January 30, 2009

46 Of 50 States Could File Bankruptcy In 2009-2010

There is a high chance a majority of the States within the United States of America could file for Chapter 9 bankruptcy. There are currently 46 states with high budget deficits, Arizona being one of them.

In fact, Jan Brewer, the newly appointed Governor of Arizona has a major crisis on her hands, one that Arizona and national media isn’t covering. The alarming news is the State of Arizona has 90 to 120 days before they completely run out of money. After that, all bills and tax refunds owed to the citizens will go unpaid.

Before Janet Napolitano left for her new Homeland secretary position, she had a stand-off with Arizona Treasurer Dean Martin. The AZ Treasurer forewarned Napolitano about Arizona’s financial crisis, but she refused to heed his words.

With neighboring California on the verge of bankruptcy this year, many States will follow in their steps.

Many States are already scurrying to cut unwanted costs, cut State-funded programs, raise taxes, not issue tax refunds to their citizens, and borrow money just to survive in 2009. Unfortunately, many banks — the same banks the Fed bailed out — are refusing to loan money to the States and their Treasury agencies.

The article, State Budget Troubles Worsen, at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities website is an excellent piece to read. It shows where each State currently stands in these challening economic times, and you see 46 of the 50 States are clearly in the financial red.

It’s very possible you’ll see the end of the United States as we know it. If the Fed doesn’t bailout the States when their cash dries up and the banks don’t loan them money, then our States will be left in financial ruin. This would be a tragic and unprecedented event never experienced in the United States.

No State has ever filed bankruptcy, but it could be coming to a State near you this year.

We are on the brink of something far worse than the Great Depression.

Editors note: The 4 states not facing bankruptcy also happen to be 90%+ White. Meaning they lack the Social Democratic/Communistic minority programs, and rampant poisonous Capitalism of the other corrupted 46, as well as minimal minority crime, infrastructure damage and budget defecits..

Oops! Israeli Ambassador slips up.

The Israeli Ambassador in Australia asks for the media to stop filming after letting slip plans concerning Iran.

Hate Crimes: The Importance of Lady Justice's Blindfold

The introduction of hate crime legislation brings a subjective element into the legal system. Where typically Lady Justice is blind and only takes objective facts into consideration, disregarding the position and the opinions of those committing the crimes, she may now apply the law unequally and selectively. Our societies subsequently risk losing an important principle of Western law, viz. equality under the law. Europe has already gone further down this road than America, but the U.S. is following fast in Europe’s tracks.

“If I talked about Muslims the way their holy book talks about me, I’d be arrested for hate speech,” Pat Condell, a British stand-up comedian, says in a youtube video released earlier this week. Mr. Condell, though a comedian by profession, is not joking. He knows how two years ago a British television crew which went undercover in British mosques and taped sermons inciting to violence against non-Muslims, was itself charged by the police and Crown Prosecution Service for “stirring up racial hatred” against Muslims, while the preachers were left undisturbed. According to the police and the public prosecutor the words of the preachers had been “taken out of context,” while the “context” of the makers of the television program was filled in by their accusers: their aim was said to be to stir up anti-Muslim feelings among the public.

Prosecutors and judges are no longer interested in what actually and objectively happened. Instead they focus on the intentions which they claim motivated those who acted. No longer is Lady Justice blind to anything except the facts; she is blind to the facts, but claims to be a clairvoyant about everything else.

Last week , the White House website announced that President Obama and Vice President Biden intend to “strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.” In the past, Europe was in the habit of imitating bad American examples (never the good ones). Now it seems the policies of “Change” in the U.S. mean that America will imitate Europe’s bad examples.

The “Matthew Shepard Act,” or “House Resolution 1592,” is named after Matthew Shepard, a young homosexual who was kidnapped, tortured and murdered in 1998 by two heterosexual men near Laramie, Wyoming. Apparently the two men killed Mr. Shepard because they “hated” their victim for his homosexuality. Though the murderers were each punished with two consecutive life sentences, the fact that they “hated” their victim was not taken into account when the court decided the sentence. This caused much indignation among homosexual activists who argue that people who commit a crime out of “hate” should be punished more severely than those who do not.

Taking “hate” into account, however, brings a subjective element into the equation, allowing different punishments to be applied for exactly the same criminal acts. It is possible to objectively prove that someone has kidnapped, tortured and subsequently assassinated a victim, but is it also possible to prove that these acts constitute a worse crime if the perpetrator “hates” the victim (or the group he belongs to) than if the latter is totally indifferent towards the victim and only acts for the pleasure of torturing and killing a human being? If Matthew Shepard’s killers had randomly picked him, because they wanted to kidnap, torture and murder someone – anyone – for the sheer fun of it, would they somehow have been less criminal? This is a question which Lady Justice does not normally need to consider, until hate crime legislation is introduced.

In Europe, where citizens lack the protection of a First Amendment, hate crime legislation is used to punish citizens for the expression of negative opinions concerning minority groups. In Europe the concept of hate crimes make sense because hate crimes are crimes of opinion and sentiment. Unlike America, Europe criminalizes opinions and sentiments. However, in the United States, with its First Amendment, it is difficult to see what purpose hate crime legislation can serve. The Matthew Shepard Act contains a “Rule of Construction” explicitly stating that “Nothing in this Act... shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

Hence, it is hard to see what the use of introducing hate crime legislation in America can be, unless one deliberately wants to bring in a subjective element into the legal system which abolishes the old principle of equal treatment before the law and which justifies arbitrary actions on the part of the authorities. This is exactly what has happened across the Atlantic. In Europe, hate crime legislation has been used to silence people with opinions that do not conform with official state policies. These include celebrities, children and even elected politicians speaking on behalf of their electorate.

One of the famous victims of hate crime legislation in Europe is Brigitte Bardot. Last June the former sex symbol, once considered to be the very icon of France, was given a two-month suspended prison sentence and fined €15,000 by a court in Paris. Mrs. Bardot was convicted for “instigation of hatred” towards the Muslim community because in December 2006 she had sent a letter to Nicolas Sarkozy, then the Interior Minister of France, to demand that Muslims anaesthesize animals before slaughtering them. In the letter she said, referring to Muslims, that she was “fed up with being under the thumb of this population which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its habits.” Harboring and expressing such sentiments is a crime in France.

Dieudonné M’Bala is one of France’s new icons. He is a French comedian who is known for his anti-Semitism. Mr. M’Bala claims Jews are “a mafia that controls everything in France” and harbors feelings about Jews which are similar Mrs. Bardot’s feelings about Muslims: France is under the thumb of the Jews, who are destroying it and imposing their values. In 2004 Mr. M’Bala was taken to court in Paris for violating French laws against incitation to racial or religious hatred, but the court ruled that he was not violating the law. Why did Mrs. Bardot get a suspended prison sentence and a fine of €15,000, while Mr. B’Bala went free? Because Mrs. Bardot and Mr. M’Bala are no longer equal under the law.

In October 2006 Codie Stott, a 14-year-old schoolgirl from Salford, England, was arrested for racism and spent three-and-a-half hours in police custody because she had refused to study with a group of five Asian pupils who did not speak English. When the Asians began talking in Urdu, Codie went to speak to the teacher. “I said ‘I’m not being funny, but can I change groups because I can’t understand them?’ But the teacher started shouting and screaming, saying ‘It’s racist, you’re going to get done by the police’.” A complaint was made to the police and Codie was placed under arrest. She was not prosecuted as she was too young, but the experience was traumatic for the young girl. The same applies to Jamie Bauld from Cumbernauld, Scotland, an 18-year-boy with Down’s syndrome and the mental age of a five-year-old. In September 2007 he was charged with “racial assault” after he had pushed an Asian girl on the playground.

Hate crime legislation is used to silence the famous and the innocent, but also the people’s democratically elected representatives. In January 2007 Christian Vanneste, a member of the French Parliament, was convicted by the Court of Appeal of Douai because two years earlier during a debate in the parliament and afterwards on television he had said that “homosexual behavior endangers the survival of humanity” and that “heterosexuality is morally superior to homosexuality.” Mr. Vanneste, a member of the governing UMP party of President Sarkozy, was fined €3,000. The Court also ordered him to pay €3,500 in damages to each of the three homosexual activist organizations that had taken him to court, plus the expense of publishing the verdict in three newspapers. The three organizations welcomed the court ruling, saying that it “aims to punish homophobic comments which should be fought because they inspire and legitimize verbal and physical attacks.”

Last week Susanne Winter, an elected member of the Austrian Parliament, was convicted by a court in Graz to a suspended jail sentence of three months and a fine of €24,000 for “inciting racial hatred and degradation of religious symbols and religious agitation.” At a meeting of the Austrian Freedom Party FPÖ in January 2008, Mrs. Winter had said that the prophet Muhammad was “a child molester” since he married a six-year-old girl, and that he was “a warlord” who had written the Koran during “epileptic fits.” She had also said that Islam is “a totalitarian system of domination that should be cast back to its birthplace on the other side of the Mediterranean” and warned for “a Muslim immigration tsunami,” stating that “in 20 or 30 years, half the population of Austria will be Muslim” if the present immigration policies continue.

Following these remarks, Muslim extremists threatened to kill Mrs. Winter, who was subsequently placed under police protection. This did not persuade the judge, Christoph Lichtenberg, to be more lenient. He told Mrs. Winter: “You have only one goal: to gain votes by a despicable method, by appealing to xenophobic feelings.” Judge Lichtenberg said a severe punishment was asked for in order to prevent Mrs. Winter from voicing similar opinions during her next election campaign.

Also last week, the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, decided to prosecute Geert Wilders, an elected member of the Dutch Parliament, for “the instigation of hatred against Muslims” as the producer of Fitna, a short documentary about the Koran. In his movie, which can be seen here, Mr Wilders says that the Koran calls for violence against Jews and other non-Muslims. Mr. Wilders lives under constant police protection following death threats from Koran readers.

A few weeks earlier, on 3 January, Harry van Bommel, a Socialist member of the Dutch Parliament, took part in a demonstration during which he called for an “intifada” against Israel and marched with demonstrators who were shouting “Jews to the gas.” Will Mr. van Bommel, like Mr. Wilders, be charged with incitement to racial hatred? Will he be given the same treatment as Mr. Wilders? Considering that equality under the law is no longer guaranteed, this is far from certain. Indeed, while Mr. Wilders will be prosecuted, Mr. van Bommel is likely to go free.

One noticeable fact in hate crime prosecutions is that those prosecuted are often members of European majority groups, such as heterosexuals, non-Muslims or non-Socialists. Hate speech, racial slurs or religious insults directed against a majority group do not seem to be as equally punishable under hate crimes legislation as those directed against minorities. Unlike Susanne Winter, Alfred Hrdlicka, an Austrian “artist,” who last year depicted Jesus and his apostles engaging in homosexual acts of sodomy during the Last Supper, has not been indicted, let alone sentenced. Depicting Jesus sodomizing his apostles is not considered to be a “degradation of religious symbols” in Austria, but referring to the historic fact that Muhammad married a six-year old girl is.

Last Friday, in a speech at the Islamic University of Rotterdam, Khalid Yasin, a radical Muslim leader, said that Geert Wilders “should be flogged for his crimes.” While Mr. Wilders is critical of the Koran he has never advocated flogging Muslims. Nevertheless, Mr. Wilders is being prosecuted and Mr. Yasin is not. Why? Why do the British police arrest 14-year old children, such as Codie Stott, but do they not take action against Muslims such as Anjem Choudary who said in a television interview that anyone who insults Islam deserves “capital punishment”?

Is it because people such as Mr. Wilders, Mrs. Winter, Mr. Vanneste, Mrs. Bardot, though voicing strong opinions, never commit violence, while Muslims extremists threaten to kill everyone who opposes them and are consequently feared by the European authorities? Perhaps. Is it because members of majority groups are prosecuted for hate crimes, but hardly ever members of minority groups? Perhaps. In 2006, a heterosexual man in Belgium lodged a complaint against a media campaign that used the slogan “Dirty Heterosexual.” The Belgian government’s anti-racism and anti-discrimination body rejected the complaint, arguing that “stigmatization of a majority is impossible. Discrimination is something which by definition can affect only minorities.”

Whatever the reason, however, it is clear that with the introduction of hate crime legislation Europe’s citizens are no longer equal under the law. Some are harassed, prosecuted and sentenced, while others are not. Everyone who cares about freedom and democracy should demand that the law treats citizens equally, that Lady Justice does not discriminate, that she will again be blindfolded, so that Mr. Wilders is treated the same as Mr. van Bommel, Mrs. Bardot the same as Mr. M’Bala, Mrs. Winter the same as Mr. Hrdlicka, so that children and people with Down’s syndrome are left in peace, and so that people are judged not by how they feel toward each other but by the way they treat each other.

Jobless rates up in every state

While some states fared better than others, December was a cruel month for many workers nationwide, and economists predict job losses will continue for the rest of this year.

All 50 states recorded an increase in the jobless rate in December and an overall spike since last year, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics said Tuesday (Jan. 27). The national unemployment rate rose from 6.8 percent to 7.2 percent — compared with 4.9 percent a year ago.

Find your state’s unemployment rate and compare jobless rates across the nation over time in a new interactive map. Check it out on Stateline.org’s Economy and Business page, where you also can read daily headlines with the latest recession news from all 50 states.

The numbers of people losing jobs last month varied widely from state to state.

Yachts leaves Guadaloupe as strike hits

he general strike in Guadeloupe running in tandem with the situation in Europe took a dramatic turn for the worse yesterday and I regret that it will be necessary to remove the entire Swan charter fleet from the island base in Pointe a Pitre.

Three of our captains are long term residents of the island and they strongly support this action - they feel it has become necessary to do this to preserve not only their own safety but ensure the continued integrity of our Caribbean operations.
Two yachts have already left but two captains are waiting to see how the situation develops as they have domestic responsibilities which would make leaving the island for any length of time difficult. But they will leave if they have to.
Racial tensions have been building up in Guadeloupe over the past week and the absence of food, water and power has created a politically charged and dangerous social situation.

A serious crisis has been evolving this week to the extent that the local population has little food and water left. Inevitably this will put pressure on a situation that could quickly evolve into civil unrest.

The deteriorating situation during this current week has not been well reported locally in the Caribbean or internationally. Following a crisis meeting at the Guadeloupe Prefecture today the authorities are now mobilising the police and armed forces to cope with a strike situation that is predicted to last as long as one month.

Our captains had been staying on their individual yachts as they had not been able to travel to their Guadeloupe homes safely - most forms of transport, including private cars, are now at a standstill due to the lack of fuel in the country. Armed gangs are blockading routes and white French nationals are suddenly being randomly targeted, causing many residents to begin to fear for their safety.

The captains are predicting a good chance of severe civil unrest next week - under these circumstances we were compelled to move the fleet 20 miles south to Les Saintes a) where it is safer and b) where most shops and businesses are still open - this is only an anchoring area with no marina facility. If things do not improve in Guadeloupe very quickly we will then temporarily relocate the fleet to Antigua.

Is Peace Out Of Reach?

Has peace in the Middle East become nothing more than a pipe dream? As Bob Simon reports, a growing number of Israelis and Palestinians feel that a two-state solution is no longer possible.

January 26, 2009

Watch CBS Videos Online

Gaza: The Killing Zone

Impregnating America With Incompatible And Dangerous Cultures

Multiculturalism destroys America’s uniquely successful culture at an ever accelerating rate of speed.

Once enough immigrants explode their numbers to a majority or ‘tipping point’, they manifest their own customs counter to American culture. They create enclaves of traditions, religion, language, poverty, conflict and separateness.

Examples abound in Miami, Chicago, New York, Detroit and Los Angeles.

One look at the world stage shows multiculturalism fails on all levels. Great Britain, once a paragon of Western thought and parliamentary law, buckled under the pressure of its accelerating 2.5 million Muslim immigrant population—and accepted the first round of Sharia Law. Never mind that Sharia Law runs counter to anything concerning logical, rational and reasoned thinking, i.e., democracy! Sharia promotes barbaric actions such as honor killings, beheadings, killing of non-believers, martyrdom, stoning and total domination of women.

From Bush’s actions in the Iraq War, he created 2.5 million refugees. Last year, 12,000 Iraqis arrived in the United States at 1,000 per month. Another 19,000 expect to land in our country in 2009. Along with those 19,000 Muslim refugees, the U.S. will legally immigrate 1.2 million other third world immigrants from dozens of countries. Criminal migrants arrive at over 1.1 million annually.

They arrive in such huge numbers and at such breakneck speed, the former ‘melting pot’ concept that made America successful—breaks down into a salad bowl of incompatible and often, antagonistic cultures. Toss in dozens of foreign languages! Voila! A growing polyglot non-American culture and chaotic conflicting languages! Result: breakdown of America!


PJB: Globalism vs. Ethnonationalism

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Standing before the Siegessaule, the Victory Column that commemorates Prussia’s triumphs over Denmark, Austria and France in the wars that birthed the Second Reich, Barack Obama declared himself a “citizen of the world” and spoke of “a world that stands as one.”

Globalists rejoiced. And the election of this son of a white teenager from Kansas and a black academic from Kenya is said to have ushered us into the new “post-racial” age.

Are we deluding ourselves? Worldwide, the mightiest force of the 20th century, ethnonationalism — that creator and destroyer of nations and empires; that enduring drive of peoples for a nation-state where their faith and culture is dominant and their race or tribe is supreme — seems more manifest than ever.

“Vote Reflects Racial Divide” ran the banner in The Washington Times over Tuesday’s story datelined, “Santa Cruz, Bolivia.” It began:

“The Bolivian vote to approve a new constitution backed by leftist President Evo Morales reflected racial divisions between the nation’s Indian majority and those with European ancestry.”

Provinces where mestizo and Europeans predominate voted down the constitution. But it carried with huge majorities the Indian tribes of the western highlands, for this constitution is about group rights.

In 2005, Morales came to office resolved to redistribute wealth and power away from Europeans to his own Aymara tribe and other “indigenous peoples” he contends were robbed by the Europeans who began to arrive 500 years ago, in the time of Columbus.

Pizarro’s victory over the Incan Empire is to be overturned.

According to Article 190 of the new constitution, Bolivia’s 36 Indian areas are authorized to “exercise their jurisdictional functions through their own principles, values, culture, norms and procedures.”

Tribal law is to become provincial law, and national law.

Gov. Mario Cossio of Tarija, which voted no, says the new constitution will create a “totalitarian regime,” controlled through an “ethnically based bureaucracy.” To which Morales replies, “Original Bolivians who have been here for a thousand years are many but poor. Recently arrived Bolivians are few but rich.”

Bolivia is Balkanizing, dividing up and being divided on the lines of tribe, race and class. And, hailed by Hugo Chavez, Morales’ Bolivia is not the only place where the claims of ethnicity, tribe and race are conquering the forces of universalism and globalism.

After a disputed election in Kenya, the Kikyu were subjected to ethnic cleansing and massacres by Luo. In Zimbabwe, white farmers are being dispossessed due to their ancestry. In Sri Lanka, the Tamil rebellion against the ruling Sinhalese — to create a Tamil nation, a war that has cost tens of thousands of lives — appears lost, for now.

In Vladimir Putin’s time, Russians have crushed Chechens, confronted Estonians over Russian military graves and war memorials, collided with Ukrainians over the Crimea and bloodied up the Georgians.

Beijing crushes the Uighurs who want their own East Turkestan and Tibetans who seek autonomy, flooding both lands with Han Chinese.

In Europe, populist anti-immigrant parties, alarmed at a loss of national identities, are striding toward respectability and power. The Vlaams Belang, seeking independence for Flanders, is the biggest party in the Belgian parliament. The Peoples Party and Freedom Party are now Austria’s second and third most popular. The Swiss People’s Party of Christoph Blocher is the largest in Bern. In France, the National Front humiliated the government this week, winning over half the vote in a suburb of Marseilles.

All are unabashedly ethnonationalist. Writes British diplomat Sir Christopher Meyer, “It is useless to say that nationalism and ethnic tribalism have no place in the international relations of the 21st century.”

Meanwhile, global institutions, the United Nations, IMF and European Union, have lost their luster. Czechs — whose president, Vaclav Klaus, regards the EU as a prison house of nations — hold the EU presidency. When the financial crisis hit, Irish, Brits and Germans rushed to bail out their own banks, as did Americans, who rescued Ford, Chrysler and GM, leaving Toyota, Hyundai and Honda twisting in the wind.

This is economic nationalism.

Inside Ehud Olmert’s cabinet, a rising star is Avigdor Lieberman. What Lieberman’s “merry men” advocate, writes the American Prospect, is “ethnic cleansing: As the creepy name (which translates into ‘Our Home Is Israel’) suggests, Yisrael Beiteinu believes the million-plus Arab citizens of Israel must be expelled.”

Barack won the African-American vote 97 percent to 3 percent over John McCain, and 90 percent to 10 percent over Hillary Clinton in the later primaries. McCain ran stronger than George W. Bush only in Appalachia, the laager of the Scots-Irish.

In Jerry Z. Muller’s “Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism,” in Foreign Affairs, his thesis is summarized:

“Americans generally belittle the role of ethnic nationalism in politics. But … it corresponds to some enduring propensities of the human spirit. It is galvanized by modernization, and … it will drive global politics for generations to come. Once ethnic nationalism has captured the imagination of groups in a multiethnic society, ethnic disaggregation or partition is often the least bad answer.”

Disaggregation or partition, the man said.

Are we really in a post-racial America, or is our multicultural multiethnic America, too, destined for Balkanization and break-up?

A letter from an Israeli Reserve Soldier

I look forward to the feedback/comments on this.

'I Slept in Your Gaza Home'
by IsraelNN Staff


While the world watches the ruins in Gaza, you return to your home which remains standing. However, I am sure that it is clear to you that someone was in your home while you were away.

I am that someone.

I spent long hours imagining how you would react when you walked into your home. How you would feel when you understood that IDF soldiers had slept on your mattresses and used your blankets to keep warm.

I knew that it would make you angry and sad and that you would feel this violation of the most intimate areas of your life by those defined as your enemies, with stinging humiliation. I am convinced that you hate me with unbridled hatred, and you do not have even the tiniest desire to hear what I have to say. At the same time, it is important for me to say the following in the hope that there is even the minutest chance that you will hear me.

I spent many days in your home. You and your family's presence was felt in every corner. I saw your family portraits on the wall, and I thought of my family. I saw your wife's perfume bottles on the bureau, and I thought of my wife. I saw your children's toys and their English language schoolbooks. I saw your personal computer and how you set up the modem and wireless phone next to the screen, just as I do.

I wanted you to know that despite the immense disorder you found in your house that was created during a search for explosives and tunnels (which were indeed found in other homes), we did our best to treat your possessions with respect. When I moved the computer table, I disconnected the cables and lay them down neatly on the floor, as I would do with my own computer. I even covered the computer from dust with a piece of cloth. I tried to put back the clothes that fell when we moved the closet although not the same as you would have done, but at least in such a way that nothing would get lost.

I know that the devastation, the bullet holes in your walls and the destruction of those homes near you place my descriptions in a ridiculous light. Still, I need you to understand me, us, and hope that you will channel your anger and criticism to the right places.

I decided to write you this letter specifically because I stayed in your home.

I can surmise that you are intelligent and educated and there are those in your household that are university students. Your children learn English, and you are connected to the Internet. You are not ignorant; you know what is going on around you.

Therefore, I am sure you know that Kassam rockets were launched from your neighborhood into Israeli towns and cities.

How could you see these weekly launches and not think that one day we would say "enough"?! Did you ever consider that it is perhaps wrong to launch rockets at innocent civilians trying to lead a normal life, much like you? How long did you think we would sit back without reacting?

I can hear you saying "it's not me, it's Hamas". My intuition tells me you are not their most avid supporter. If you look closely at the sad reality in which your people live, and you do not try to deceive yourself or make excuses about "occupation", you must certainly reach the conclusion that the Hamas is your real enemy.

The reality is so simple, even a seven-year-old can understand: Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, removing military bases and its citizens from Gush Katif. Nonetheless, we continued to provide you with electricity, water, and goods (and this I know very well as during my reserve duty I guarded the border crossings more than once, and witnessed hundreds of trucks full of goods entering a blockade-free Gaza every day).

Despite all this, for reasons that cannot be understood and with a lack of any rational logic, Hamas launched missiles on Israeli towns. For three years we clenched our teeth and restrained ourselves. In the end, we could not take it anymore and entered the Gaza Strip, into your neighborhood, in order to remove those who want to kill us. A reality that is painful but very easy to explain.

As soon as you agree with me that Hamas is your enemy and because of them, your people are miserable, you will also understand that the change must come from within. I am acutely aware of the fact that what I say is easier to write than to do, but I do not see any other way. You, who are connected to the world and concerned about your children's education, must lead, together with your friends, a civil uprising against Hamas.

I swear to you, that if the citizens of Gaza were busy paving roads, building schools, opening factories and cultural institutions instead of dwelling in self-pity, arms smuggling and nurturing a hatred to your Israeli neighbors, your homes would not be in ruins right now. If your leaders were not corrupt and motivated by hatred, your home would not have been harmed. If someone would have stood up and shouted that there is no point in launching missiles on innocent civilians, I would not have to stand in your kitchen as a soldier.

You don't have money, you tell me? You have more than you can imagine.

Even before Hamas took control of Gaza, during the time of Yasser Arafat, millions if not billions of dollars donated by the world community to the Palestinians was used for purchasing arms or taken directly to your leaders' bank accounts. Gulf States, the Emirates - your brothers, your flesh and blood, are some of the richest nations in the world. If there was even a small feeling of solidarity between Arab nations, if these nations had but the smallest interest in reconstructing the Palestinian people – your situation would be very different.

You must be familiar with Singapore. The land mass there is not much larger than the Gaza Strip and it is considered to be the second most populated country in the world. Yet, Singapore is a successful, prospering, and well-managed country. Why not the same for you?

My friend, I would like to call you by name, but I will not do so publicly. I want you to know that I am 100% at peace with what my country did, what my army did, and what I did. However, I feel your pain. I am sorry for the destruction you are finding in your neighborhood at this moment. On a personal level, I did what I could to minimize the damage to your home as much as possible.

In my opinion, we have a lot more in common than you might imagine. I am a civilian, not a soldier, and in my private life I have nothing to do with the military. However, I have an obligation to leave my home, put on a uniform, and protect my family every time we are attacked. I have no desire to be in your home wearing a uniform again and I would be more than happy to sit with you as a guest on your beautiful balcony, drinking sweet tea seasoned with the sage growing in your garden.

The only person who could make that dream a reality is you. Take responsibility for yourself, your family, your people, and start to take control of your destiny. How? I do not know. Maybe there is something to be learned from the Jewish people who rose up from the most destructive human tragedy of the 20th century, and instead of sinking into self-pity, built a flourishing and prospering country. It is possible, and it is in your hands. I am ready to be there to provide a shoulder of support and help to you.

But only you can move the wheels of history.


Yishai, (Reserve Soldier)

FBI: Non-White Gangs Behind 80% of US Crime

Criminal gangs in the USA have swelled to an estimated 1 million members responsible for up to 80% of crimes in communities across the nation, according to a gang threat assessment compiled by federal officials.



By Chuck Baldwin
January 27, 2009

It is hard to believe, but a majority of Americans (including Christians and conservatives) seem oblivious to the fact that there is a very real, very legitimate New World Order (NWO) unfolding. In the face of overwhelming evidence, most Americans not only seem totally unaware of this reality, they seem unwilling to even remotely entertain the notion.

On one hand, it is understandable that so many Americans would be ignorant of the emerging New World Order. After all, the mainstream media refuses to report, or even acknowledge, the NWO. Even "conservative" commentators and talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or Joe Scarborough refuse to discuss it. And when listeners call these respective programs, these "conservative" hosts usually resort to insulting the caller as being some kind of "conspiracy kook." One host even railed that if anyone questions the government line on 9/11, we should "lock them up and throw away the key." So much for freedom of speech!

This is an area--perhaps the central area--where liberals and conservatives agree: they both show no patience or tolerance for anyone who believes that global government (in any form) is evolving. One has to wonder how otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people can be so brain dead when it comes to this issue. It makes one wonder who is really pulling their strings, doesn't it?

The list of notable personalities who have openly referenced or called for some kind of global government or New World Order is extremely lengthy. Are all these people "kooks" or "conspiracy nuts"? Why would world leaders--including presidents, secretaries of state, and high government officials; including the media, financial, and political elite--constantly refer to something that doesn't exist? Why would they write about, talk about, or openly promote a New World Order, if there is no such thing?

Many of us recall President George Herbert Walker Bush talking much about an emerging New World Order. For example, in 1989, Bush told the students of Texas A&M University, "Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations."

Later, Bush, Sr. said, "We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order . . .. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders."

Bush, Sr. also said, "What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea--a new world order."

Bush, Sr. further said, "The world can therefore seize the opportunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a new world order . . ."

What was President G.H.W. Bush talking about, if there is no such thing as an emerging New World Order? Was he talking out of his mind? Was he hallucinating?

England's Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said, "We are all internationalists now, whether we like it or not." He continued saying, "On the eve of a new Millennium we are now in a new world. We need new rules for international co-operation and new ways of organizing our international institutions." He also said, "Today the impulse towards interdependence is immeasurably greater. We are witnessing the beginnings of a new doctrine of international community."

In 1999, Tony Blair said, "Globalization has transformed our economies and our working practices. But globalism is not just economic. It is also a political and security phenomenon."

What is Tony Blair talking about, if there is no emerging New World Order? What does he mean by "a new doctrine of international community"? What does he mean by "new world"? How can one have globalism, which includes "a political and security phenomenon," without creating a New World Order? Is Tony Blair hallucinating?

Likewise, former President George W. Bush penned his signature to the Declaration of Quebec back on April 22, 2001, in which he gave a "commitment to hemispheric integration and national and collective responsibility for improving the economic well-being and security of our people."

By "our people," Bush meant the people of the Western Hemisphere, not the people of the United States. Phyllis Schlafly rightly reminded us that G.W. Bush "pledged that the United States will 'build a hemispheric family on the basis of a more just and democratic international order.'"

Remember, too, that it was G.W. Bush who, back in 2005, committed the United States to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which is nothing more than a precursor to the North American Community or Union, as outlined in CFR member Robert Pastor's manual, "Toward a North American Community."

If there is no such thing as an emerging New World Order, what was G.W. Bush talking about when he referred to "a hemispheric family" and an "international order"?

The public statements of notable world leaders regarding an emerging New World Order are copious. Consider the statements of former CBS newsman, Walter Cronkite.

In his book, "A Reporter's Life," Walter Cronkite said, "A system of world order--preferably a system of world government--is mandatory. The proud nations someday will see the light and, for the common good and their own survival, yield up their precious sovereignty . . ." Cronkite told BBC newsman Tim Sebastian, "I think we are realizing that we are going to have to have an international rule of law." He added, "We need not only an executive to make international law, but we need the military forces to enforce that law." Cronkite also said, "American people are going to begin to realize that perhaps they are going to have to yield some sovereignty to an international body to enforce world law."

If there is no emerging New World Order, what is Walter Cronkite talking about? Can there be any doubt that Cronkite is talking about global government? Absolutely not!

Now, when Bush, Sr. talks about fulfilling "the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders," he was talking about the same thing former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali was talking about when he said, "The time for absolute and exclusive sovereignty . . . has passed."

The United Nations has been on the forefront of promoting the New World Order agenda since its very inception. In 1995, the UN released a manual entitled, "Our Global Neighborhood." It states, "Population, consumption, technology, development, and the environment are linked in complex relationships that bear closely on human welfare in the global neighborhood. Their effective and equitable management calls for a systematic, long-term, global approach guided by the principle of sustainable development, which has been the central lesson from the mounting ecological dangers of recent times. Its universal application is a priority among the tasks of global governance."

If there is no emerging New World Order, what is "global governance" all about?

"Who are the movers and shakers promoting global government?" you ask. Obviously, it is the international bankers who are the heavyweights behind the push for global government. Remember, one cannot create a "global economy" without a global government to manage, oversee, and control it.

In a letter written to Colonel E. Mandell House, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."

"Old Hickory" did his best to rid the United States from the death grip that the international bankers were beginning to exert on this country. He may have been the last President to actually oppose the bankers. In discussing the Bank Renewal bill with a delegation of bankers in 1832, Jackson said, "Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out."

Unfortunately, the international bankers proved themselves to be too formidable for President Jackson. And in 1913, with the collaboration of President Woodrow Wilson, the bankers were given charge over America's financial system by the creation of the Federal Reserve.

Ever since the CFR and Trilateral Commission were created, they have filled the key leadership positions of government, big media, and of course, the Federal Reserve.

In his book, "With No Apologies," former Republican Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater wrote, "The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power-- political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future." Was Goldwater a prophet or what?

And again, the goals of the global elite have been publicly stated. Back in 1991, the founder of the CFR, David Rockefeller praised the major media for their complicity in helping to facilitate the globalist agenda by saying, "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. . . . It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

How could Rockefeller be any plainer? He acknowledged the willful assistance of the major media in helping to keep the elitists' agenda of global government from the American people. To this day, the major media has not deviated from that collaboration. And this includes the aforementioned "conservative" talking heads. They know if they want to keep their jobs, they dare not reveal the New World Order. The NWO, more than anything else, is the "Third Rail" to the national media.

Is it any wonder that President Barack Obama has stacked his government with numerous members of the CFR? Among these are Robert Gates, Janet Napolitano, Eric Shinseki, Timothy Geithner, and Tom Daschle. Other CFR members include CFR President Richard Haass, CFR Director Richard Holbrooke, and founding member of the Trilateral Commission and CFR member Paul Volcker. Obama even asked a CFR member, Rick Warren, to deliver the inaugural prayer.

Still not convinced? Just a few days ago, when asked by a reporter what he thought the most important thing was that Barack Obama could accomplish, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said, "I think his task will be develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a New World Order can be created. It's a great opportunity; it isn't just a crisis."

This is the same Henry Kissinger, you will recall, who said back in 1991, "Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were [sic] an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."

Even Gideon Rachman, the chief foreign affairs commentator for the Financial Times, wrote an editorial expressing his support for world government. In his column he said, "I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. . . . But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

"A 'world government' would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

"So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might."

Rachman then goes on to explain the reasons why he believes world government is plausible.

Do you now see why it does not matter to a tinker's dam whether it is a Republican or Democrat who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? For the most part, both major parties in Washington, D.C., have been under the dominating influence of the international bankers who control the Federal Reserve, the CFR, and the Trilateral Commission. And this is also why it does not matter whether one calls himself conservative or liberal. For the most part, both conservatives and liberals in Washington, D.C., are facilitating the emerging New World Order. It is time we wake up to this reality.

Presidents Bush, Sr., Bill Clinton, and Bush, Jr. have thoroughly set the table for the implementation of the NWO, as surely as the sun rises in the east. All Obama has to do is put the food on the table--and you can count on this: Barack Obama will serve up a New World Order feast like you cannot believe!

That a New World Order is emerging is not in question. The only question is, What will freedom-loving Americans do about it? Of course, the first thing they have to do is admit that an emerging New World Order exists! Until conservatives, Christians, pastors, constitutionalists, and others who care about a sovereign, independent United States acknowledge the reality of an emerging New World Order, they will be incapable of opposing it. And right now, that is exactly what they are not doing.

Unwarranted Self-Abasement

Behind this lunacy lies the notion that we have it coming, that we are guilty, that our motives are impure, that we are the arch-demons behind all global misery.

This idea that criticizing your own culture and values is a sign of intellectual sophistication has many roots. The Enlightenment abandonment of faith and the rise of rationalism as the only road to truth unleashed a corrosive criticism that destroys everything but builds nothing. Communist dogma, of course, exploited this cultural tic in order to gain traction in the West and undermine the liberal democracy and free-market capitalism that stood in the way of the communist utopia. Though the Sixties popularized more widely these bad intellectual habits, they have been going on for over a century, and influenced the policies of appeasement in the Thirties that emboldened Hitler. Churchill noted the connection in a speech from 1933: “Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals. They come from the acceptance of defeatist doctrines by a large proportion of our politicians. But what have they to offer by a vague internationalism, a squalid materialism, and the promise of impossible utopias?”

How much worse is our condition today, when this “self-abasement” has now hardened into banal clichés repeated in popular culture, school curricula, and the received wisdom of badly educated pundits. And we see its effects in the promises of the new Democratic regime that is eager, under the cover of “vigorous diplomacy,” to subject American interests to the strictures of a “vague internationalism,” which in reality is merely the camouflage other nations use to pursue their interests at the expense of our own. Yet this approach, whose failure is institutionalized in the U.N., will not deliver the promised boons. On the contrary, to the jihadists fired with faith in the righteousness of their own cause and beliefs, this eagerness to shoulder the blame for their dysfunctions, this desire to exchange flabby words for vigorous deeds will simply convince them that for all our wealth and power, we don’t really believe in our professed values and so are ripe for destruction.


Obama, Keynes and Bailout II

by John Young

For better or for worse, all wealth originates from the application of human effort and ingenuity to natural resources in order to make them more useful. Certainly, at the levels of “high finance” and big-time law you see more money — but that money floats to the top after having originated in the blood, sweat and toil of many millions of hardworking people. If you have nothing at the bottom of that pyramid and all you have is “services” such as paper-shuffling, stock trading and ambulance chasing — then you don’t have an economy. That’s the core of the issue; and Bailout II doesn’t do anything to address it.

The thoughts I have on Barack Obama are extensive. I could write books on the various aspects of this topic, but won’t. Instead, each aspect will be explored individually over time as the new president’s actions illustrate the necessary points. In the meantime, I’d like to share a bit of my stream of consciousness regarding his new bailout package.

Nobody in America outside of academia admits to being a socialist. Yet politicians put forth proposals, policies and legislation that are textbook examples of socialism constantly. The new bail-out package is socialism and has therefore been proposed by socialists — whether they dare to name themselves honestly or not. All of these proposals for national health care are nothing but socialism as well. The ridiculous controlled media paints the picture of an amazing world in which effects (socialist programs) come into being without their causes (socialists).

The media can certainly mediate people’s perceptions; especially given the large number of voters in this country who can’t find the United States on a map and are therefore easily manipulated by the barrage of non-facts and simplistic logic they receive via their 5-hour daily dose of brainwash-tube.

But media can only manipulate perception, it cannot change reality. A person’s perception of reality can be changed through the ingestion of LSD. But no matter what that person perceives or believes while under the influence, if he jumps off the Empire State Building believing in his ability to fly, he will wind up just as dead. Perceptual manipulation has its limits — both for hallucinogenic substances and for our controlled media.

And this is where the proverbial rubber hits the road for President-elect Obama. The earlier so-called “stimulus” package under George Bush failed to stimulate the economy and mainly managed to bail out well-connected people who were already multi-billionaires at the cost of impoverishing the children and grandchildren of ordinary Americans. It was a classic example of Keynesian economic principles — AND an illustration that they are nearing the end of their usefulness.

Keynesian economic principles are the inevitable result of massive disparities of wealth. The essence of the problem can be explained thusly:

The people who own the widget company seek to sell their widgets for the highest price possible while paying their workers the lowest wage possible. As long as there is ample opportunity for other people to start their own widget companies, this tends to equalize.

But if wealth is allowed to concentrate and startup capital becomes limited mainly to cronies and the well-connected so that new widget companies can’t be created; enterprises tend to endlessly consolidate into ever-larger entities. In other words, finance capitalism destroys the free market. When this happens, we eventually end up with a situation in which the people employed making widgets can’t afford to buy them. That’s when you have a recession or even a depression.

Keynesianism — which is just a form of socialism under another name — seeks to correct the imbalance so that workers at the widget factory can afford to buy the widgets. It does this by government spending in various forms; and this spending is funded through deficits that are paid back in the form of taxes by the folks who own the widget factory. In other words, wealth is re-distributed to correct the imbalance.

Technically speaking, this sort of game could go on forever: a huge wealth disparity occurs which creates a recession and then government comes along and takes money from the “haves” and gives it to the “have nots” until the “have nots” can finally afford to buy widgets again.

But there are a lot of issues with this. I think that any person concerned about ethics should have some reservations about using the government as a mechanism to do something that — if it were done by regular citizens — would be felonious. That is, using the government to take one person’s wealth by force and then give it to someone else.

Remember, as the Declaration of Independence noted, governments derive their JUST powers from the consent of the governed. Obviously, I cannot give someone else “consent” to do something that is highly illegal for me to do as well. That’s why people who hire assassins go to jail just as if they had conducted the assassination personally. Well, then … as I have no right to go taking away other people’s stuff, I can’t give government “consent” to do so on my behalf, either. Thus, the entire Keynesian premise flies in the face of the underlying tenets of our system of government and is ipso facto UNJUST.

But, even if it were just — Keynesianism has reached the end of its rope. You can see this in the form of the details of President Obama’s mis-named “stimulus” plan as he has now decided that tax rebates will not be issued to anyone making over $75,000/year; and will also be issued to people who paid no taxes at all because they didn’t work.

You see, the very same problems with so-called “democratic capitalism” (which is really crony capitalism) that cause the enormous disparities in wealth also hamstring Keynesianism.

In any free market, there will always be natural disparities in wealth. Some people are smarter than others, some people are more industrious than others, and some people are just plain lucky. Sometimes very bright people find themselves following a calling or cause that doesn’t pay well. Some people just don’t care about money. Others are incredibly acquisitive. This is just the way the world works, and government shouldn’t be interfering to make things work any differently.

But in spite of these relatively minor disparities, as long as the market is truly free, you will not end up with such enormous disparities of wealth that recessions become inevitable. That’s because, in a free market, as soon as the widget manufacturer raises prices high enough; someone else starts making widgets to force the price down. As soon as the first widget maker effectively lowers the wage of workers, someone else steps in who is willing to pay those worker more and steals them away.

But we don’t have a free market in the United States. What we have is democratic capitalism with a huge dose of crippled socialism thrown in.

That’s because finance capitalists figured out long ago how to buy influence in the halls of Congress. As Congress makes its own rules regarding ethics, 99% of this outright corruption is entirely legal; but it should suffice to say that many people who entered public service near penniless leave their “service” as multi-millionaires.

So what happens is once a corporation reaches a large enough size that it can easily cope with new regulations, new regulations are passed that effectively prevent the entry of new competition. Without all of these regulations, it would be entirely feasible to start (for example) a car company with less than $1M; but with these regulations it’s almost impossible to do for less than $1B. The same situation occurs in thousands of industries. Thus we are faced with corporate behemoths that grow ever larger by gobbling up other companies and no effective competition entering the mix. Without effective competition, those who control the corporations have free reign to charge as much as possible while paying as little as possible — and stratospheric wealth disparities result, with workers ultimately finding themselves unable to buy the widgets they make.

So it isn’t the free market that causes the problem; but rather interference in that market prompted by the unique form of corruption engendered by so-called democratic capitalism.

But the $75,000 income limit in the stimulus package truly tells the tale.

Remember, Keynesianism takes from the “haves” and gives to the “have nots” so that the “have nots” can afford to buy widgets. The trouble is that the very very small group of true “haves” in this country has bought itself immunity from that system. In practice, this means that all re-distribution takes place by taking from the “have a little somethings” to the “have a little less somethings.” Or from the “Have enough to get by” to the “Can’t quite make it.” Because the vast wealth at the top of the pyramid is off-limits, Keynesianism can only work with re-shuffling the lower layers of that pyramid. Because there just isn’t enough money in those layers, our government is then forced to borrow the money. Let’s face it: the government already takes fully HALF of my income, and there comes a point of diminishing returns where if they take any more I won’t be able to afford gas to go to work so they lose everything. There comes a point, as it has in Sweden, where people refuse promotions and “aim low” to avoid being taxed to death. In order to avoid this, the government turns to deficits rather than taxes to fund their Keynesian scheme.

When government borrows the money, it takes up investments that would otherwise be available to fund new companies, transitory payrolls or purchases of homes and cars. This makes less money available to prime the real economy.
Even worse, as most of that money is simply printed out of thin air, there is an inflationary response that makes the value of dollars that people already own worth less. So this creates a hidden tax upon the people who save their money and transfers it to the people who don’t.

Bailout II simply won’t work any more than Bailout I did.

Bailout I stole our money through diminishing its value in order to disproportionately enrich a bunch of privileged cronies whose only merit was in their personal and family connections. Greenburg’s AIG was bailed out for billions of dollars — and what did they do? They turned around and gave the personnel in the division responsible for putting them in a bad fix bonuses coming out to over $1,000,000 per person. This is just the tip of the iceberg of the abuse of taxpayer money — BILLIONS of which has already gone missing and nobody can figure out where it went. Isn’t it amazing how the IRS and SSA can both tell me, to the penny, exactly how much money I make and from where, but billions of dollars can just go missing and hardly anyone notices?

Bailout II is more of the same, but even worse. What makes it to the final bill is still a matter of conjecture, but so far it has included $150 million for birth control, $4.6 billion for community organizers to ensure Obama’s re-election and other garbage. What it can’t do is fix our broken economy.

If you wish to fix a problem, then you identify and repair the underlying causative factor. The only thing the bailout bills accomplish is deficit spending, inflation and perks for the well-connected. What the bailout bill DOESN’T do is much more informative than what it contains. It doesn’t do anything to bring back the true industries of this country that form the backbone of the economy. For better or for worse, all wealth originates from the application of human effort and ingenuity to natural resources in order to make them more useful. Certainly, at the levels of “high finance” and big-time law you see more money — but that money floats to the top after having originated in the blood, sweat and toil of many millions of hardworking people. If you have nothing at the bottom of that pyramid and all you have is “services” such as paper-shuffling, stock trading and ambulance chasing — then you don’t have an economy. That’s the core of the issue; and Bailout II doesn’t do anything to address it.

I can already see that even the Obama administration is dubious about the likelihood of success of Bailout II. This can be discerned by noting that the Democrats now have enough votes to pass whatever they want without any Republican participation. Yet, they keep trying to get Republicans to sign on. Why? Because if this plan were a sure success — they would want teh credit, accolades and VOTES it would bring. But if it fails, they don’t want Republicans out there two years from now saying “I told you so.”

Bailout II is only possible in this country because people are so woefully educated about economics.

Read, and share the following book: Economics for Helen.

Homeland Secretary Wants Criminal Aliens Out of US

Why are they here in the first place? -- Ed.

If you're a criminal and you're not entitled to be in the United States, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano wants you out of the country. Napolitano wants what she calls "criminal aliens" off American streets. She is looking at existing immigration enforcement programs to see if taxpayers are getting the most bang for their buck.

"That sounds very simple, but it's historically not been done," Napolitano said, speaking to reporters and senior Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials Thursday.

About 113,000 criminals who were in the U.S. illegally were deported last year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement said. The agency estimates there are now as many as 450,000 criminals in federal, state and local detention centers who are in the country illegally.

Napolitano said she wants to improve data-sharing among local, state and federal facilities. So far, there are jails in 26 counties across the country with computer systems that can talk instantly with immigration systems.

The goal, Napolitano said, is for federal immigration officials to know whether an inmate is in the country illegally immediately after he is processed into a detention facility. After the criminal serves his or her sentence, immigration officials can be ready to deport that person right away.

ICE spokesman Richard Rocha said the agency plans to expand this connectivity to all state and local detention centers over the next four years.

Napolitano, whose job includes overseeing immigration laws, says she also will go after criminal fugitives who are in the country illegally.

(This version CORRECTS number of criminal aliens deported last year to 113,000, instead of 201,000.))


Stimulus Bill Would Give Payments to Illegal Aliens

While it's a good thing Republicans en-mass resisted the so-called stimulus bill, it still begs the question: where were they as they allowed the Third World to move here in the first place? Don't let your guard down with these people. -- Ed.

The $800 billion-plus economic stimulus measure making its way through Congress could steer government checks to illegal immigrants, a top Republican congressional official asserted Thursday.
The legislation, which would send tax credits of $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple, expressly disqualifies nonresident aliens, but it would allow people who don't have Social Security numbers to be eligible for the checks.

Undocumented immigrants who are not eligible for a Social Security number can file tax returns with an alternative number. A House-passed version of the economic recovery bill and one making its way through the Senate would allow anyone with such a number, called an individual taxpayer identification number, to qualify for the tax credits. A revolt among GOP conservatives to similar provisions of a 2008 economic stimulus bill, which sent rebate checks to most wage earners, forced Democratic congressional leaders to add stricter eligibility requirements. That legislation, enacted in February 2008, required that people have valid Social Security numbers in order to get checks.

The GOP official voiced concerns about the latest economic aid measure on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss it publicly.

Republicans have already blasted the package for including what they argue is wasteful spending and omitting tax cuts for wealthier people and businesses they say are needed to jump-start the anemic economy.

Not a single Republican voted for an $819 billion version of the plan when it passed the House on Wednesday.

GOP senators arranged a midday news conference to voice their concerns.


A 40-Year Wish List

Leftists are an anathema to our former Republic.You won't believe what's in that stimulus bill.

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.

We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.

Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."

Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?

Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?

Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators.


Immigrants ravage U.S. infrastructure

Financial analyst: $1.6 trillion required to repair devastation

The United States will need $1.6 trillion to repair damage to its infrastructure from a massive influx of immigrants, a new report reveals.

In his report titled, "The Twin Crises: Immigration and Infrastructure," prominent researcher Edwin S. Rubenstein examines 15 categories of infrastructure: airports, border security, bridges, dams and levees, electricity (the power grids), hazardous waste removal, hospitals, mass transit, parks and recreation facilities, ports and navigable waterways, public schools, railroads, roads and highways, solid waste and trash, and water and sewer systems.

Rubenstein, a financial analyst and former contributing editor of Forbes and economics editor of National Review, claims the nation is facing a crisis – with immigration responsible for at least 80 percent of spending needed to expand the U.S. infrastructure before the middle of this century.

"If the infrastructure crisis could be fixed by spending money, there would be no crisis," Mr. Rubenstein explained in a statement. "Since 1987, capital spending on transportation infrastructure has increased by 2.1 percent per year above the inflation rate. At $233 billion (2004 dollars), infrastructure is already one of the largest categories of government spending. Our infrastructure is 'crumbling' because population growth has overwhelmed the ability of even these vast sums to expand capacity."

While immigration policy has been hotly debated for a number of years, Rubenstein writes that its impact on infrastructure is rarely discussed.

Public schools

Immigrants make up 21 percent of the school-age population in the U.S.

"In California, a whopping 47 percent of the school-age population consists of immigrants or the children of immigrants," the report states. "Some Los Angeles schools are so crowded that they have lengthened the time between classes to give students time to make their way through crowded halls. Los Angeles' school construction program is so massive that the Army Corps of Engineers was called in to manage it."

According to the U.S. Department of Education, 18 percent of all schools are considered overcrowded, and 37 percent use trailers and portable structures to accommodate growing student bodies. Public facilities are an average of 40 years old. Cities with high populations of illegal aliens are spending large amounts of their budgets on constructing new schools.

"Our anticipated gains in the number of foreign-born students alone will require us to build one elementary school a month to keep up," Miami-Dade, Fla., school Superintendent Roger Cuevas said.


Rubenstein cites a recent construction boom among the nation's hospitals. As many as 60 percent of America's hospitals are either under construction or have plans for new facilities.

"But we have a two-tier hospital system in the U.S. Hospitals in poor areas – that serve primarily uninsured immigrants and Medicaid patients – cannot afford their facilities," he writes. "The uncompensated costs are killing them. In California, 60 emergency departments (EDs) have closed to avoid the uncompensated costs of their largely illegal alien caseloads."

Illegal aliens use emergency rooms more than twice as often as U.S. citizens, and providing their uncompensated care has been the death of many emergency departments.

In 2006, more than 46 percent of illegals did not have medical insurance. Although illegal aliens are not supposed to be eligible for Medicaid, they receive Emergency Medicaid and their children are entitled to all benefits that legal immigrants receive.

Because hospitals are forced to care for Medicaid recipients, the government program never covers full costs of service. It underpaid hospitals by $11.3 billion in 2006, he wrote.

Water and electricity

Rubenstein referenced immigration trends revealing that aliens often choose to live in cities with strained water supplies – especially near the border – and their sheer numbers have made conservation efforts nearly impossible.

"Cities like San Antonio, El Paso, and Phoenix could run out of water in 10 to 20 years," he writes. San Diego's water company has resorted to a once-unthinkable option: recycling toilet water for drinking."

Due to immigration, demand for water exceeds the California State Water Project's capacity. Now Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed building a $6 billion reservoir. Approximately one-fifth of the state's electricity is tied up in collection, storage and transportation of the water.

Electric utilities are expected to require an additional $142 billion to keep generator capacity at recommended levels before 2050 due to the increasing population.

National parks

Trash left behind by illegal aliens

America's national parks are also bearing the brunt of immigration. Illegals wear roads and paths through parks.

"Their fires, trash, and vandalism have despoiled thousands of acres of pristine parkland," he writes.

According to Rubenstein, illegals leave beer, water and milk bottles, personal hygiene items and medications, clothing and shoes, food and food cans, jewelry, paper trash, sanitary pads, disposable diapers, backpacks, blankets, towels, plastic bags, homemade weapons, disintegrating toilet paper and human feces on U.S. property while they journey into the country.

They damage vegetation, leave abandoned vehicles and bicycles, spray paint trees and boulders and create campfires that turn into wildfires.

Border security costs

Costs for securing the nation's borders are expected to increase 20.6 percent in fiscal year 2009. These include expenses for border patrol, electronic surveillance, the border fence and other security needs. President Bush allocated $44.3 billion for the Department of Homeland Security – a 4.5 percent increase from last year's budget of $42.4 billion.

"While the U.S. builds a fence across much of the border, many illegals are taking a different route. Underground," Rubenstein reveals. "Authorities have discovered dozens of illegal tunnels across the international border in recent years. Smuggling of drugs, weapons, and immigrants takes place daily through these underground passageways."

Illegal aliens also use drainage systems to travel across the U.S.-Mexico border – from El Paso to San Diego.

"One tunnel, actually a system of two half-mile passages connecting Tijuana with San Diego, is by comparison a superhighway," he wrote.

While the Border Patrol attempts to stop these underground incursions with steel doors, cameras and sensors, harsh weather conditions and human smugglers destroy the equipment and barriers.

These costs, and the expenses of providing "enhanced driver's licenses" as alternative passports for citizens, RFID chips, government databases and watch lists are expected to soar.

Fiscal burden

In his research, Rubenstein finds that the average immigrant household generates a fiscal debt of $3,408 after federal benefits and taxes are considered. At the state and local level, the fiscal debt amounts to $4.398 per immigrant household.

"There are currently about 36 million immigrants living in about 9 million households, so the aggregate deficit attributable to immigrants comes to $70.3 billion," he writes. "… Immigrants could deplete the amount of funds available for infrastructure by as much as $70 billion per year."

Rubenstein cites figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, projecting that the U.S. population will reach 433 million by 2050 – increasing 44 percent, or 135 million, from today's numbers.

A full 82 percent of this increase will be directly attributable to new immigrants and their U.S.-born children.

"The brutal reality is that no conceivable infrastructure program can keep pace with that kind of population growth," he wrote. "The traditional 'supply-side' response to America's infrastructure shortage – build, build, build – is dead, dead, dead. Demand reduction is the only viable way to close the gap between the supply and demand of public infrastructure."

He concludes, "Immigration reduction must play a role."

Edwin Rubenstein's complete report, "The Twin Crises: Immigration and Infrastructure," released Jan. 13, is available here.