saddened (commentary by Smedley Butler)

Re: saddened

National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
American Worker Displacement Resumes—Immigration Moratorium Essential
Nonfarm payrolls grew by a seasonally adjusted 431,000 in May, but virtually all the new jobs were temporary jobs at the U.S. Census, the Labor Department reported Friday, June 4. Netting out the 411,000 Census takers, payrolls rose by 20,000 in May.

The extremely disappointing report left many wondering whether a double-dip recession is looming.

In fact, the second leg down may already be here. The other employment survey (of households rather than businesses) showed a 35,000 job reduction—the first decline since last December. Household employment usually leads payroll employment in signaling turns in the economic cycle.

Even more important from VDARE.COM’s point of view: May’s household survey also reveals a sharp divide between Hispanic and non-Hispanic employment trends—advantage Hispanics. Here is the action for the month:

Total employment: -35,000 (-0.03 percent)

Hispanic employment: +103,000 (+0.52 percent)

Non-Hispanic employment: -138,000 (+0.12 percent)

The VDARE.COM American Worker Displacement Index (VDAWDI), after falling in March and April, regained its record high—126.1—reached in February.

Last month, we speculated that a brief pause in American worker displacement might be due to the “Arizona Effect”��—illegals leaving because of signs that American legislators, at the state level at least, are finally moving to protect their constituents. That effect has either dissipated or been overwhelmed by the deteriorating economy.



Our index of American worker displacement is calculated like this:

For every 100.0 Hispanics employed in January 2001 there were 123.8 in May 2010

For every 100.0 non-Hispanics employed in January 2001 there were 98.2 in May 2010

May’s VDAWDI equals 126.1 (=100 X 123.8/98.2)

VDAWDI is the best measure we have of how foreign-born workers fare relative to native born workers in the latest month. It is imperfect: only 40% of the Hispanic labor force are immigrants—though the rest may be first and second generation. But this approximation is eliminated in a table recently added to the monthly employment report.

Since January BLS has devoted a page of its monthly report to foreign- and native-born employment. The data are not seasonally adjusted, making month to month comparisons impossible. But we can compare May 2010 with May 2009.

Read it and weep:

Employment Status by Nativity, May 2009-May 2010

(numbers in 1000s; not seasonally adjusted)


May-09
May-10
Change
% Change


Foreign born, 16 years and older

Civilian population
34,761
35,647
886
2.5%

Civilian labor force
23,638
24,210
572
2.4%

Employed
21,488
22,125
637
3.0%

Unemployed
2,149
2,085
-64
-3.0%

Unemployment rate
9.1
8.6
-0.5
-5.5%

Not in labor force
11,123
11,437
314
2.8%


Native born, 16 years and older

Civilian population
200,691
201,852
1,161
0.6%

Civilian labor force
130,699
129,656
-1,043
-0.8%

Employed
118,875
117,372
-1,503
-1.3%

Unemployed
11,824
12,284
460
3.9%

Unemployment rate
9.0
9.5
0.5
5.6%

Not in labor force
69,992
72,196
2,204
3.1%

Source: BLS, "The Employment Situation—May 2010," June 4, 2010. Table A-7.

PDF


In other words, over the past 12 months:

foreign-born workers gained 637,000 jobs; natives lost 1,503,000 positions.

Unemployment rates for immigrants declined by 0.5 points, to 8.6%; native unemployment rose 0.5 points, to 9.5%.

The immigrant labor force grew by 2.4%; the native labor force shrank 0.8%—a sign of discouragement.

Overarching everything is the burgeoning population gap between these groups. Over the past year the foreign-born population of working age rose 2.5%, or more than four-times the 0.6% rate for natives.

The Obama Administration’s fiscal stimulus has failed to end unemployment. Can an immigration moratorium be far behind?

Edwin S. Rubenstein (email him) is President of ESR Research Economic Consultants in Indianapolis.

If you want to email or print out, format by clicking on this permanent URL:
http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/100607_nd.htm

************
 
Re: saddened

IMO facts, genocidal policie's, displacement economically, and physical violence against White's mean nothing to the non-Whites and brainwashed Whites or to the regime.
======================================

Memo From Middle America (Formerly Known As Memo From Mexico), By Allan Wall
2010 Census Already Politically Correct—But Mexico Is Meddling Anyway
It’s the year 2010, so it’s census time again. Have you filled out your census form? I have, and according to the census website, 72% of U.S. residents (not all legal, by the way) have done so.

The constitutional basis for the U.S: census is found in the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 2. In that section it is related to the calculation of "Representatives and direct taxes".

The first national census under the constitution was the census of 1790. My great-great-great-great-great grandfather Jacob Wall was counted in that census. What if my ancestor could travel through time 220 years and see today’s census, what would he think of it? What do we think of it?

Whereas the original census existed for purposes of taxation and representation, the taxation part has been superseded by the 16th Amendment and now a whole slew of other purposes have been added on to the decennial census.

Now it’s not enough to just carry out the census. As VDARE.COM's Brenda Walker has pointed out, the Census Bureau is spending $133 million on "marketing and outreach".

Today’s census has become a tool for the bloated and indebted Federal Government Leviathan to dole out billions of dollars. It’s also a tool for the dispossession of America’s historic white, English-speaking majority.

Check out the Census website to see what I mean.

To begin with, if you don’t speak English, don’t worry. You can obtain information (in video and audio) on the census in all sorts of languages, including Albanian, Arabic, Gujarati, Cambodian and Turkish.

Here’s what it says in the section of the website entitled

How it [the Census] Affects the Nation :

"Census information affects the numbers of seats your state occupies in the U.S. House of Representatives. [That’s the only constitutional purpose of the census. Here’s the rest…]"

"And people from many walks of life use census data to advocate for causes, rescue disaster victims, prevent diseases, research markets, locate pools of skilled workers and more."

"When you do the math, it's easy to see what an accurate count of residents can do for your community. Better infrastructure. More services. A brighter tomorrow for everyone. In fact, the information the census collects helps to determine how more than $400 billion dollars of federal funding each year is spent on infrastructure and services like: Hospitals, Job training centers, Schools, Senior centers, Bridges, tunnels and other-public works projects, Emergency services."

The Census form further justifies itself by explaining to the user why the various nosy questions are important. Let’s look at some of these explanations in detail:

Question #3: Housing Ownership: "Homeownership rates serve as an indicator of the nation’s economy. The data are also used to administer housing programs and to inform planning decisions."

"Planning decisions" like the disastrous bipartisan obsession with pushing subprime mortgages onto uncreditworthy minority homebuyers?

Question #6: Gender (Still only two choices—male or female. By 2020 there may be more. And the Queer the Census movement wants a question on the census form about lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender identity.)

"Census data about sex are important because many federal programs must differentiate between males and females for funding, implementing and evaluating their programs. For instance, laws promoting equal employment opportunity for women require census data on sex."

[More government meddling and social engineering, in other words].

Question #7 Age and Date of Birth: "Federal, state, and local governments need data about age to interpret most social and economic characteristics, such as forecasting the number of people eligible for Social Security or Medicare benefits. The data are widely used in planning and evaluating government programs and policies that provide funds or services for children, working-age adults, women of childbearing age, or the older population."

[How did we, as a nation allow our government to get involved in all this?]

Question #8—Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin?

"Asked since 1970. The data collected in this question are needed by federal agencies to monitor compliance with anti-discrimination provisions, such as under the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State and local governments may use the data to help plan and administer bilingual programs for people of Hispanic origin."

[Isn’t knowing English a requirement for naturalization?]

Question #9 Race "Race is key to implementing many federal laws and is needed to monitor compliance with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State governments use the data to determine congressional, state and local voting districts. [racial gerrymandering] Race data are also used to assess fairness of employment practices, to monitor racial disparities in characteristics such as health and education and to plan and obtain funds for public services."

[More Big Government Social Engineering and anti-white Affirmative Action.]

If you haven’t already, be sure and read Steve Sailer’s How Race, Ethnicity Questions On Census Boost Anti-White Quotas, which explains how the census is rigged against the English-speaking white majority of our country.

After the census returns are tabulated, expect a lot of crowing about how great it is that whites are losing their majority status.

And read this Sailer article about the whole "Hispanic" category. Hispanics are now considered America’s only official ethnicity—the white historical white and black populations are now defined negatively as

"non-Hispanic".

The whole "Hispanic" ethnicity is rigged to include people of various races who either speak Spanish or whose ancestors come from a Spanish-speaking country (even if they themselves don’t speak Spanish).

In recent years, more Mexican Indians (some of whom don’t even speak Spanish) have migrated to the U.S.

So in the 2010 census, for the first time, "Indigenous Immigrants" will be separately counted. Who are "Indigenous Immigrants"? Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?

Yes it is, but as we see with the Hispanic category, logic is not the strong suit of the people who think these things up. Undermining the historic American nation is.

"Indigenous Immigrants" are American Indians from Latin America. Which means they aren’t indigenous to this country.

According to 2010 Census Counts Indigenous Immigrants [by Juliana Barbassa and Manuel Valdes, AP, January 4, 2010]:

"In the 2010 Census, the bureau will tabulate handwritten entries specifying that the respondent belongs to a Central American indigenous group such Maya, Nahua, Mixtec, or Purepecha. The list of different populations that end up being counted will be made public when results are released in 2011, said Michele Lowe, spokeswoman for the Census Bureau."

There’s taxpayer money involved of course :

"Oralia Maceda, a Mixtec community organizer with the Binational Center, told a recent gathering of indigenous women in the rural Central Valley town of Madera, Calif., that the tally can have implications for their everyday lives. Census data will help determine how more than $300 billion in federal funds are distributed to state and local governments each year."

The Census Bureau is promoting this :

"The Census recommends indigenous immigrants from Latin America choose "American Indian or Alaska Native" as their race, then write in the name of their community. "If everyone agrees to put down Maya, the government will have an idea that in Bremerton [Washington] there's a group that is Maya that speaks a language that is not Spanish," she said."

So what about our own American Indians—the traditional tribes that are really native to this land? You know, the Cherokee, Navajo, Choctaw, etc., and our own David Yeagley’s Comanche tribe? What’s going to happen to these tribes and their longstanding treaty rights?

Will they someday get shoved aside in favor of the mass immigration and political recognition of "Indigenous Immigrants"? It’s certainly something to watch out for.

And speaking of watching out for something, the Mexican government is very interested in our census, and has been meddling in it since last year.

At the end of 2009, in his message to "the Mexican Community in the United States", Mexican Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan underscored the importance of the U.S. Census :

"Next year the United States census will be carried out, in which everybody in this country [the U.S.] Will be counted, including the foreigners ( regardless of their migratory status) . Based on the information obtained in the census, necessities will be determined and therefore, the budget that is assigned to local authorities for essential services for our community such as education and health. Besides, by means of the census the legislative districts that represent your community in the local [U.S.] legislatures and [U.S.] Congress are determined , where they discuss and approve the [U.S.] laws that affect your daily life. "

"In light of the preceding, the embassy and consular network of Mexico is collaborating with the Census Bureau and the Hispanic organizations in this country[what a combination] in an effort aimed at counting all the Hispanics in the U.S. Don’t forget that the Census Bureau has guaranteed that the information that is obtained in the census will be handled with the strictest confidentiality and will not be shared with any other government agency."

[Translation: Illegals, don’t worry!]

Mensaje del Embajador Arturo Sarukhan a la Comunidad Mexicana en Estados Unidos en ocasión del fin de año

Aren’t you glad to know that the Mexican government and the U.S. Hispanic organizations are partners with the Census Bureau in carrying out the census?

For example, this past spring

" … the Mexican consulate in Chicago installed an orientation module to help the immigrant community to fill out the 2010 Census Form…. The module is attended by qualified personnel that do not only help answer questions for the census , but that clarify doubts of Mexicans….."

"…. To participate in the census ….will benefit each Mexican and his community, regardless of the migratory status in which he finds himself."

Ayuda Consulado de México en Chicago a Contestar Censo 2010

El Financiero, March 25th, 2010

Chicago wasn’t the only place of course. In Arizona, for example, the Mexican consulate in Yuma used its "consulado móvil" (mobile consulate) and worked in conjunction with the U.S. Census Bureau to "help" us with our census.

Mexican agents/diplomats have been working on "our census" since last year at least. The consuls of Los Angeles and Miami got together in 2009 and prepared a document for the benefit of Mexicans in the U.S., stressing the fact that "The participation of Mexicans in the United States in the 2010 census will be fundamental for the assignment of up to 300 billion dollars annually in social programs during the next 10 years."

Why is the Mexican government, through its diplomatic apparatus, meddling in our census?

For one reason, they want to bilk the U.S. taxpayers out of billions of dollars to support Mexicans who are living in the U.S. That keeps them out of Mexico where the Mexican government might be expected to have some sort of responsibility for them.

Another purpose of meddling in the census is to get as many Mexicans as possible to be counted. That gives more clout to the Hispanic ethnicity, and especially to its organized leaders and to the Mexican government.

This will in turn makes more meddling possible in the future. Increased Mexican hegemony over the U.S.A. is the goal. It’s about power.

But what about our own government?

Our own government not only knows what’s going on—it is collaborating with the Mexican government. The Census Bureau has accepted the Mexican government as a partner in the implementation of our census.

Do you suppose that the Americans of the first census, in 1790, would have put up with this?

To ask the question is to answer it. Of course they wouldn’t have.

So why do we put up with it?

American citizen Allan Wall (email him) recently moved back to the U.S.A. after many years residing in Mexico. In 2005, Allan served a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his Mexidata.info articles are archived here; his News With Views columns are archived here; and his website is here.

If you want to email or print out, format by clicking on this permanent URL:
http://www.vdare.com/awall/100610_memo.htm
 
Re: saddened

Nigtarded said:
What a bizarre thing to say. We're here to expose criminals and you want to meet us face to face? :confused:

You can come to London if you like. I'll meet you at the airport.
Click to expand...

LMAO Too funny Nig:tongue:
 
Re: saddened

Anybody who wants to meet us face to face considers US to be the criminals.
 
Re: saddened

Is it a coincidence that member, Appalled , mentions to focus on white collar crimes? I think it shows the true race of the same , who, BTW is showing TNB by implying the very suggestion to investigate "white collar crimes" as crimes performed by whites with collars on? lmfao
 
Re: saddened

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Poverty does not cause crime...Criminals do!

Most folks know that liberals have always linked poverty with crime. These same folks with common sense already knew that the reason for poverty is due to liberal policies. So, what causes people to commit crimes if it isn’t poverty?

Heather Mac Donald, reporting for the Wall Street Journal, is asking questions about this liberal myth. If poverty is the root cause of lawlessness, why did crime rates fall when joblessness increased?

The recession of 2008-09 has undercut one of the most destructive social theories that came out of the 1960s: the idea that the root cause of crime lies in income inequality and social injustice. As the economy started shedding jobs in 2008, criminologists and pundits predicted that crime would shoot up, since poverty, as the “root causes”�� theory holds, begets criminals. Instead, the opposite happened. Over seven million lost jobs later, crime has plummeted to its lowest level since the early 1960s. The consequences of this drop for how we think about social order are significant.

The notion that crime is an understandable reaction to poverty and racism took hold in the early 1960s. Sociologists Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin argued that juvenile delinquency was essentially a form of social criticism. Poor minority youth come to understand that the American promise of upward mobility is a sham, after a bigoted society denies them the opportunity to advance. These disillusioned teens then turn to crime out of thwarted expectations.

The theories put forward by Cloward, who spent his career at Columbia University, and Ohlin, who served presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Carter, provided an intellectual foundation for many Great Society-era programs. From the Mobilization for Youth on Manhattan’s Lower East Side in 1963 through the federal Office of Economic Opportunity and a host of welfare, counseling and job initiatives, their ideas were turned into policy.

The Cloward mentioned above is the same Cloward that developed the Cloward-Piven strategy . Cloward & Piven wanted to force political change through orchestrated crisis. Doesn’t that sound like the same strategy Obama is using now?

Mac Donald points out several time-lines that defeat the liberal claims that poverty causes crime…

The 1960s themselves offered a challenge to the poverty-causes-crime thesis. Homicides rose 43%, despite an expanding economy and a surge in government jobs for inner-city residents. The Great Depression also contradicted the idea that need breeds predation, since crime rates dropped during that prolonged crisis. The academy’s commitment to root causes apologetics nevertheless persisted. Andrew Karmen of New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice echoed Cloward and Ohlin in 2000 in his book “New York Murder Mystery.”�� Crime, he wrote, is “a distorted form of social protest.”�� And as the current recession deepened, liberal media outlets called for more government social programs to fight the coming crime wave. In late 2008, the New York Times urged President Barack Obama to crank up federal spending on after-school programs, social workers, and summer jobs. “The economic crisis,”�� the paper’s editorialists wrote, “has clearly created the conditions for more crime and more gangs—among hopeless, jobless young men in the inner cities.”��

Even then crime patterns were defying expectations. And by the end of 2009, the purported association between economic hardship and crime was in shambles. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, homicide dropped 10% nationwide in the first six months of 2009; violent crime dropped 4.4% and property crime dropped 6.1%. Car thefts are down nearly 19%. The crime plunge is sharpest in many areas that have been hit the hardest by the housing collapse. Unemployment in California is 12.3%, but homicides in Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles Times reported recently, dropped 25% over the course of 2009. Car thefts there are down nearly 20%.

Why did liberals, like Cloward, want to push the myth that poverty causes crime? It was an excuse to redistribute the wealth to the unproductive in society. Liberals always attempt to place blame except where blame is due. The individual is responsible for their actions, not society. Liberal parents also share the majority of the blame. Poverty was just an easy scapegoat.

Not to Liberals: Poverty doesn’t cause crime…Criminals do! There are several reasons to why crime rates are lower. The increased sales of guns since Obama was elected is a major crime deterrent. Second reason is that when you keep criminals in prison, they’re not on the streets committing crimes against the productive folks in society. I know you liberals hate facts but the proof can be found in the stats.


http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2...ry-demolished/
__________________
 
Re: saddened

June 11, 2010

Freedom’s Real Enemies
By Chuck Baldwin

Politicians in Washington, D.C., love to manufacture a crisis. The crisis generates fear within the citizenry, thereby allowing the federal government to centralize more and more power. During a crisis, the citizenry becomes much more forgiving of federal abuses and accommodating of federal encroachments than it otherwise would be without a crisis. Hence, we have a federal "war on drugs," and a "war on poverty," and a "war on terror," and an "oil crisis," and an "energy crisis," and a "domestic terrorism crisis," and an "education crisis," and a "border crisis," and an "economic crisis"–Blah! Blah! Blah!

You can mark it down: every major crisis that America has faced over the last several decades has been either manufactured or facilitated by policies and activities originating in Washington, D.C. But at the same time that DC is creating these crises, it categorizes any ideological group it finds distasteful as a convenient scapegoat. These convenient scapegoats can include "angry white guys," "tea party extremists," "a vast right-wing conspiracy," Constitution Party or Libertarian Party "extremists," "Second Amendment extremists" (gun owners), "pro-life extremists," ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Yet, while DC’s elitists are plotting America’s next crisis and figuring out whom to categorize as America’s next "extremist," some real enemies are waging war against the freedoms and liberties of our once-great republic. And, ladies and gentlemen, these enemies are much more subtle, a lot closer, and much more dangerous than almost anything you are being told about.

Here are some of freedom’s real enemies:

Big Cities

When the United States was a much smaller–much more agricultural–nation, our freedoms were mostly intact. The mass exodus out of rural America into urban America has been a bane of freedom–and it will continue to be so.

Thomas Jefferson addressed this issue astutely when he wrote in a letter to James Madison, "When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become corrupt as in Europe." (Source: The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson)

Jefferson spoke again of this danger in a letter to Benjamin Rush. He wrote, "I view great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health, and the liberties of man. True, they nourish some of the elegant arts, but the useful ones can thrive elsewhere, and less perfection in the others, with more health, virtue and freedom, would be my choice." (Source: Ibid.)

Big cities are most always more liberal, more socialistic, more utopian, and more centralist. Citizens living in big cities readily submit to the machinations and designs of Big Government with much greater regularity than do their rural counterparts. In states where a handful of big cities dominate State politics, Big-Government policies almost always take over the politics of the entire State. If you doubt that, just speak with freedom-loving citizens in New York, Illinois, or Maryland.

Consider, specifically, the freedom most necessary to preserve our liberties: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. People in states that are less populated enjoy much greater liberty than do people in heavily populated states. For example, Boston’s Gun Bible (BGB) ranks the states according to the degree of gun ownership (and possession) protection in each State. It is no coincidence that the states with sparser populations are much freer than states with denser populations.

Here is BGB’s breakdown of the most and least free gun ownership states:

Most Free States:

Vermont

Idaho and Kentucky (tie)

Louisiana and Alaska (tie)

Wyoming

Montana

Least Free States:

New Jersey

Illinois

Hawaii

Massachusetts

New York

Population density in the "most free" states is less than 50 persons per square mile, while in the "least free" states it is more than 460 persons per square mile. Case closed!

While big cities will typically tolerate much more in the way of licentiousness and sexual perversion, they are also the first to tolerate Big-Government socialism. Without a doubt, Thomas Jefferson was right: big cities are "pestilential to the morals, the health, and the liberties of man."

If you want to live free in the future, you will probably need to leave the big city–and perhaps the states that are dominated by big cities.

The National News Media

For the most part, the national news media is no friend of freedom. About all most of them know of the US Constitution is the part about the "freedom of the press" (from the First Amendment, of course). Watch any of the Big Three television network newscasts on any weekday evening, and what will you see? You will see the exact same stories regurgitated over and over again–even with the exact same spin! And that spin is most always tilted toward bigger and bigger government. This goes on night after night, week after week, month after month, and year after year. But this is all just coincidental, right? Get real!

The cable news networks are not much better. About the only difference between cable networks is that CNN will provide cover for Big Government Democrats while viciously attacking all things Republican, and FOX NEWS will provide cover for Big Government Republicans while viciously attacking all things Democrat.

Face it: the national news media is intoxicated with Two Party Politics. They really don’t care nearly as much about the fundamental tenets and principles of liberty as they do about whether a Democrat or Republican wins office. Washington’s media elite are wined and dined by the same party politicians that they cover on television or in the newspaper. (What a racket!) Do you really think any major media news personality is going to risk losing his or her job (which is exactly what would happen) by asking too many questions, or boring too deeply, or straying too far off the reservation? Once again, get real! All of these guys and gals know exactly where the line–and the "third rail"–is located. And they all will stay clear of both! It’s not about reporting the news, or defending liberty, or anything of the sort. It is about pleasing their big corporate sponsors–corporate sponsors who are in bed with the elites from both major political parties, by the way!

As long as the American people continue to allow the national news media to manipulate and spin the news, our liberties will continue to erode.

Big Business

In fact, Big Anything can be freedom’s enemy: Big Business, Big Labor, Big Media, Big Cities, and Big Religion. Big Anything!

However, the rate and degree to which Big Business has been able to advance during the last half of the twentieth century–and now into the twenty-first century–is especially problematic for the survival of liberty. Dear friend, it is a mistake to equate Big Business with freedom. Big Business has little to do with capitalism and free enterprise and much to do with monopolism and globalism. Big Business does not want to compete with private enterprise; it wants to crush it! Big Business sees Big Government as a friend and partner. In fact, Big Business and Big Government are conjoined twins. They grow and live as one.

Accordingly, it is no accident that when the Bilderbergers got together a few days ago at the Hotel Dolce in Sitges, Spain, for their super-secret meeting, the list of attendees included the cabal of super-elites from Big Government, Big Business, Big Academia, and Big Media. People such as Bill Gates (Microsoft), Roger Altman (former Deputy Secretary of the US Treasury), Martin Feldstein (Harvard University), Niall Ferguson (Harvard University), Philip Gordon (Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs), Donald Graham (The Washington Post), Richard Holbrooke (Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan), Robert Hormats (Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs), Henry Kissinger (former Secretary of State), Klaus Kleinfeld (Chairman and CEO, Alcoa), Craig Mundie (Microsoft), Peter Orszag (Director, Office of Management and Budget), Charlie Rose (Producer, Rose Communications), Robert Rubin (Co-Chairman, Council on Foreign Relations; former Secretary of the Treasury), Eric Schmidt (CEO and Chairman of the Board, Google), James Steinberg (Deputy Secretary of State), Lawrence Summers (Director, National Economic Council), Christine Varney (Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust), and Paul Volcker (Chairman, Economic Recovery Advisory Board). And please remember that these are only the names of those that were published. The complete list of attendees is top secret and never released. For example, was Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner there? He is a Bilderberg (and CFR) member.

But of course, this meeting–complete with the tightest security and secrecy possible–is only for the purpose of social fellowship and clubmanship, right? That the world’s most interconnected business, governmental, and media elites would meet outside the viewing and listening of everyone is supposed to be dismissed as irrelevant and insignificant, right? Well, if you get your news from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or FOX NEWS, that is exactly what you are being led to believe.

Yet, Big Business has been conspiring with Big Government for the purpose of personal aggrandizement (at the cost of liberty, of course) for decades–probably centuries. Remember, it took an act of Congress to stop old Prescott Bush (George H.W. Bush’s father and G.W. Bush’s grandfather) from sending financial assistance to Nazi Germany. Know, too, that international bankers today are supporting governments (some that are openly hostile to the United States) in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Again, Big Business and Big Government are conjoined twins–an interconnected body that grows in unison at the expense of our liberties.

Freedom has many more real enemies that could be added to this list, of course; and maybe in the future we can talk more about them. For now, recognize that our liberties are hanging by a thread in this country. And the next time you hear someone in Washington, D.C., or the national news media railing against the latest "crisis" that requires Big Government to fix, please remember who the real enemy is.

Dr. Chuck Baldwin is the pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. He hosts a weekly radio show. His website is here.
 
Re: saddened

06/12/10 - A California Reader Says If Republicans Buy Meg Whitman’s Act, They Don’t Know History

A California Teacher Says Immigration-Induced School Crisis Hurts Native-Born Students As Well As Interlopers
From: Mindy Long (e-mail her)

Re: James Fulford’s Blog: Dumbing Down California

As a direct result of over-immigration, California school teachers have received a record number of pink slips, nearly 26,000 in 2009, with a similar number probable for 2010.

For decades, California taxpayers have funded social services of all types to legal and illegal immigrants. The most costly is educating their children.

Now California is broke and thousands of teachers are out of work. Finding another job in education is improbable. And where, with California’s unemployment rate at 13 percent, would displaced teachers look for jobs?

They may join the welfare rolls, thus adding to the state’s $20 billion deficit.

Looking ahead, with fewer teachers and larger classes looming, the chances of any non-English speaking immigrant emerging from public school with a decent education are slim to none.

Sadly, the native- born students suffer along with the interlopers.

Long is an intermediate schoolteacher in the San Diego area. Her previous letter about how to deal with DREAM Act parents and their kids is here.
 
Re: saddened

edward gibbon
Senior Dissident


Join Date Dec 2006
Posts 1,038 PCR - Helen Thomas: an Appreciation; Paying the Price for Objectivity
Mr Roberts must go record once again about the dishonest American media. Others should strive to emulate him.Paying the Price for Objectivity Toward Palestinians


Helen Thomas: an Appreciation


By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

The propagandists for the Israel Lobby, who occupy the Wall Street Journal editorial page while pretending to be journalists, are determined to remove Helen Thomas from the annals of journalism. In case you have already forgotten, a few days ago the distinguished career of Helen Thomas, the 89-year-old doyen of the White House Press Corps, was ended by the Israel Lobby, which made an issue about her opinion that immigrant Jews should leave Palestine and go back to their home countries.

The White House Correspondents’ Association fell in line with the demands of the Israel Lobby, and the cowardly president of the organization added the association’s disapprobation to that of the neoconservative cabal.

Having removed Helen Thomas from the journalism scene, the Israel Lobby is now working with its agents on the Wall Street Journal editorial page to eliminate the Helen Thomas Award for Lifetime Achievement from the Society of Professional Journalists.

A nonentity in the world of journalism, James Taranto, apparently is associated with the Wall Street Journal editorial page, although Wikipedia reports that he was incapable of graduating from journalism school at California State University, Northridge. On a Wall Street Journal web site, Taranto writes: “We’ve been calling Thomas ”�’American journalism’s crazy old aunt in the attic’ for years,”�� and he asks who would now accept the Helen Thomas award after Ms. Thomas revealed she really was crazy by criticizing Israel.

I would for one. Of course the Society of Professional Journalists would never give the award, assuming the distinguished award survives the assault of the Israel Lobby’s assassins, to a critic of Israel. Helen excepted, American journalists are cowards. With the concentrated ownership of the corporate media today, no independently-minded journalist can have a career in print or TV media. You defend the Washington/Tel Aviv line, or you are out of work.

The absence of independently-minded journalists on the Wall Street Journal editorial page is an extraordinary change from my days as Associate Editor of that page. The editorial page editor, Robert Bartley was ambitious and forced himself to tolerate talented colleagues. Mere opinion was not our task. Often we scooped the reporters on the news side of the paper. Our editorials reported new developments and provided factual analysis.

I was hired as Jude Wanniski’s replacement. Jude, Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, was fired, allegedly because the journal’s brass caught him handing out election campaign literature on a train platform, but if you believe American journalism was ever that pure, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

Jude was fired, because the neoconservatives got rid of him by telling Bartley that Wanniski was over-shadowing him. That was too much for Bob’s ego. Jude, of course, being a real journalist, was objective toward the Palestinians and thus had earned the enmity of the Israel Lobby.

Once Bob was rapidly declining with prostate cancer, neoconservatives engineered the takeover of the editorial page. Today the once proud Wall Street Journal editorial page is a leading apologist for Israeli/American war crimes and police states.

To return to the nonentity, James Taranto, who wants to throw Helen Thomas down the memory hole: Helen Thomas’ opinion that Israelis should stop stealing the villages, homes, and lands of Palestinians, while confining Palestinians to the equivalent of the Warsaw Ghetto, is equated by Taranto to the advocacy of “ethnic cleansing”�� by Helen.

Of course, it is the Israelis who are doing the ethnic cleansing. Many Jews have documented Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, such as Uri Avnery, a former member of the Israeli terrorist organization, Irgun, Ilan Pappe, Israel’s most distinguished historian and author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, and the Israeli peace group, ICHAD, who have been my house guests. The Israeli newspaper, Haaratz, is far more critical of Israeli policy than Helen Thomas, and so is MIT professor Noam Chomsky, the distinguished British journalist and film maker John Pilger, and the distinguished scholar, Norman Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors.

But Taranto prefers an 89-year old adversary.

Israel is an unnatural state. It was created by terror that was accommodated by craven British and US “diplomacy.”�� Israel exists for one reason only: the US government provides the money, weapons, and diplomatic protection. Any other government that murdered thousands of civilians in other countries, as Israel does routinely in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank, would have its entire government and military on trial before the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague. Israelis have no worst enemy than their own government.

Every time the rest of the world tries to hold the Israeli government accountable for its crimes, the US vetoes the UN resolution. America has become the enabler of the Zionist-hijacked Israeli government. And the Israeli government knows it. Israeli government leaders have publicly bragged for decades about their control over the US government. US Admiral Tom Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after whom the F-14 “Tomcat”�� jet fighter was named, declared publicly: “No American President can stand up to Israel.”�� Apparently no American journalist can either.

I am a critic of Israel’s heartless policy toward the Palestinians, but I do not want Israel destroyed. I want it moved or reformed. Bring the small number of Israelis to America before there is a nuclear war over the fact that they are where they should not be. To try to claim a land and dispossess its people on the basis of a spurious two thousand year year old deed is an audacious act of conquest and dispossession.

My proposal to relocate Israelis in the US is rhetorical, but why not insist that the Israelis, who are heavily dependent on US largess, reform? Why should Americans support an apartheid racist state that denies citizenship to the rightful inhabitants? What kind of morality, if any, does the Wall Street Journal editorial page represent when it defends Israelis who force Palestinians into ever-shrinking ghettos, deprived of water, food, medical care and schools? Why must Palestinians live in dread of Israeli bulldozers arriving to flatten their homes in order to create space for Zionist “settlers.”��

Allegedly, the US is a superpower, but in fact it is a puppet state of the Israeli government. Witness, for example (the examples are numerous), the fate of the Goldstone Report on Israeli war crimes committed in Israel’s assault on Gaza during December 2008-January 2009. Goldstone is a Zionist Jew and a distinguished judge. He was given the task by the United Nations to investigate the Israeli attack on Gaza. Being an honest person, he provided evidence of Israeli war crimes.

What was the result? The bought-and-paid-for US Congress voted, on the instructions of their master, the Israel Lobby, to deep-six the Goldstone Report by a vote of 344 to 36.

Amazing, isn’t it, there were only 36 US Representatives who were not owned by the Israel Lobby.

Of course, James Taranto serves the Israel Lobby. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, not even a shadow of its former self, when it speaks, speaks for Israel and for the Bush/Cheney militarist police state.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page has fallen into the low ranks of Brownshirt propaganda. The fact that management tolerates the continuation of totally nonobjective journalism shows why print newspapers are failing everywhere.

The hubris of Taranto, a mere propagandist who will never come close to the league in which Helen Thomas resides, causes him to think that he is fit to pass judgment on a real journalist. Taranto epitomizes the hubris of the neoconservatives. Not a single one of them has the smallest accomplishment. Yet, blinded with arrogance, they remain in ignorant bliss of their status as prostitutes.

Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com I have some faint hope that this may change some minds.
Remembering American Wars – Occidental Quarterly Summer 2002
http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.co...2/re-wars.html

ARTICLES
http://richardearley.org/

War, Money and American Memory: Myths of Virtue, Valor and Patriotism
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...675860-7271313
http://www.dianepublishingcentral.co...uct....3064391
Reply Reply With Quote Promote to Article Blog this Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Re: saddened

But the vuvuzela offers none of that. It doesn't even vary in pitch; it just brays away on a constant, deafening ___. It expresses no individuality, no thought, no emotion. It expresses nothing at all, except an urge to make noise. And that noise is disturbingly non-human: it is the sound, not of a stadiumful of people getting together to cheer their champions to victory, but of a world-devouring swarm of insects.These words reflect my thoughts. Though not a soccer fan as such, but beginning to appreciate the game, I was appalled (a word I very rarely use) by the primitive joys of the crowd and their barbarism.
Remembering American Wars – Occidental Quarterly Summer 2002
http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.co...2/re-wars.html

ARTICLES
http://richardearley.org/



http://www.originaldissent.com/foru...World-Cup-a-symbol-of-the-end-of-civilization
 
Re: saddened

Every illegal immigrant should be charged with "use of interstate commerce facilities" for traveling in America illegally and all employers that hire the illegal immigrants should be charged as well for "use of interstate commerce facilities" to receive and procure illegal immigrants labor.


Un-quote
 
Re: saddened

By doubt we come to inquiry; by inquiry we come to truth.
- Peter Abelard

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards out of men.
- Edmund Burke
 
Re: saddened

Memo From Middle America (Formerly Known As Memo From Mexico), By Allan Wall
Mexico Exploits Border Deaths To Cow Americans
I write this article from Mexico, where the family and I are visiting.

Last week, aside from all the hoopla over the World Cup, the biggest news story in Mexico was not the ongoing drug cartel war but the death on June 8th of Sergio Hernandez, a 15-year old shot on the border (between El Paso and Ciudad Juarez) by a Border Patrol officer.

The Mexican media and political world were indignant and hysterical. Felipe Calderon, Mexico's president, promised that the Mexican government "will use all resources available to protect the rights of Mexican migrants."[Mexican Teen Killed on Border Was 'Known Juvenile Smuggler,' Sources Say, Fox News, June 9th, 2010]

Later, Calderon, traveling to the World Cup, took time out from a stopover in the Ivory Coast to make a declaration, quoted in the Fox News report, demanding that the U.S. government carry out "a deep, impartial and objective investigation which concludes in the punishment of the guilty ones".

Notice that Calderon calls for an "objective" investigation—but he already has the verdict figured out!

Another Mexican official actually called for an extradition of the agent so he could be tried in Mexico.

To its credit, the Border Patrol refused a request of the Mexican media to identify the agent by name.

The Mexican media and politicians also brought up the case of Anastasio Hernandez, who had died on May 28th after Border Patrol agents had tasered him, and their deaths in the past few years.

Certainly, all these deaths are nothing to rejoice over. However, there are extenuating circumstances.

In the case of the teenaged Sergio Hernandez, the Border Patrol has pointed out that he was "a known juvenile smuggler", on a most wanted list of juvenile smugglers in the El Paso area.

Far from being unprovoked, when young Sergio was shot, the Border Patrol agents were under attack by rock-throwing youths on the Mexican side.

This was treated with scorn in the Mexican media. How can you compare rocks with firearms?

Well, rocks can be deadly. And what do you suppose Mexican police or soldiers would do if they were attacked by rock-throwing teenagers?

As for the previous case of the 42-year old Anastasio Hernandez, according to Sara Carter in the San Francisco Examiner:

"On May 28, Anastasio Hernandez Rojas, 42, died at the San Ysidro, Calif., border crossing after first being tasered by U.S. Border Patrol agents. The man was later found to be intoxicated with methamphetamine and to have suffered from hypertension that contributed to a heart attack. American officials said Hernandez Rojas fought with agents who were trying to return him to Mexico." [U.S.- Mexican Border Security Continues to Deteriorate, Officials Say, June 15, 2010]

These deaths are indeed tragedies. But the Mexican government and Open Borders activists publicize these tragic incidents for a reason: They want to intimidate the Border Patrol and delegitimize our right to control the border.

The Border Patrol has a difficult job. Certainly, its agents should be held to a high standard and disciplined if they violate it.

But if the Mexican government really wanted to stop border deaths, it would tell its own citizens to stop crossing the border illegally. After all, such crossings not only violate U.S. law, they are also in violation of Mexican law—as I've documented here.

T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, was quoted by the San Francisco Examiner’s Carter as follows:

"Enough is enough. The Mexican government demanding a full investigation and pretending they have no control or responsibility over what happened is unbelievable. They openly encourage people to cross. Nobody shows up to stop the rock throwers, smugglers on their side. It's a terrible thing that they are allowing criminals to gather on their side of the border to assault our agents."

As if on cue, just a few days after Sergio's death, U.S. and Mexican congressmembers gathered for the annual U.S. Mexico Interparliamentary Group. I’ve reported on this annual get-together before, here and here. This year's "interparliamentary", number 49, was held in Campeche Mexico.

Of course, the death of Sergio the teenaged smuggler was high on the agenda. Even the U.S. delegation got into the act, producing this statement:

"The U.S. delegation to the 49th U.S.-Mexico Inter-Parliamentary Group expresses its profound condolences for the tragic deaths of Anastasio Hernandez Rojas and Sergio Adrian Hernandez in the recent incidents along our shared border. Investigations are currently ongoing into these matters, and we must not pre-judge their outcome. These incidents, like many before along our border, underscore the need for the U.S. and Mexico to continue to cooperate, to see that the full story comes to light, justice is served, and that safeguards are put in place to help avoid such tragedies in the future."

Excuse me, but how can the U.S. and Mexico cooperate on border security when Mexico doesn't want us to have any border security?

Mexico doesn't want us to stop illegal crossers heading northwards, though it does want us to stop weapons from traveling southwards.

I would like to propose therefore, an alternative statement that our lawmakers could have presented to their Mexican counterparts:

"The U.S. delegation to the 49th U.S.-Mexico Inter-Parliamentary Group expresses its profound condolences for the tragic deaths of Anastasio Hernandez Rojas and Sergio Adrian Hernandez in the recent incidents along our shared border. Investigations are currently ongoing into these matters, and we must not pre-judge their outcome.

“THESE INCIDENTS, LIKE MANY BEFORE ALONG OUR BORDER, UNDERSCORE THE NEED FOR THE U.S., AS A SOVEREIGN NATION, TO GAIN COMPLETE CONTROL OF ITS BORDER.

WE CALL UPON OUR MEXICAN COUNTERPARTS TO EXHORT THEIR OWN CITIZENS TO RESPECT THE SOVEREIGNTY OF U.S. BORDERS AND TO WORK FOR AN IMPROVED SECURITY AND ECONOMIC SITUATION IN MEXICO."

That’s more like it!

American citizen Allan Wall (email him) recently moved back to the U.S.A. after many years residing in Mexico. In 2005, Allan served a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his Mexidata.info articles are archived here; his News With Views columns are archived here; and his website is here.

If you want to email or print out, format by clicking on this permanent URL:
http://www.vdare.com/awall/100618_memo.htm
 
Re: saddened

100,000 Iraq refugees OKed for resettlement: UNHCR
This is the best reason of all on why the US needs to minds its own business and quit meddling overseas.

100,000 Iraq refugees OKed for resettlement: UNHCR

Fri Jun 18, 2:29 am ET
DAMASCUS (AFP) – UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) chief Antonio Guterres announced on Friday the body has referred 100,000 Iraqi refugees in the Middle East for resettlement in third countries since 2007.

"100,000 submissions of Iraqi refugees is a tremendous achievement. Many have been living in limbo for years," he said at the start of a three-day visit to Syria, which says it hosts one million refugees, mostly from Iraq.

Of the 100,000 submissions of Iraqi refugees over the past three years, 52,173 people left the Middle East up to May 2010, the UNHCR said in a statement. In 2007, 3,500 Iraqis departed for third countries from the region.

"Lengthy security checks and the time it has taken for state processing mechanisms to be established have led to considerable delays in the departure of refugees to their new homes," it said.

Guterres called on countries "to facilitate the speedy departure of refugees they have accepted for resettlement."

The acceptance rate by resettlement countries of UNHCR's referrals now stands at 80 percent, of which nearly 76 percent have been accepted by the United States, the UNHCR said.

The UN agency said that around 1.8 million Iraqis are currently seeking refuge in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Turkey.

Guterres was in Syria to mark World Refugee Day on Sunday, with the event being hosted in the Middle East for the first time.

Later on Friday, he was to take part in an event hosted in Washington by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton via a live video feed from Al-Hassakeh, a Syrian province on the border with Iraq.
========
This happens every time the US screws around in the third world. Somalia, Afghanistan and now Iraq. We wind up with a good bit of the third world over here. Ditto for Bosnia and Albania.
Un-quote.

Posted at O.D.


=====================================
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QlNCKLxp1c&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Senator Hagel

======================================

Senator Wayne Morse 46 years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyFq9yco_Kc&feature=related
 
Re: saddened

Washington Watcher Archive Email a Friend...
Printer Friendly Version...


June 30, 2010

Why No-one In Washington Has Proposed An Immigration Moratorium (Yet)
By Washington Watcher

In the 1990s, around the time of the amazingly sensible Jordan Commission on immigration reform, a number of immigration moratorium measures were introduced, such as Congressman Bob Stump’s (R-AZ) Immigration Moratorium Act of 1994 with 80 co-sponsors. At that time, there was no organized immigration reduction caucus in Congress. Unemployment was at 6.6%.

In 2003, Tom Tancredo authored the Mass Immigration Reduction Act. It had eleven co-sponsors. Political and economic circumstances ran against a moratorium at the time. Unemployment was at 5.6%. Tancredo’s immigration Reform Caucus had only 68 members.

George Bush and Tom Delay ruled the Republican Party with an iron fist, and few were willing to cross them on immigration.

Things have changed since then. Immigration became the breaking point between conservative Republicans and the failing Bush Administration. Today, Republicans are leaderless but united against a Treason Lobby president.

The Immigration Reform Caucus now boasts 96 members. Most importantly, unemployment has risen to an official level of 9.7%---but everyone knows it’s really much higher

An immigration moratorium bill should be more popular than ever.

But not one Congressman will introduce it.

The hole left by the departure from Congress of Tancredo and Virgil Goode (R-VA)â┚¬”��both of whom are vocally advocating an immigration moratoriumâ┚¬”��has clearly not been filled.

Nonetheless, there are still seven Congressmenâ┚¬”��Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), John Culberson (R-TX), Nathan Deal (R-GA), John Duncan (R-TN), Sam Johnson (R-TX), and Steve King (R-IA)â┚¬”��in office who co-sponsored Tancredo’s moratorium bill. It’s significant that none has filled the

The issue of legal immigration is so off the Washington radar screen that whenever I’ve brought it up to anti-illegal immigration congressmen and their staffers, they seem dumbfounded. I’ve gotten answers such as:

“What’s a moratorium?â┚¬

“Why would you want to do that?â┚¬

“Don’t you mean on drilling?â┚¬

This is not altogether the fault of our elected officials. There are quite a few Congressmen who actually listen to their constituents. Many who were apathetic on illegal immigration, or even inclined to support amnesty, reversed their position and become consistently anti-illegal immigration once they got enough phone calls and angry Townhall meetings.

The problem is that the constituents are not conveying that message strongly enough.

Nor is it sufficient to blame the Beltway patriotic immigration reform groups...totally After all, Mark Krikorian's recent book was at least entitled The New Case Against Immigration: Legal and Illegal. Numbers USA is actively campaigning for an immigration "time out"â┚¬”��its term for a moratorium. The Federation for American Immigration Reform's failure to deal with legal immigration is disappointing, but when push comes to shove, FAIR does support cuts in legal immigration.

This cannot be said of the Minutemen and many other grassroots groups. When I went to Arizona for a pro SB 1070 rally a few weeks ago, I heard more "we support legal immigration" talk from the average Americans in attendance than I have inside the Beltway.

The fact is that the bulk of the grassroots who call and write their congressmen on immigration or show up to Tea Parties take their marching orders from Talk Radio and Fox News. And they in turn get their ideasâ┚¬”��or lack thereofâ┚¬”��from Establishment conservative publications, columnists, and think tanks.

Bill O'Reilly, National Review, Human Events, Rush Limbaugh, the Heritage Foundation and Glenn Beck rarely take a proactive stand against illegal immigration. When it isn’t in the news, they often take terrible positions. However, when illegal immigration becomes a major news storyâ┚¬”��as it did during the amnesty battle in 2006 and 2007 or it has in Arizona todayâ┚¬”��they generally make the right noises.

The failure of Talk Radio Right to address the issue is due to a number of factors. The simplistic free trade dogmatism, neoconservative universalism, and Political Correctness that afflict the conservative movement do not help.

But the two biggest factors: the reaction to repeated “comprehensiveâ┚¬ pushes for amnesty; and the transformation of immigration into a national security issue after 9-11.

Between the 1986 amnesty and the Bush presidency, most amnesties proposed were small and piecemeal, like the 245(i) program. When Bush first proposed massive amnesty, stopping it became the top priority. Saying "illegal is illegal" and contrasting rewarding illegal aliens when millions of foreigners are waiting in line to come here legally, was an effective and expedient argument against amnesty.
While the majority of the Islamic terrorists came here with visas, lack of enforcement makes it easy to overstayed visas; and porous borders allow potential terrorists to sneak in through Mexico to avoid detection.
After 9-11, nearly all political causes tried to tie their issue to fighting terrorism. And immigration patriots had a much stronger case than most.

Both arguments were true, politically expedient, and may have stopped amnesty. However, if we limit our opposition to mass immigration to these concerns, then they will ultimately undermine opposition to both legal and illegal immigration.

If the sole issue with illegal aliens is that they are illegal, then why not just have them come in legally at the "back of the line"?

And if there is nothing wrong with legal immigration, why not increase it to make that line move much faster?

If our sole concern is national security, why not let the illegal Hispanic janitors and maids come forward, so we can focus on the Islamic terrorists?

A Rasmussen Poll in late April found that 56% of voters support an immigration policy that welcomes all immigrants except “national security threats, criminals and those who would come here to live off our welfare systemâ┚¬ . More significantly

“Among those who favor a welcoming immigration policy, 70% see gaining control of the border as the top priority. Among those who oppose a welcoming immigration policy, 67% see border control as the top priority. This strongly suggests that voters see little connection between the debate over legal immigration and the desire to stop illegal immigration.â┚¬ [58% Favor Welcoming Immigration Policy, Rasmussen Reports, April 26, 2010]

Yet polls simultaneously show that Americans overwhelmingly oppose raising immigration levels. Outside a few fanatical libertarians, I have never come across a single person who said the over 1.1 million green cards we issue each year is not enough or that the 9.3% European share of that is too high.

Americans simply like supporting legal immigration in the abstract because they oppose illegal immigration so much.

If we are going to make progress on fighting legal immigration, we need to completely change the debate on illegal immigration.

The first step: stop using expedient arguments against illegal immigration.
The second step: start educating Americans about the sheer number and quality of legal immigrants.
In the rare instances when Townhall.com, Free Republic, or Human Events runs a piece calling for an immigration moratorium by Pat Buchanan or Virgil Goode, the comment section response is overwhelmingly positive.

The Apostle John famously said, “The truth shall set you free.â┚¬

Less known is that the phrase is prefaced: “And you shall know the truth.â┚¬

Once Americans know the truth about the astronomical numbers of legal immigrants we let in, I am confident that they will demand that their elected officials put the interests of the American workersâ┚¬”��and the American nationâ┚¬”��first.

"Washington Watcher" [email him] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway.
 
Re: saddened

An Arizona Reader Vacationing In Mexico Is Racially Profiled
From: Joseph-Martin Sellers (e-mail him)

Re: Today’s Letter: An Arizona Reader Calls Mexico The World’s Most Hypocritical Country

I am an American who lives in Arizona writing this letter while on vacation in Mazatlan, Mexico.

I drove down here from Arizona last week for a two-week vacation. During my fifteen hour journey, the Mexican police stopped me five times or once every three hours.

Every time they pulled me over, they asked to see my passport, tourist visa, and car registration.

When I asked them why, they told me: “We stopped you for having out-of-country plates. We have a new policy of pulling over random vehicles with US plates in order to ensure that the individual has all the necessary papers to be in the country legally."

Like letter writer Dale Ryan, I have just one word for Mexico and its opposition to Arizona’s S.B.1070: Hypocrites! I wonder how many times I'll get pulled over on my drive home!

===================================================================

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://cbs3.com/topstories/Philadelp...2.1807620.html
 
Re: saddened

July 22, 2010

Gee, Thanks! China-Based Outsourcer Lowers Minimum IQ Requirement for Americans
By Rob Sanchez

A China-based outsourcing company called Bleum requires that all job applicants for computer science positions have a minimum IQ of 140. Bleum recently announced that it will hire Americans who are willing to move to China—but, according to Bleum, it couldn’t find enough Americans that met its minimum requirements for intelligence. Bleum decided to lower its minimum IQ to 125 to compensate for the weak talent pool in the United States:

"An IQ test is the first screen for any US or Chinese applicant.

“The lower IQ threshold for new US graduates reflects the fact that the pool of US talent available to the company is smaller than the pool of Chinese talent, Bleum said."

Chinese outsourcer seeks U.S. workers with IQ of 125 and up, by Patrick Thibodeau, Computerworld, July 7, 2010

So the Chinese are going to give Americans a break on IQ because of the smaller talent pool in the U.S. At least they understand our standards of Political Correctness well enough to know that it would be politically incorrect to say that Americans, on average, are not as smart as the Chinese.

Bleum claims that it normally only hires geniuses that would represent the 99.6 percentile of the American population. (Chinese IQ is supposed to be higher than American on average, but the tails of their IQ Bell Curve may be smaller—i.e. fewer geniuses. I haven’t been able to find good numbers on how it nets out.) [VDARE.com note: Check out Richard Lynn's Global Bell Curve, and IQ And The Wealth Of Nations for actual numbers.]

To put it another way, only 0.4% of the population would have the opportunity to apply for a job at this company — the “crème de la crème"! Or maybe we should say the "soya of the soy milks".

In case you have never heard of Bleum, click this link to find out more: About Bleum. (Note: it now says it accepts people with IQs above 130!)

I’m not an expert on IQ like Steve Sailer. But thanks his ample reporting on VDARE.COM, I am probably in the 99th percentile of the population when it comes to understanding what IQ tests mean!

So let me share a few thoughts on the issue.

The Chinese are obviously using the IQ scale developed by Lewis Terman in 1916 that rates these IQs as follows:

Over 140 - Genius or near genius
120 - 140 - Very superior intelligence
In order to get a grip on what kind of people numbers we are talking about, China has a population of approximately 1.3 billion. Therefore, the 99.6 percentile would be about 5 million people (assuming a distribution similar to whites—it could be higher).

To put this in perspective: according to the BLS the United States has about 1.3 million workers in computer software engineering and programming — which means the Chinese could in theory replace the entire U.S. computer profession almost four times over if IQ was used to screen job applicants.

Fortunately for the U.S., not all Chinese geniuses are computer science graduates — some of them are probably still using water buffalos to farm rice. But this threat to the U.S. is very real, especially considering that India probably has an even larger population.

IQ is a crude way to predict performance in computer science, or most other professions, because there are many factors that go into a successful career besides cognitive abilities. On the other hand, the U.S. military has proven that IQ has a direct correlation with performance.

Without question, there must be a minimum IQ that computer programmers need in order to function in a modern workplace environment. But judging by the wide range of IQs for CS professionals (see this table: Modern IQ ranges for various occupations, (Based on a University of Wisconsin study[PDF])programmers have a wide variability of IQ scores that range from about 100-125.

I have personally known computer programmers that would probably test fairly low on many IQ tests, because many of their skills such as reading, writing or math are substandard. But they were whiz kids once they are behind the keyboard — hence the term "geek" (Contrary to popular opinion computer programming usually requires very little math). As Steve Sailer explained, alchemists can’t change lead into gold, but lead is useful anyway.

Could it be that people can be too smart for computer jobs? I don’t have enough evidence to judge that scientifically, but the case of Bleum suggests an answer of “yes”�� to that question—because although it only hires above 140 IQ, it isn’t exactly the envy of the world. It has used the 140 IQ screen for at least five years, so there’s been time to prove this approach. It hasn’t translated into greatness yet. I’ll bet most readers have never heard of Bleum.

Of course, Bleum’s problem could be that the only geniuses in the company are the programmers—not the marketers!

Basing employment on IQ isn’t very fashionable in the United States. It tends to be considered inherently racist because the large average IQ between different races [America and the Left Half of the Bell Curve] and is arguably illegal after the disastrous Griggs vs. Duke Power decision.

Bleum doesn’t disclose how it chose an IQ minimum of 125 for Americans. But I suppose that, hypothetically, it could be motivated by a preference for racial groups like whites or Asians who consistently score higher in IQ tests. Or it might be that IQ tests are a valuable tool that the Chinese get to use and we don’t because there are no easily-offended minorities in China—further proof that diversity is not strength.

There are many questions that could be raised by Bleum’s IQ tests. So let me tackle an obvious one: Why would a genius work for Bleum?

According to Dr. Norm Matloff, the 90th percentile of wages earned by American workers in the computer field is about $109,170. [On the Need for Reform of the H-1B Nonimmigrant Work Visa in Computer-Related Occupations, University Of Michigan Journal Of Law Reform. Fall 2003]Coincidentally, the 90th percentile mentioned by Matloff correlates roughly to the 125 IQ that Bleum set for American workers. The 90th percentile isn’t genius level, so we would expect people with higher IQs to make even more.

Considering that geniuses should easily be able to make six figure salaries in the U.S, which job would a genius be likely to choose — a job in the U.S. or one in China working for Bleum?

In my opinion the answer is obvious to anyone who reads this quote from Eric Rongley, the American-born founder and CEO of Bleum:

"In fact, according to Bleum’s Mr. Rongley, getting the best in China won’t be as economical as people expect it to be. ”�’Most companies hire the cheapest resource. I hire the best resource. If you want a company of superstars, you can’t pay them $3 (per hour) for a project manager or 50 cents for an engineer. Yes, sometimes they manage to get code developed for crazy low prices. They have interns working on their projects.’
[SPECIAL REPORT: Outsourcing to China, by Jacqueline Zhang, Sourcingmag.com, August 2, 2005]

Fifty cents an hour?

And, while Bleum may pay more, it doesn’t seem very eager to advertise its salaries either. There are lots of job openings listed on the career page at Bleum, but salaries are conspicuously missing.

One final note: According to Computerworld and numerous other webzine articles there were five Americans who got jobs at Bleum. Almost all mention of the five American geniuses stopped about July 8th.

Since then I have spent hours searching the internet to find out find out who the lucky Americans are that are moving to Shanghai for the honor or working at Bleum.

It would seem to reason that there would be at least a little fanfare about their identities. But so far I haven’t found a single picture or any other clue as to who they are.

Why is there such great silence about the lucky winners?

Rob Sanchez (email him) is a Senior Writing Fellow for Californians for Population Stabilization and author of the "Job Destruction Newsletter" (sign up for it here) at www.JobDestruction.com. To make a tax-deductible donation to Rob Sanchez, click here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top