of a future Palestine – when
Palestinians return and the young generation who have
not seen their homes but heard about, it can navigate
through it and find where their villages were and
where their lands were, so they can reconstruct
Palestine. Haaretz commentator Ari Shavit, in a
column dated May 19, said: “There is only one way to
achieve an Israeli-Palestinian peace: 1948 in exchange
for 1967. The right of self-definition in return for a
surrender of the right of return. The United States
must confront Abu Mazen with a clear choice: a state
or a dream; peace or return.” What’s your response?

Abu-Sitta: This is like someone who has done you harm
and then says: “I’ll take away your children, but give
you back your house, or I’ll take your house and leave
your children.”

There is no bartering if human rights are taken away
from you. You cannot say you are allowed to breathe
but you are not allowed to eat. That kind of argument
is I should say, racist – because someone takes away
many or all your rights and then says: “If I return
one or two of them, then the rest of them are not
yours anymore.”

There is no comparison or equivalence between a state
of Palestine and the right of return.

The state of Palestine was decreed in 1917 by the
League of nations under British Mandate Class A, which
recognises the independence of Palestine after some
administrative assistance.

“…the right of return legally applies regardless of
the political composition of the country – whether it
is one state or two states”

Salman Abu-Sitta

This state was prevented from coming into being
because of the Balfour Declaration and the Zionist
invasion of Palestine in 1948.

Now this right remains with the Palestinian people in
abeyance. The right to a state is a political right
exercised by an authority over its people in a given
piece of land, but the right of return is an
inalienable basic right which cannot be negotiated or
bartered away.

It applies to every Palestinian who has been expelled
or was forced to leave his home in 1948: he has the
right to return to that place regardless of the
sovereignty applied, whether it is Israeli,
Palestinian, French, or British.

Therefore the right of return legally applies
regardless of the political composition of the country
– whether it is one state or two states. This has been
clearly stated in the Partition Resolution.

So it’s a big fallacy to barter the two and in fact
morally wrong, legally invalid and politically wicked. After all these years, what’s changed
for Palestinian refugees? Legalities aside, is the
right of return more or less realisble today, in 2005,
and does it matter?

Abu-Sitta: After 57 years, it becomes very clear that
Israel is militarily too strong, that it is not
willing to yield to the right of return, and that the
US will continue for the foreseeable future to support
it on this position.

On the bright side the Palestinians not only have not
forgotten their right, but now the right of return
movement all over the world is stronger than ever. It
is articulated by the third generation of refugees,
who are confident, well-educated and quite efficient
in whatever they do compared to their simple folks 50
years ago.

Also, the world has now woken up, especially the
Western world, and they do not really buy the Zionist
propaganda like “Palestine is a land without people
for a people without a Land”, like “there are no

If you compare these two situations you’ll find that
there is a stalemate: Palestinians cannot defeat
Israel militarily, and Israel cannot eliminate the
Palestinians completely. So what is to become of this
stalemate in the future?

The force behind Israel is finite in life, while the
spirit and determination of the Palestinians coupled
with support is an increasing, not diminishing, force.
That is why I feel there is no doubt that justice
shall prevail.



Forwarded by Eli James:


Man claims racism at conference

Posted 05/24/05
BAKERSFIELD – In a recent effort to tackle race
relations, some county social workers were sent to New
Orleans to a conference held by the National
Association of Black Social Workers. Brian Parnell
said he and his co-workers attended the conference,
but Parnell said he wasn’t allowed inside because of
the color of his skin. Parnell is Caucasian, and he
said he never made it in the conference. “I
approached the registration table and was greeted by a
very friendly fellow who looked me in the eye and
said, ‘Are you black?’†said Parnell. “I told
him that I’m not and he told me that the conference
was only for people who were black and so I wasn’t
able to register to attend the conference.â€
Convinced the individual had mis-spoke, Parnell said
he contacted his fellow co-workers and his superior in
Bakersfield. “I was able to speak with a conference
chair at the conference who basically reiterated to me
the same thing that Brian has been told,†said,
Parnell’s supervisor, Pat Cheadle. “I was
shocked,†said Parnell. “I was surprised that in
2005, I could be singled out because of the color of
my skin.†The organization’s website is down, but
the Dallas Chapter website is running. While it
doesn’t overtly exclude other races, it does focus
on empowering the black community. Local attorney
Richard Papst said since the organization is
non-profit and tax-exempt, if the discrimination
occurred, there could be huge consequences. “They
could lose their tax-exempt status and then be subject
to all the usual tax obligations that everybody else
has,†said Papst. Parnell hasn’t decided whether
to take legal action, but he has filed a civil rights
claim with the federal government. No one from the
National Association of Black Social Workers were
available to comment at this time.




















To order, please send a check or money order to:

Community News
PO Box 191677
Sacramento, CA 95819

or e-mail us and we will send you an e-mail bill
through PayPal.


Walter F. Mueller
“The truth is back in business”

The “Patriot Letter” is a free news service of
Community News, a monthly publication with a
circulation of 20,000. To subscribe to Community News
please e-mail for more information.

To be removed from this e-mail list, reply with

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *