Subscribe via RSS Feed

Archive for August, 2012

SPLC Retrospect

By Dr. A. H. Krieg | Prof. William A. Jacobson, Asoc. Prof. of Law at Cornell, is very clear about SPLC when he says, “[SPLC]…labels any group that they disagree with as “Racist” or “Hate”. He is exactly correct, but what is far worse is the fact that SPLC only reconciles politically right and conservative individuals and organizations. They have no tracking in their systems for the radical left, communists, socialists, or any of the leftist organizations, who after all are responsible for most anti-social acts of the 20th and 21st Centuries. The fact that SPLC is radical anti-Christian and anti-Western civilization is rarely mentioned anyplace. Unlike SPLC, the American Third Position (A3P) political party is not a litigious organization, so we have simply chosen to expose these charlatans.

Mark Potok, director of SPLC’s so-called “Intelligence Project,” recently designated the Family Research Council as a “Hate Group,” solely based on their support of family values and opposition to homosexual marriage. Well it is queer (i.e. strange) is it not? This by the way is the same man who has designated “the Tea Party”, Sarah Palin, and Pamela Geller of the Atlas Shrugged blog as hate groups/individuals. Potok also designated Public Advocate as a hate group. Mark Clayton is the VP of Public Advocate, and has just won the US Senate nomination on the Democratic ticket in Tennessee. What poor Mr. Clayton did to obtain the ire of SPLC is to date unknown; perhaps he simply did not actively enough support the Zionist cause that Potok so adamantly supports.

All this boogeyman hate against the political right sits well with those in charge at Homeland Security and the “progressives” of the Democratic Student Alliance in the White House. Harper’s Magazine was also right on when they editorialized that the “[SPLC] “is a fraud.” When even ultra liberal Steven Colbert lampoons SPLC as a “Fundraising Hustle”, the jig must almost be up. In an article in the Examiner by Anthony Martin, we learn that Morris Dees, the co-founder and acting head of SPLC, admitted that SPLC does not track or monitor “left wing extremism.” In view of the fact that the entire management of SPLC is Jewish, that’s not at all surprising, especially when one considers that every leftist organization in America is headed up by Jews and their accomplices.

SPLC has clearly stated, “We are not set up to monitor the “Left”. Charles Cooke of the National Review asked SPLC spokesman, “Are you set up to follow the “Occupy Movement,” and was stunned to be told that the spokesperson did not know. This journalist was turned over to SPLC’s intelligence section who told him “we only follow right wing extremists”. Any statements by SPLC executives, or pitch men not withstanding, all this proves that when the FBI, U.S. Marshals, and individual police forces and our military hire SPLC to instruct their personnel on hate and terror, that they are all barking up the wrong tree.

Most terrorist acts of the 21st century have been by the Mossad, Islamic radicals, the political left and lone nut cases; the exact element that Janet Napolitano refuses to identify. That SPLC omits these terrorist acts from its records correctly does not obviate the facts surrounding these horrible events. An even worse state of affairs is the “Lamestream” media’s acceptance of blatant lies, fabrications, misinformation, and leftist Zionist propaganda as fact. Alas, journalists are not what they were a century ago, they are mere prostitutes today. They are lazy and have the tendency to accept any PC (Cultural Marxist) garbage that SPLC produces, without ever checking the source for factual content. In the case of A3P’s Wikipedia account, SPLC has 37 references added to the site. 35 of them are wrong, not related to A3P, or simply inventions of SPLC about A3P.

August 30, 2012 | 0 comments | View Post

America’s Descent into Poverty

by Paul Craig Roberts | The United States has collapsed economically, socially, politically, legally, constitutionally, and environmentally. The country that exists today is not even a shell of the country into which I was born. In this article I will deal with America’s economic collapse. In subsequent articles, i will deal with other aspects of American collapse.

Economically, America has descended into poverty. As Peter Edelman says, “Low-wage work is pandemic.” Today in “freedom and democracy” America, “the world’s only superpower,” one fourth of the work force is employed in jobs that pay less than $22,000, the poverty line for a family of four. Some of these lowly-paid persons are young college graduates, burdened by education loans, who share housing with three or four others in the same desperate situation. Other of these persons are single parents only one medical problem or lost job away from homelessness.

Others might be Ph.D.s teaching at universities as adjunct professors for $10,000 per year or less. Education is still touted as the way out of poverty, but increasingly is a path into poverty or into enlistments into the military services.

Edelman, who studies these issues, reports that 20.5 million Americans have incomes less than $9,500 per year, which is half of the poverty definition for a family of three.

There are six million Americans whose only income is food stamps. That means that there are six million Americans who live on the streets or under bridges or in the homes of relatives or friends. Hard-hearted Republicans continue to rail at welfare, but Edelman says, “basically welfare is gone.”

In my opinion as an economist, the official poverty line is long out of date. The prospect of three people living on $19,000 per year is farfetched. Considering the prices of rent, electricity, water, bread and fast food, one person cannot live in the US on $6,333.33 per year. In Thailand, perhaps, until the dollar collapses, it might be done, but not in the US.

As Dan Ariely (Duke University) and Mike Norton (Harvard University) have shown empirically, 40% of the US population, the 40% less well off, own 0.3%, that is, three-tenths of one percent, of America’s personal wealth. Who owns the other 99.7%? The top 20% have 84% of the country’s wealth. Those Americans in the third and fourth quintiles–essentially America’s middle class–have only 15.7% of the nation’s wealth. Such an unequal distribution of income is unprecedented in the economically developed world.

In my day, confronted with such disparity in the distribution of income and wealth, a disparity that obviously poses a dramatic problem for economic policy, political stability, and the macro management of the economy, Democrats would have demanded corrections, and Republicans would have reluctantly agreed.

But not today. Both political parties whore for money.

The Republicans believe that the suffering of poor Americans is not helping the rich enough. Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney are committed to abolishing every program that addresses needs of what Republicans deride as “useless eaters.”

The “useless eaters” are the working poor and the former middle class whose jobs were offshored so that corporate executives could receive multi-millions of dollars in performance pay compensation and their shareholders could make millions of dollars on capital gains. While a handful of executives enjoy yachts and Playboy playmates, tens of millions of Americans barely get by.

In political propaganda, the “useless eaters” are not merely a burden on society and the rich. They are leeches who force honest taxpayers to pay for their many hours of comfortable leisure enjoying life, watching sports events, and fishing in trout streams, while they push around their belongings in grocery baskets or sell their bodies for the next MacDonald burger.

The concentration of wealth and power in the US today is far beyond anything my graduate economic professors could image in the 1960s. At four of the world’s best universities that I attended, the opinion was that competition in the free market would prevent great disparities in the distribution of income and wealth. As I was to learn, this belief was based on an ideology, not on reality.

Congress, acting on this erroneous belief in free market perfection, deregulated the US economy in order to create a free market. The immediate consequence was resort to every previous illegal action to monopolize, to commit financial and other fraud, to destroy the productive basis of American consumer incomes, and to redirect income and wealth to the one percent.

The “democratic” Clinton administration, like the Bush and Obama administrations, was suborned by free market ideology. The Clinton sell-outs to Big Money essentially abolished Aid to Families with Dependent Children. But this sell-out of struggling Americans was not enough to satisfy the Republican Party. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to cut or abolish every program that cushions poverty-stricken Americans from starvation and homelessness.

Republicans claim that the only reason Americans are in need is because the government uses taxpayers’ money to subsidize Americans who are unwilling to work. As Republicans see it, while we hard-workers sacrifice our leisure and time with our families, the welfare rabble enjoy the leisure that our tax dollars provide them.

This cock-eyed belief, on top of corporate CEOs maximizing their incomes by offshoring the middle class jobs of millions of Americans, has left Americans in poverty and cities, counties, states, and the federal government without a tax base, resulting in bankruptcies at the state and local level and massive budget deficits at the federal level that threaten the value of the dollar and its role as reserve currency.

The economic destruction of America benefitted the mega-rich with multi-billions of dollars with which to enjoy life and its high-priced accompaniments wherever the mega-rich wish. Meanwhile, away from the French Rivera, Homeland Security is collecting sufficient ammunition to keep dispossessed Americans under control.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Visit his web site www.paulcraigroberts.org

August 30, 2012 | 2 comments | View Post

Basketball Coaches and Starbucks Push For Affirmative Action In Universities

Julianne Hing, Color Lines | They may be strange bedfellows, but there is one issue of national import that the National Association of Basketball Coaches, the Obama administration and Starbucks have come together to support: affirmative action.

Last week these parties, alongside more than five dozen other groups, told the Supreme Court they believe universities ought to be able to take race into consideration in their admissions policies. Their court filings set the stage for the Supreme Court, which is set to take up the politically fraught issue this fall.

Fortune 100 companies argued people of color and religious minorities are key to the nation’s economic success; in an increasingly globalized world, diverse companies do better business. Diverse student bodies were in the best interests of government, said the Departments of Justice, Defense, Education, Commerce, Labor and Health and Human Services.

Yet it was the voices of the National Association of Basketball Coaches, and 43 current and former coaches, which stuck out most in the crowd of 71 briefs filed in support of race-conscious admissions. Without affirmative action, colleges run the risk of regressing to the days when the only black and Latino students on campus are student athletes said the National Association of Basketball Coaches.

“I think for a number of us who were on college campuses back in the ’60s and ’70s, were there African-American basketball players and football players on those campuses? Sure. But that certainly wouldn’t suggest there was diversity throughout the universities,” NABC president Jim Haney told ESPN. “Minority representation in some cases was almost exclusively student-athletes.”

“It would be nice if everyone was on the same playing field and it was level,” Haney said. “But it’s not that way. Some people who are disadvantaged just need the opportunity.”

The Supreme Court will hear the case of Abigail Fisher, a white student who was denied admission to the competitive University of Texas at Austin school under the University of Texas’ top 10 percent rule, under which the university system automatically accepts the top ten percent of students from each high school around the state. The rest of an incoming class is made up of students who are considered with a number of factors, including race.

Fisher failed to make the top ten percent cut, and argued that her constitutional rights were violated because her academic scores were higher than others who were accepted. Fisher graduated from Louisiana State University this year.

Among those who’ve weighed in in support of Fisher are tea party darling Rep. Allen West, the conservative Cato Institute, and a group of Asian-American organizations who say that Asian Americans are hurt by affirmative action policies.

Amicus briefs can have varying levels of influence on justices’ ultimate decisions. And while briefs give a sense for the contours of the debate, they don’t offer much clue about what justices will focus on or take into account.

And yet, amicus briefs have in the past played a key role in informing Supreme Court justices’ opinions. When the Supreme Court took up race-conscious admissions processes just nine years ago when it considered the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions policy, amicus briefs filed by military agencies and business interests were discussed during oral arguments, and in her opinion upholding the law school’s policy, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor prominently referenced amicus briefs filed by those very groups.

Without race-conscious admissions policies, “the military cannot achieve an officer corps that is both highly qualified and racially diverse,” military service academies said. Those policies were an “essential” component to the military’s ability to maintain national security. The military and big business were not alone in their sentiments, yet their voices carried a novel and unique weight for Supreme Court justices. Who is weighing in is just as important as the content of their briefs, it turns out.

Will the voices of basketball coaches and Fortune 100 companies from Pfizer to PepsiCo similarly influence this suite of justices this time around? On October 10 when oral arguments are set the nation will find out.

August 30, 2012 | 4 comments | View Post

How The Great Recession Has Jeopardized Our Demographic Health

by Joel Kotkin | At the turn of the century, America’s biggest advantage was its relatively vibrant demographics. In sharp contrast with its major competitors — the E.U., Russia, China, Japan — the United States had maintained a far higher birthrate and rate of population growth.

But the 2010 Census showed that in the past decade America’s birthrate slipped below at least one European country (France) and under the pace necessary to replace our current population. Immigration, both legal and illegal, is also slowing, in part due to plunging birthrates in Mexico and other Latin American countries. As one National Geographic report from Brazil has it, women there, too, are saying: “A fábrica está fechada.” The factory is closed.

America’s sinking birthrate is in great part a function of our wobbly economy. The decline, notes the Pew Research Center, largely coincides with the onset of the 2007 real estate crash and the financial crisis the following year.

KindergartenThe recession had a disproportionate impact on people of child-bearing age, who suffered higher unemployment and steeper income declines than their elders. In the process, the U.S. fertility rate dropped from over 2.1 births per woman in 2007 to 1.9 last year, below replacement rate for the first time since the mid-1980s. The 2010 Census found that the number of households that have children under age 18 was 38 million, unchanged from 2000, despite a 9.7% growth in the U.S. population over that period.

Of course many environmentalists would celebrate these numbers, and some nativists as well. But the problem is not that we need more people per se — we need an increase in younger, working-age people to make up for our soon to be soaring population of retirees. Young people are the raw capital of the information age and innovation, and new families are its ballast and growth market.

Yet many developed countries are facing dramatic labor force deficits. By 2050, according to Census projections, there will be 40% fewer workers in Japan then there were in 2000, 25% less in Europe and 10% fewer in China; only projections of higher birthrates and immigration allowed demographers to suggest the U.S. workforce would keep growing.

Without these future workers our already tottering pension system will become even more untenable, as is occurring in Europe and Japan. The bad part about slow population growth is that it depresses the economy, which in turn works against family formation.

Of course, there are others ways to deal with this imbalance of too many retirees and too few workers. One is to raise taxes. The billionaire philanthropist Pete Peterson estimates that most developed countries will need to increase their spending on old age benefit promises from 9% to 16% of GDP over the next 30 years. This would require an increase in taxes of 25% to 40% — even in the already high-tax countries of northern Europe.

Raising taxes to transfer funds to the older generation is already happening in some of the most rapidly aging countries. Japanese lawmakers just voted to double the country’s sales tax by 2015 precisely for this reason. Due in large part to low birthrates and soaring numbers of seniors, Japan is now the most heavily indebted high-income country in the world.

Germany likewise is now considering a special tax on younger workers to fund the pensions of the growing ranks of oldsters. Chancellor Angela Merkel has proposed the 1% income tax as a “demographic reserve” for a workforce that is expected to shrink by 7 million by 2023. “We have to consider the time after 2030, when the baby boomers of the ‘50s and ‘60s are retired and costing us more in health and care costs,” explained Gunter Krings, who drafted the new proposal for Germany’s ruling Christian Democrats.

Higher taxes, or its evil twin, austerity, are unlikely to solve this dilemma. Other issues may constrain family growth — high urban population densities, women’s growing role in the workforce, declining religiosity — but one critical precondition for spurring family growth is to expand the economy. Without growth, the long-term decline of most high-income countries, including the United States, is all but assured.

This turns on its head the commonplace assumption that societies reduced their birthrates as they got wealthier. This pattern was seen in the United States and Europe by the 1960s and, even more so in East Asia, whether governments adopted baby-suppressing (notably China) methods or, more recently, as in Singapore, have tried to promote family formation.

But more recently it appears that declining economics — and strong public perceptions that things will get worse — can also convince people not to have children. In 2010, according to Gallup, most European countries have been expecting harder times; pessimism was particularly strong in Spain, Italy, Greece, the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom. Stories about divorced Spanish or Italian young fathers sleeping on the streets or in their cars is not exactly a strong advertising for parenthood.

In 2011, birthrates fell in 11 of the 15 European countries that have reported numbers. Among the countries reporting declines were Finland and Denmark, where rates had been ticking slightly upwards.

The impact has been even greater in countries like Spain and Greece, where overall joblessness has hit one in four and youth unemployment is roughly 50%. Some of these countries face the prospect of considerable de-population in the coming decades.

“A more pessimistic economic outlook” is one key reason that European birth rates have been depressed and family formation so slow, confirms Austrian demographer Wolfgang Lutz. Overall fertility has fallen to roughly 1.5, well below replacement rate and all but guaranteeing a demographic-based economic crisis a decade or two sooner. Some eastern countries like Latvia now have fertility rates approaching 1.2. Lutz believes that once birthrates fall to these levels, there is no turning back.

Yet it is Japan that perhaps shows this renewed relationship between economics and birthrates most clearly. In 1991 many economists predicted that Japan would overtake the U.S. economy; instead U.S. GDP grew much faster and China supplanted Japan in 2010 as the world’s second-largest economy. As prices deflated and opportunities shriveled, Japanese grew less interested in either starting or growing families.

It could get even worse: Japanese teens seem not only less interested in work but in each other. In what seems an enormous reversal of adolescent nature, 36% of Japanese males 16 to 19 years old have admitted to pollsters having no interest in sex, and some even despise it. The figure is even higher (59%) for females in the same age category. For many, notes Japanese sociologist Mika Toyota, hobbies, vacations, food and computer games are often more alluring than pursuing the opposite — or the same — sex.

It may well be that American birthrates have been more impacted than Europe’s by the recent recession due to the relative weakness of the country’s social safety net. Finnish demographer Anna Rotkirch has pointed out that Europeans have tried to mitigate the impact of recession through generous transfer payments to young families. This may account as well for the fact that France’s birthrate last year surpassed that of the United States.

But without strong economic growth, it seems likely that family formation and birthrates will continue downward everywhere, particularly as economic realities force reductions in state aid. A mindlessly ever-expanding welfare state, trying to enlist more clients, even tiny ones, will diminish private sector growth and usher in even more quickly the onset of “demographic winter.” A lethal demographic cocktail of high taxes, low growth and fewer babies could set the stage for an even greater financial crisis in the decades ahead.

Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University, and contributing editor to the City Journal in New York. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in February, 2010.

Reprinted from New Geography

August 29, 2012 | 2 comments | View Post

Top 10 Reasons Not To Re-Elect Obama

by Chuck Norris | In 2010, President Obama confessed to ABC News’ Diane Sawyer, “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” But what if Obama’s one-term weren’t good, but bad, for the country?

In Part 1 and Part 2, I gave the first eight reasons in my Top 10 reasons not to re-elect President Obama. Though I would encourage readers to read the details in each of those points, here they are in summary:

10) Obama’s economic actions have failed to lower the unemployment rate in the U.S. below 8 percent for last 42 record months

9) The Obama administration’s out-of-control spending has led America to the economic brink and destroyed our country’s credit rating

8) Obama’s reckless spending and fiscal policies have added more to the national debt than most U.S. presidents combined: Roughly $6 trillion in his first term in office (making the total debt nearly $16 trillion, and by White House projections alone, $21.3 trillion by the end of fiscal 2017, $25 trillion in 2021 and $25.9 trillion in 2022).

7) Obama has not only detrimentally increased the costs of entitlements but also the dependency of citizens upon government subsidies, rather than empowering the people’s autonomy, responsibility and freedom.

6) Obama demeans private enterprise and the entrepreneurial spirit – the very heart of America – and instead believes that “only” government is our savior.

5) President Obama has left the U.S. in a weaker and more disrespected position in the global community.

4) Obama has broken or unfulfilled 324 campaign promises

3) Through his presidency, President Obama is invoking and enabling a radically progressive secular state.

Here are the last two unquestionable justifications for ousting Obama from office.

2) Obama elevates himself above the U.S. Constitution – which contains the rulebook for his presidency, and so discards and bypasses its principles and tenets.

What should be of grave concern to every American citizen is that President Obama has described the Constitution as “an imperfect document … a document that reflects some deep flaws … reflected an enormous blind spot … and that the framers had that same blind spot.”

In so doing, the president established a rationale and justification for disregarding, disavowing and disposing the Constitution from oversight and obedience in his administration and decisions, which he swore to uphold when sworn into office. To add insult to injury, Obama places himself above the Constitution and those “blind framers” who just couldn’t see the big picture as he does today. After all, he’s the constitutional scholar and the framers were just, well, the creators of the document!

Today, the Constitution tragically conforms to and serves White House’s political whims, not vice versa. It’s time we stop that constitutional chaos and return to the founding principles, limited government and taxation, and freedoms of our early republic, whether we like them or not.

1) Four more years of President Obama will not only fundamentally transform but also unravel the very fabrics of our republic as our founders or we know it.

On the eve of Obama’s first election, he promised that he would “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” He wasn’t kidding. And he’s well on his way.

Imagine what four more years of Obama-unleashed will bring – when there is no re-election to face or consequences to bear.

Imagine no more.

WND Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein has just published (released on Aug. 14) a groundbreaking exposé and borderline prophetic look into exactly what will happen in a second term with Barack Obama. As WND reported, ‘ “Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed” is based on exhaustive research into Obama’s upcoming detailed presidential plans and policies, as well as the specific second-term recommendations of major ‘progressive’ groups behind Obama and the Democratic leadership – the organizations that help craft legislation and set the political and rhetorical agenda for the president and his allies.’

From crumbling down American sovereignty by giving sway to U.N rule and European socialism to clamping down on Second Amendment gun rights and passing the Freedom of Choice Act – the sweeping bill that would abolish all pro-life regulations across the nation, from parental notification laws to bans on federal funding of abortion, our republic is in deep, deep trouble with Obama at the helm for four more years, because he will complete his fundamental transformation of the United States into a completely progressive European-socialist state.

Fellow citizens, America is out of time, out of money, indebted up to her ears and our economy and unemployment rates are in the tank. We can’t afford a single day more of President Obama – especially knowing every day his administration adds $4,179,115,306 extra (on top of the existing spending and debt) every day he is in office.

The fiscal actions of Obama’s federal government are diametrically opposed to those of America’s founders and framers who adopted the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Thomas Jefferson could have been writing to us today when he wrote in 1816 to Samuel Kercheval, roughly 40 years after the creation of the Declaration of Independence:

We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers.

The Declaration of Independence could have been speaking about President Obama when it stated, “In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

Chuck Norris is the star of more than 20 films and the long-running TV series “Walker, Texas Ranger.” His latest book is entitled The Official Chuck Norris Fact Book.” Learn more about his life and ministry at his official website, ChuckNorris.com.

[Source via WND.com]

August 29, 2012 | 4 comments | View Post

The SPLC and Morris Dees

by Dr. A. H. Krieg, A3P Director | Morris Dees together with Millard Fuller started the Southern Poverty Law Center in 1971. Some years later after Mr. Fuller left the firm, Mr. Fuller made the following revealing statement; “Morris Dees and I, from the first day of our partnership (SPLC) shared one overriding purpose; to make a pile of money. We were not particular about how we did it; we just wanted to be independently rich… we never wavered in that resolve.” SPLC is by far the wealthiest, claimed by them, civil rights group in America; Charity Navigator rates them as poor. Dees and SPLC are the kings of hate Christians and Whites on the American scene. The Southern Center For Human Rights director Steven Bright was more forward {To Dees} “You are a fraud and a con man.” SPLC when audited by the Arlington based Better Business Bureau failed the audit. 89% of all collected funds by SPLC are used for fundraising.

Gloria Browne Esq. was a staff lawyer for SPLC, she quit and told reporters that “The Center’s programs are calculated to cash in on Black pain and White Guilt” as of 2012 SPLC is the undisputed self appointed thought police of the nation, with contract from numerous NGO as well as governmental organizations. We know exactly where they come from, Mark Pokto a SPLC spokesperson made it abundantly clear when he said, [we are about] “Keeping an eye on the political right!” The radical left is completely missing from their agenda, which is understandable considering that the entire management staff of SPLC is Jewish and the political left is led by and controlled by Jews. It is after all, all about [Jewish] ideology as Pokto pointed out.

In an article for the Federal Observer vol. 12 # 227 I pointed out that the average manager at SPLC’s income is about 12 times the national average and that in 2011 Dees had an income of over $280,000 benefits unknown. It is “Hates Profits!”

Just this week The Family Research Council, who has been on the receiving end of relentless verbal anti-Christian and anti-White attacks by Mark Potok of SPLC, saw their Washington DC office attacked by a crazed gunman who shot a security guard before being wrestled down and held for police. We all wonder if the radicalization of this individual was caused by SPLC indoctrination propaganda?

We really marvel why some poor Jewish schmuck who makes a measly $30,000 sends money to SPLC

August 29, 2012 | 2 comments | View Post

A Review of “2016: Obama’s America”

Dan Poole | It’s no secret that positive or negative reviews of 2016: Obama’s America are contingent on the reviewer being a liberal or a conservative. This review will offer both praises and criticisms of the film, starting with the praises:

Throughout the documentary, Dinesh D’Souza hashes out a theory that he first put into print back in September 2010. D’Souza’s theory states that Barack Obama derives his policies from a mindset rooted in anti-Colonialism. D’Souza argues that the anti-colonial theory explains Obama’s policies as President better than any other (such as the theory that Obama is a secret Muslim).

Whether the anti-colonial theory is the best explanation of Obama’s mindset or not, one thing’s for sure: D’Souza persuasively argues his case over the course of the film. Near the end, the film plays clips of Joe Biden and others ridiculing D’Souza’s anti-colonial theory, and in light of the evidence D’Souza just presented, Biden and the other critics look like ignorant fools.

The complete dismissal of the very idea that Obama holds anti-American, anti-Western sentiments shows that Progressives don’t even want to defend those sentiments. They just want to pretend like those sentiments don’t exist. For a movement that prides itself on evidence and logic, that’s pretty pathetic.

Ultimately, D’Souza accomplishes what he seemingly set out to accomplish, which was to explain through the power of motion pictures that his anti-Colonial theory is accurate and credible. However, while the anti-Colonial theory itself doesn’t deserve criticism, I couldn’t help but be bothered by some of what D’Souza said – or more accurately, what he didn’t say.

Being an immigrant from India, it would be silly to expect D’Souza to take Obama to task for the anti-white ideology of Progressivism that he espouses. And in fairness to D’Souza, he does state at one point in the movie that his “grandfather felt the wounds, the injuries, the insults, the humiliation of colonialism. And it always made him not only anti-British but slightly anti-white.” But still, D’Souza is an outspoken advocate for colorblind conservatism, which is code word for universalist conservatism.

Also, not to stir up dissension, but the fact is that D’Souza basically threw Sam Francis under the bus back in September 1995 for saying things he didn’t like. “Well, yeah, but Poole, that’s because Francis is a racist white supremacist”. Gag me. The point is that while D’Souza does a fine job in terms of articulating his anti-Colonial theory, anti-Colonialism is still a subsection of the ideology that Obama adheres to – which is Progressivism.

As such, D’Souza did not spend nearly enough time focusing on the completely failed policies of the Obama Administration. He did touch on the Keystone Pipeline and the denial of oil-drilling permits (while simultaneously funding oil drilling in Brazil), but even then it was only brief.

The one issue that D’Souza did spend some length discussing was nuclear warhead reductions, and with all due respect to the man, that says more about D’Souza’s own foreign policy than anything else.

Put it more bluntly: It’s intellectually grating when a right-wing interventionist argues with a left-wing interventionist (side note: It’s equally grating when both those interventionists argue with the isolationists in the Ron Paul crowd). Whether it’s D’Souza, Obama, or the Paul bots, nobody can get it right on foreign policy. But I digress.

All in all, 2016: Obama’s America is a compelling but relatively shallow film, at least in terms of policy substance and a thorough dissection of Obama’s ideology, which again is Progressivism. It’s not that D’Souza’s anti-Colonial theory is wrong, it’s that anti-Colonialism is only one set of trees in the forest of evil that is Progressivism. And because D’Souza says next to nothing about race and immigration, the movie offers an empty take on how important race is to Obama and the ideology that drives him.

Obama and Progressives like him don’t just want to shake a first world nation down to size out of anti-Colonial vengeance, they want to displace white Americans in the nation that their ancestors founded and built. A conservatism that fights the left wing smears of racism with fruitless appeals to colorblindness is a conservatism doomed to failure.

Dan Poole is a 2012 graduate of Oakland University, with a BA in Political Science and a Minor in History. A former intern for the Milford Times with dozens of published articles, Dan has a passion for politics and ideology that he loves to express in writing.

August 29, 2012 | 3 comments | View Post

‘Alliance of European Nationalist Movements’ Holds Historic Meeting

August | The Historic meeting of the ‘Alliance of European Nationalist Movements’, took place in Cheshire on Tuesday 24th of July. This is the first of its kind and represents a sea-change in the direction of European politics, and the inauguration of this group has been led by our very own Nick Griffin MEP.

And, it will now be eligible to share the Taxpayer funds, which are currently shared by the Lib-Lab-Con parties.

Around 100 delegates from home and abroad packed the venue in the beautiful and very sunny Cheshire countryside, to mark the start of a major campaign for all European countries to regain self-rule in each of our homelands, and to break free of the tyranny of the European Union.

Alliance of European NationalistsThe EU is an insidious Communist cabal which dictates virtually every law, in every EU members’ country, and it is well past its sell-by date. The AENM was established to create a bond between all fellow nationalists who look forward to freedom and ditching the totalitarian ‘elected dictatorship’, which is the EU.

The AENM group is gaining momentum and will become a powerful force for change, and the nationalists’ voice will now be heard loud and clear.
Delegates came from England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Sweden, Italy, France, Belgium, Hungary, Spain and Holland, and we are all witnessing a tremendous growth in nationalism in our countries.

In particular, the Hungarian ‘Jobbik Party – A Movement for a Better Hungary’ has shown a remarkable level of success. Since the party’s inception, just nine years ago, it has grown phenomenally, to become Hungary’s second largest party, with many members in their National Assembly, and 43 MEP’s. We look forward to replicating this in Britain.

At this point, it’s worth mentioning that, with the exception of Great Britain, all of the EU member countries enjoy a genuine version of Proportional Representation in their Electoral Systems, in both their EU Elections and home elections.

If we in Britain had had straight forward PR in our Parliamentary Elections, in 2010, it is estimated that the British National Party would have taken up to 40 seats in the House of Commons – that’s how important genuine PR is.

But we must ensure that the establishment does not introduce a diluted version of PR, by imposing their crooked version, known as the Alternative Vote (AV) which is designed to stop the smaller parties progressing.

The AENM also demonstrates that nationalists are NOT anti-Europe, but we are ALL anti-EU, and we look forward to the day when this ‘House of Babel’ descends into an abyss and implodes!

Meanwhile, we will all endeavour to awaken our fellow country men and women from their brainwashed hypnotic slumber, which holds them in an electoral trance. And, we will show them how our countries will be when governed by nationalists.

Posted with permission by The British National Party. Special thanks to Clive Jefferson, BNP National Treasurer. (Nationalism by the world wide European population continues to grow.)

August 22, 2012 | 3 comments | View Post

Tennessee Approves Ballot Access Petition for Merlin Miller

Merlin Miller | The American Third Position Party has received notice from the Division of Elections, Tennessee Department of State, that Merlin Miller qualified to be on the ballot in Tennessee. This November, Tennessee voters will be able to choose Merlin Miller for President and Virginia Abernethy for Vice President – as independent candidates, rather than the Democratic and Republican “establishment” candidates. As a representative for America’s traditional middle-class, the American Third Position Party is growing as a much needed populist alternative. Merlin, Virginia and the A3P would like to thank those Electors who have come forward in support and to the many party members and other supporters who petitioned on our behalf. Ballot Access Coordinator, Harry Bertram, and Matt M. traveled from out of state to assist. It is a grueling process that is difficult for independent candidates and third parties to qualify, but Tennessee ballot access is more reasonable than many other states. We have now qualified to be on the ballot in Colorado, New Jersey, and Tennessee – with other states to follow including various write-in applications.

According to Richard Winger of Ballot-Access.org

Tennessee Approves Independent Presidential Petitions for Gary Johnson and Merlin Miller, but Says Rocky Anderson Lacks 20 Valid Signatures

August 21st, 2012

Tennessee has verified the validity of the independent presidential petitions for Gary Johnson and Merlin Miller, but says the Rocky Anderson petition only has 255 valid signatures, and 275 are needed. Anderson volunteers will work with election officials to find signatures that may have been improperly rejected.

The Green Party and Constitution Parties didn’t need independent presidential petitions because they are ballot-qualified parties.
 -Ballot Access News is edited and published by Richard Winger, the nation’s leading expert on ballot access legal issues.

Donate today to Merlin Miller’s 2012 Campaign. Help pay our campaign workers.

August 22, 2012 | 3 comments | View Post

Obama’s Administrative Amnesty – Just Part of His War Against White America?

By Nicholas Stix | On August 16’s Day of Infamy, Barack Obama’s unconstitutional Administrative Amnesty of illegal alien invaders began processing, with minimal opposition from the GOP. It will privilege millions of criminals, and create an ever-burgeoning class of legally privileged people who are being taught that America’s laws—and not just her immigration laws—do not apply to them.

As of 2011, the U.S. Census Bureau claims that there are just under 52 million Hispanic “residents” in the U.S.—illegal aliens, legal immigrants, and citizens—16.7 percent of the population. (The Bureau’s practice of counting “residents,” rather than American citizens, is itself a form of psychological amnesty indicative of the corruption that has burrowed deep into the body politic over the past 40-odd years—resulting, among other evils, in the creation of Congressional “rotten boroughs” frequently held by Reconquistas.)

By definition, all illegal aliens have contempt for the American legal system. Tolerating them creates what economists call “moral hazard,” inviting further law breaking.

You don't need no stinkin' papers!And that’s exactly what we get. Having violated our borders and immigration laws illegal aliens commit identity theft (the fastest growing class of crime), tax evasion, and EITC and SSI fraud; and allow their sons to join violent criminal gangs, where they commit robberies, larceny, auto theft, sell false documents, deal drugs, commit gang rape, vandalism, murder, attack policemen, and riot.

Not merely the “50, 000,” “one million,” or “two million” illegals who benefit from this Administrative Amnesty (the estimate keeps rising), but tens of millions over the next 30 years, through both legal and fraudulent chain migration, new anchor babies, and Obama’s dog-whistling to future illegals, are getting the message that America’s borders and immigration laws—in other words, America—have been abolished.

This did not start with Obama. But he has taken it to a level never before seen—because he shares illegal aliens’ hatred of white America.

But first, let’s review the pre-Obama attack on the rule of law.

The problems began in the 1970s, when cities adopted “sanctuary” policies—e.g., the notorious Los Angeles “Special Order 40,” under the regime of Chief Daryl Gates, of 1992 black L.A. riot notoriety. They harbored illegal aliens in violation of federal law, while the federal government turned a blind eye. (Contrast the Obama Regime’s attack on Arizona for wanting to enforce federal law.)

Right there, when you order law enforcement officers, on pain of losing their jobs, to violate federal immigration laws, you turn the police into criminals and undermine the rule of law. That then causes cascading criminality and non-feasance, as the news is communicated through the ranks of cops and criminal invaders alike that the law is a joke.

Chiefs like Daryl Gates should have been arrested.

Los Angeles Police Department officials developed a talking point, which their colleagues across the country parroted: while they were not enforcing immigration law, they were vigorously enforcing non-immigration law. But this lie soon became transparent .

The official LAPD rule for over 30 years has been to check the immigration status of those suspected of violating non-immigration ordinances and laws. But the LAPD has for many years failed to enforce its own rule— even when a Spanish-speaker driving drunk without a license kills someone! The rot extended so far that in 2003 carpetbagger LAPD Chief William Bratton announced to law-abiding Los Angelenos who complained about his refusal to enforce immigration laws that if they didn’t like it, they should leave the state!

S.O. 40 resulted in the LAPD, the California Highway Patrol and other police agencies elsewhere legally privileging offenders who claimed to speak only Spanish and had no legal ID by ceasing to enforce non-immigration laws that illegal aliens typically violate: Driving without a license, with a suspended license, without insurance, etc.

LAPD and other police chiefs contended that their illegal sanctuary policy made illegal aliens comfortable enough to come forward to report crimes. The opposite was true. The police ceded sovereignty over more and more territory to cut-throat illegal alien gangs. Non-gang members knew that reporting crimes could cost them their lives.

Bratton reveled in his deception, bragging that he had dramatically driven down crime. But all he had done was exempt one million or more “residents” from most laws, cause most crime victims to refrain from reporting crimes, and rely on the cynicism that illegals had brought with them. (Some 90 percent of felonies in Mexico go unreported)..

My colleague, Federale, has shown how lawlessness have similarly wormed its way through the federal bureaucracy, so that officials have for decades been in effect amnestying illegal aliens, and even paying SSI to illegals! Almost 20 years ago, immigration law enforcement officers were ordered to stop chasing suspected illegal aliens. More recently, the Obama Administration has ordered them not to arrest even fugitive illegal aliens, or aliens who have feloniously assaulted them. In case anyone considered putting his oath of service above political corruption, officers have been threatened with being fired for doing their job, and some have been persecuted and even falsely imprisoned (though the last case was by the Bush II regime).

Why would Obama want to encourage lawlessness? It is because he believes in the rule of crime—as long as it is the rule of black, Hispanic and other non-white criminals over whites.

At present, officially at least 91 million U.S. “residents”—52 million Hispanics and 39 million blacks—constitute irredentist groups who are being encouraged to believe that “the white man’s laws” do not apply to them. Moslem immigrants feel likewise. And the celebration of such groups by America’s cultural elite causes millions of whites to descend to the same level.

Obama has supported black criminals his entire political career. Back in the early 2000s, when he represented Chicago in the Illinois State Senate, he sponsored legislation banning the “racial profiling” of blacks—opposing “racial profiling” has never been anything but a euphemism for the support of black felons. Before and since the 2008 election, Obama has supported every black race hoax to come down the pike: The Jena Hoax, the Henry Louis “Skip” Gates Jr. Hoax, the Trayvon Martin Hoax.

On Election Day, 2008, the Nation of Islam’s New Black Panther Party was videotaped at a Philadelphia polling place, violating whites’ voting rights. The Bush Justice Department pressed charges, and the case seemed won by default when the defendants did not even bother showing up. And yet the Obama-Eric Holder Justice Department dropped all but one of the charges—leaving one that resulted merely in the NBPP being ordered to obey the law, which it was supposed to do in the first place.

Obama’s support of the NOI/NBPP, and for the violation of whites’ voting rights, was clear from his intervention on the former’s behalf. Later, a 2007 picture surfaced of Obama campaigning together with NBPP leader Malik Zulu Shabazz, and Shabazz was reportedly a guest of Obama’s at the White House, shortly after the inauguration.

Obama has ignored the nationwide racist black lynch mob violence that greeted his election and has not subsided since, but is seeking anew to handcuff police departments.

Obama’s behavior should not surprise anyone who knows of his longstanding beliefs and history.

It is often reported that Obama moved to Chicago to follow in the footsteps of its first black mayor, Harold Washington. But I have a different take.

At the time of Obama’s move, Chicago was already one of America’s most violent cities, and the national capital of black street gangs.

The Nation of Islam murder cult is based in Chicago. Beginning in the 1960s, first in Harlem, the NOI engaged in the serial murder of whites. From circa 1970-1975, NOI death squads murdered anywhere from 71 to over 270 whites in California, at least six whites in Oklahoma City and, according to the FBI, was also active murdering whites on the East Coast.

Obama was a member, for over 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Trinity United Church of Christ. Among other things, Wright asserted that AIDS was invented by the U.S. government as part of a genocidal white plot to murder blacks.

Black Liberation Theology is not a Christian sect. It worships not Jesus as the Christ, but blackness and genocide. Its founder, James H. Cone, combined Marxism and genocidal black supremacy.

“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community

“… Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”

[James Cone, quoted in Obama Pastor’s Theology: Destroy the White Enemy, World Net Daily, March 17, 2008.]

Remember that, during Obama’s 2008 campaign, in an underexposed interview, Obama expressed his position that every black from every country (e.g., Caribbean) that ever had slavery, and everyone from any country that had ever been a colony of any white country, has an eternal right to enjoy eternal racial privilege, at whites’ expense. That would make for several billion people.

Farai Chideya [Born in Baltimore, African father]: Let me throw a little curveball in there. We met when I was an undergrad at Harvard. You were the head of the Harvard Law Review. Now there’s a big debate at Harvard over whether the children of immigrants — and you’re one, and I’m one, for the purposes of these studies — should be considered the same as children of Jim Crow survivors, the great-grandchildren of people who survived slavery. What do you think about that and how that plays into affirmative action?

Obama: Oh, I think that’s a divisive debate and a silly debate that we should not be getting into. Listen, your parents or grandparents, my parents or grandparents were either part of the black Diaspora. I mean, you know, black people didn’t end up in the Caribbean by taking a yacht there. They came on slave ships. Back in Africa, my grandfather was a cook for the British army and suffered under the colonialism there. You know, the notion that we would try to parse and divide to see who among us has been most victimized, I think, is not an appropriate approach to take. And it weakens rather than strengthens the overall efforts to ensure racial equality and justice in this country.[Links added] ][Obama on the War, Race and America’s Future, by Farai Chideya, NPR, July 13, 2007]

My charge: Obama seeks to dispossess and disenfranchise, if not ultimately to physically destroy, the historic American people—just as his allies are doing to whites in South Africa and Zimbabwe

Obama wages War on White America “by any means necessary.” Administrative Amnesty is merely the latest example.

Nicholas Stix [email him] is a New York City-based journalist and researcher, much of whose work focuses on the nexus of race, crime, and education. He spent much of the 1990s teaching college in New York and New Jersey. His work has appeared in Chronicles, The New York Post, Weekly Standard, Daily News, New York Newsday, American Renaissance, Academic Questions, Ideas on Liberty and many other publications. Stix was the project director and principal author of the NPI report, The State of White America-2007. He blogs at Nicholas Stix, Uncensored.

August 19, 2012 | 2 comments | View Post
Top