US-born Hispanics twice as anti-semitic as Whites. “Strongly anti-Semitic” rate amongst non-Jewish whites was 11%. This compared with • 20% of Hispanic Americans born in U.S. • 35% of African-Americans • 44% of foreign-born Hispanics. • 17% of Americans (as a whole)

US-born Hispanics twice as anti-semitic as Whites.

[Patrick Cleburne] @ 3:20 am [Email author] [Email this article] [Print this article]

I see the important anti-Muslim immigration item posted by The Kvetcher attracted quite a few interesting comments after I blogged on it early on Tuesday.

Of lasting value was work by “scottnyx”, which was stimulated by a remark by an earlier posting seeming to distinguish between the utility of Muslim and Hispanic Immigration.

Scottynx took the 2002 ADL Survey of Anti-Semitism in America, incisively analyzed the data, and concluded that the “Strongly anti-Semitic” rate amongst non-Jewish whites was 11%. This compared with

• 20% of Hispanic Americans born in U.S.
• 35% of African-Americans
• 44% of foreign-born Hispanics.
• 17% of Americans (as a whole)

As Scottynx remarks

It’s kind of weird how the ADL piece I linked to broke out hispanics and blacks but not non-hispanic white levels of strong anti-semitism… the non-hispanic white population has an incredibly low strong anti-semitism rate compared to hispanics and blacks, about half the rate of even native born hispanics. (VDARE.com emphasis.)

Those familiar with the ADL, of course, will not be surprised. Being complementary about Christian Americans is not what the ADL is about. Naturally they suppressed this fact.

Against the deplorable possibility that The Kvetcher might decide to shut down his blog, here are scottynx’s calculations:

…don’t dismiss the effect of massive hispanic immigration just because the 20% strongly anti-semitic rate for hispanics born in the US isn’t isn’t much higher than the national rate.

That is because the 17% national rate includes hispanics as well, thus driving up that number considerably.

Comparing native born hispanics to the non-hispanic population is the correct comparison.

This equation gives the non-hispanic strong anti-semitism rate if you use the 13.3% hispanic proportion of the population from 2002: .35*.133 +.867*X = .17, where x is the non-hispanic anti-semitism rate.

Solve for X and you get a 14% non-hispanic anti-semitism rate. This is *including* blacks. So even if you take the long view and just look at how things will be in the hispanic native born, they have a whopping 30% higher anti-semitism rate than the non-hispanic population… From the data they give I can mathematically figure out a “not black or hispanic” anti-semitism rate. I get an 11% anti-semitism rate. Since asians are only 4% of the US population, almost 95% of that “non-black and non-hispanic” population must be non-hispanic white…

Still think that Hispanic immigration is great for the Jews?

Another favorable comment about the Hispanic influx being “benign” produced a more direct response from “Agri”

Hispanic immigrants are benign unless you’re someone that, say, has little choice but to put your kid in a school in which 50% of the student body is Hispanic immigrant or the children thereof. From far off, they can appear quite benign. But from a closer vantage, things get more complicated.

Another contributor was “Jenny”:

I am a native person, of Wampanoag ancestry. I mention this because I noticed the person who inferred that all those except native peoples should leave… that sort of comment always amuses me, as they are never of indigenous ancestry, and are always liars, and excusers of genocide and exploitation.

There is no one perspective shared by the peoples who are native to this nation, but I guarantee you that for the most part, we do not share suitepotato’s opinion, and we recognize it for what it is.. one of disrespect and a desire to use our people’s history for a corrupt agenda.

Jenny posted two very long and articulate pieces, remarking along the way:

I am a lifelong liberal democrat, and care passionately about social justice and civil rights. I have been activist across the board on many issues, and have always been pro-Israel and passionately against anti-Semitism.

The heart of Jenny’s concern was:

the Jewish people in the US haven’t actually cared too much about the problems that mass immigration have brought about to the country at large. Sure, you are scared after watching a video where a Muslim woman espouses violent and unforgivable epithets, but you haven’t similarly cared when illegal aliens have displaced American citizens, who are black, brown and white from the workplace. Creating untold suffering and dire poverty.

Frankly, my father, and my maternal grandfather both fought in WWII. If the wider American people were as selfish and self centered as your lot, they wouldn’t have stepped forward, disrupted their lives, put them at risk to save the lives of Jews and many others in Europe.

On the whole, the responses this drew were polite and serious, trying hard to persuade Jenny otherwise.

An exception was a venomous post from “Temoc” which began

First off, you are probably lying about being a native.

then proceeded for 805 words claiming Jenny

rationalizes HATRED towards us persons of Mexican ethnicity.

and arguing that Hispanic immigration is wonderful, with any dissent being purely racist -illustrated by no less than 21 hyperlinks!

Here at VDARE.com, we receive many letters from Hispanics, illegal, legal, and US born. A surprising number are against America being swamped by further mass immigration from any source, for the excellent reason that they and their families are in the front line in bearing the social cost. Quite a few, of course are hostile. These are invariably open Reconquistas and brown chauvinists, usually degenerate into foul language, and never that I can recollect cite as many as three sources, let alone 21. Temoc’s piece must have taken hours, and he is right on top of the literature.

It is possible I suppose that he is employed by one of the Hispanic shake-down foundations, although they rarely deign to debate. And how came he to be reading this site? My guess is that we are looking at the work of one of the professional repression outfits, like the ADL or the $PLC (known for the false flag tactic) and that Temoc is no more Hispanic than The Kvetcher.

Who deserves thanks for sponsoring this discussion.

Are Tax Revolts a Thing of the Past?

By Steven Malanga

After I wrote a recent column on the fiscal mess in some states, I got an e-mail from a beleaguered New Jersey resident asking what I thought were the prospects for a tax revolt in the Garden State. It is an interesting and pertinent question because tax uprisings tend to occur during difficult and uncertain economic times, especially in places where the first impulse of state and local governments is to raise taxes to make up for shortfalls in revenues.

The two most notable tax revolts in recent memory, for instance, occurred in the mid-to-late 1970s and again in the early 1990s. Tax increases during those difficult years pushed the state and local government tax burden above 10 percent of income, on average, across the country and even higher in some places, like California, where it topped out at 11.7 percent in 1977. That helped spark perhaps the most notable of all state anti-tax campaigns, the Proposition 13 initiative of 1978, which capped property tax increases in the Golden State and inspired taxpayer uprisings elsewhere, leading to 13 similar tax caps, including Proposition 2½ in Massachusetts. Though expressed entirely in local initiatives, the anti-tax sentiment stirred up in those years was so powerful that it’s often credited with helping elect Ronald Reagan president in 1980.

<!–
OAS_AD(‘Block’);
//–>

Memories are short in government, however, and a decade later, when the American economy was again slowing, governors, mayors and legislatures began hiking taxes again, sparking the next tax revolt. One of the most visible victims of this uprising was New Jersey Gov. Jim Florio, who faced a $3 billion budget deficit in 1991 and promptly asked for $2.8 billion in new taxes–at the time the largest single-year tax increase ever imposed by a state. Although Jersey had been, as recently as the 1960s, one of the country’s most lightly taxed states, Florio’s tax increases, the culmination of a series of rises over the years, helped push the state and local tax burden in Jersey to 11.6 percent of total income — one of the highest in the nation. Since the Garden State didn’t have (and still doesn’t) California-style initiative and referendum, taxpayers displayed their ire by handing control of the state legislature to Republicans in mid-term elections and then dumping Florio two years later — the first sitting governor to be defeated in a reelection bid since Jersey had adopted its modern constitution in 1947.

In other states, meanwhile, the early 1990s tax revolt took the form of ballot initiatives to cap state spending levels, such as Amendment I in Colorado, which required that new tax increases be approved directly by voters.

Today, 44 states are facing budget woes that amount to a projected $90 billion in collective deficits in the coming fiscal year. Again, many governors and legislatures are pondering tax increases even as unemployment rises and people try to work themselves out of debt. New York tops the list with a whopping 88 new taxes and fees proposed by Gov. David Paterson, but he’s not alone. After raising taxes by about $1.1 billion in 2006, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine is hinting at new tax increases. California, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada and Oregon are just some of the states that have either raised taxes or are considering such a move. The stage would seem to be set, in other words, for the next tax revolt in the states.

But the political climate has also changed dramatically since the early 1990s, and the next year or so may show whether state and local tax revolts are even possible anymore. Opponents of tax revolts—especially public sector unions, social service advocacy organizations that rely on government funds, and other groups that consume government resources—have grown much more powerful, and much savvier at fighting back efforts to trim the growth of government. After voters recalled California Gov. Gray Davis in 2003, startled public sector unions mobilized to derail a set of voter initiatives supported by his successor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, including one that would have limited the growth of the state’s budget. Public sector unions spent north of $50 million in the 2005 campaign against the initiatives, with the state’s teachers’ union alone kicking in $41.8 million.

In New Jersey that same year, public unions worked to derail a budding taxpayer revolt when they used their clout in the state legislature to water down a bill that would have created a constitutional convention to enact property tax reform. Under union pressure, legislators approved the convention but barred it from addressing government spending, which rendered a potential gathering useless.

In New York State, unions have been running ominous radio ads warning of sharp declines in services unless Albany raises taxes. Such ads can be devastatingly effective. A similar advertising campaign by health care interests in 1999, which warned of massive hospital closings unless the state increased aid to health care institutions, prompted worried New Yorkers to barrage hospitals with phone calls asking if they were about to shut their doors and provoked the head of one hospital association to accuse other health care groups in the state of employing scare tactics to further their goals.

Meanwhile, state politicians have quietly been working to make the initiative process tougher and thus limit the number of radical proposals like Proposition 13 that ever make it on the ballot. In 2007 alone, according to Governing Magazine, states enacted some 33 bills regulating the initiative process. In Florida, 60 percent of voters must now vote in favor of a ballot initiative in order for it to become law. In other states, those who gather signatures supporting ballot initiatives must now go through state-mandated training. Such rules will make in more difficult for ad hoc taxpayer groups that arise in response to political developments to be effective.

Still, one gets the feeling that most state politicians would not like to test the new, tougher systems that they’ve put in place. They’d rather have a President Obama come to their aid with direct federal funding for hard-pressed budgets, such as higher reimbursements for Medicaid, increases in federal dollars for local law enforcement, and more aid for K-through-12 education. Obama has, at one time or another in his run for the presidency, promised all of the above, although that was before the federal government committed $700 billion to bail out financial institutions. Recently Obama has offered states stimulus in the form of more infrastructure spending, which will do little to bolster budgets in the coming year.

So the stage may be set for a series of face-offs between beleaguered taxpayers and tax-eaters. If so, we’ll learn just how much the landscape has shifted since the last wave of tax revolts.

Steven Malanga is an editor for RealClearMarkets and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute

A Government of the Goofs, by the Goofs, for the Goofs

By Michelle Malkin

There’s an old saying from the bowels of the Beltway bureaucracy: “Screw up, move up.” Rewarding failure is an immutable trait of the bipartisan Washington political culture. Just ask Barack Obama’s Treasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner and the Senate Republicans who are blindly standing by him.

The Senate Finance Committee revealed this week that Geithner failed to pay some $43,000 in federal self-employment taxes for four separate years—and only coughed up the remaining $26,000 of that debt when he was named Obama’s Treasury Secretary-designate in November. The brilliant and meticulous Geithner didn’t catch the lapses. The Internal Revenue Service and Team Obama’s vetters did.

Recall that Joe the Plumber, an average guy with no Ivy League degrees in business or finance, was crucified for his $1,182.98 Ohio tax lien (the state had sent a notification to a prior residence he had vacated). One might give a common man some leeway for making common mistakes. But Geithner is no “common” man—and “$43,000 in unpaid taxes is a common occurrence” simply does not wash as a credible alibi. Supporters have dubbed Geithner “too big to fail.” Try “too smart to care.”

Geithner is the Dartmouth- and Johns Hopkins-educated president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank who, according to his extensive biography, has also “studied Japanese and Chinese, and has lived in East Africa, India, Thailand, China and Japan.” Apparently, he has been too engrossed in his foreign language studies and too busy traveling abroad to pay attention to crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s of his household records. In addition to his failure to pay four years’ worth of federal taxes (you try getting away with that without getting thrown behind bars!), Geithner also illegally employed an immigrant maid for three months after her work authorization papers had expired.

But wait. That’s not all, folks. Geithner’s employer at the time of his serial tax-dodging was the International Monetary Fund. The agency reimburses its employees for their self-employment taxes. The allowance was made to keep IMF and World Bank workers’ salaries on par with their foreign peers. IMF employees receive an Employee Tax Manual outlining their obligations. (Maybe if it were written in Japanese or Chinese, Geithner would have paid better attention?)

Employees also proactively file an Annual Tax Allowance Request promising to “pay the taxes for which I have received tax allowance payments.” The Senate Finance Committee released one of those forms signed by Geithner. A Senate source confirmed to National Review’s Byron York that Geithner pocketed the cash: “He was getting the money. He was being paid a tax allowance to pay him for tax payments that he should have made but had not.”

IRS employment application packets notify potential workers that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration vets all candidates and current employees “who have violated or are violating laws, rules or regulations related to the performance of their duties.” President-elect Obama is standing by a nominee who would oversee the IRS but might not even qualify for a lesser job at the agency. This is insanity.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs calls Geithner’s transgressions “honest mistakes.” Media outlets like the Associated Press have attempted to downplay his snubbing of the law as mere “tax goofs.” When Democrats like Geithner, Al Franken and Charlie Rangel fail to pay up what they legally owe, they’re just goofs. When you or I object to forking over more than what we’re already paying, Vice President Joe Biden calls us unpatriotic.

Even more maddeningly, Senate Republicans Orrin Hatch and Lindsay Graham insist on defending Geithner as “very competent” and “the right guy.” Never mind Geithner’s atrocious role in fostering the spending binge of financial giant Citigroup and engineering the teetering company’s $52 billion federal bailout. Those who take his tax evasion and record of failure seriously are guilty of “think[ing] in small political terms,” Graham lectured.

Tell that to the millions of self-employed entrepreneurs across the country who sweat bullets paying their quarterlies and ensuring their papers are in order down to the hundredth decimal place. It’s fecklessness like this that has earned Washington Republicans the “Stupid Party” moniker.

Democrat Says Senator Harry Reid Deserves Earful Over Immigration

Democrat Says Senator Harry Reid Deserves Earful

Over Immigration

By Donald A. Collins

Now let me see if I have the facts right.

First, the January 14th story in El Paso Times reports that

“Mexico is one of two countries that ‘bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse,’ according to a report by the U.S. Joint Forces Command on worldwide security threats.

The command’s ‘Joint Operating Environment (JOE 2008)’ report, which contains projections of global threats and potential next wars, puts Pakistan on the same level as Mexico. ….The report is the latest focusing on Mexico’s security problems, which stem mostly from drug violence and corruption. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security and former U.S. drug czar Barry McCaffrey issued similar assessments.”[U.S. military report warns 'sudden collapse' of Mexico is possible, By Diana Washington Valdez]

Then, in the January 15th Houston Chronicle story, Chertoff: Military ready if drug gangs cross border [ By Stewart M. Powell], we learn from Secretary Michael Chertoff “that federal SWAT teams and military units are prepared to respond to Mexican drug gangs in the event they cross the Rio Grande and confront U.S. law officers. The forces, another department official said, also stand ready to manage any surge to the border by Mexicans panicked by the cartels’ violence.”

Both these articles go on to say how Mexico is suffering from heavy influence from these drug cartels. The Chronicle story quotes Chertoff as describing

“his department’s contingency planning in broad terms in an interview with the Houston Chronicle. The other department official provided details on condition of anonymity. Chertoff ordered development of the contingency plans last summer in response to escalating drug syndicate violence in Mexico. More than 5,400 people were killed there last year in violence among several large gangs and Mexican security forces.”

So it is against this background of known dangerous violence which could spring at us from Mexico that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has a new “comprehensive immigration reform” AKA Amnesty bill ready to foist on a public which is writhing in pain from the deepening recession. He really handled that Roland Burris seating neatly too, didn’t he?

Now we know that one of the big items on the agenda of the Obama Administration is to spend large sums on rebuilding our infrastructure—you know, ailing bridges, light rail, roads, etc. This may be needed, but in talking recently with political economist, Pat Choate, whose recent best selling book, Dangerous Business: The Risks of Globalization for America alerts us to another danger, I found that he is convinced that “Unless special provisions are included in the infrastructure portion of the stimulus, a large job magnet for illegal construction will be created. That is the ‘pull factor.’ “(See Will Jobs In Obama’s Infrastructure Boondoggle Be Reserved For Americans—As In FDR’s WPA? By Steve Sailer)

That “Pull Factor” of course only gets exacerbated as matters deteriorate in Mexico.

Oh, well, folks, it is only your future welfare and that of your fellow citizens which Reid is putting on the line if he proceeds. Immigration policy or lack of it has been festering since 1965. America’s leaders in Washington, DC keep fiddling like Nero to the tune of big business while American jobs go up in smoke.

America has arrived at a crossroads on immigration reform. Both Republicans like Senator John McCain, he of the wide open border philosophy, and also Democrats, are going to discover that the immigration issue is fast becoming the new third rail of American politics.

The only way to turn the voltage off would be to truly fix the source of the problem—reducing the unending demand of non citizens to come here abetted by businesses who want the cheap labor.

But what a perfect time to fix the problem with E-verify, a finished border fence, and improving ID for us citizens.

This issue, which by the way is one of both legal and illegal immigration, is truly getting down into the dermis of all Americans. We have long known that a large segment of the Hispanic American citizen community is against the kind of Latino invasion we have experienced. Their voices have seldom been heard , but now we find in another January 15th story from the Washington Post [ Immigration Issue Fades as Priority Among Latinos, by N.Z. Aizenman, that “The immigration issue has receded in importance to Latinos amid their mounting alarm over the economy, according to a nationwide poll released today by the non-partisan Pew Hispanic Center. Only 31 percent of Latinos surveyed cited immigration as an ‘extremely important’ priority for the incoming Obama administration, ranking the issue behind not only the economy but also education, health care, national security and the environment.”

These American citizens, like all of us, completely understand the implications of legalizing the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens already here.

What perhaps most Americans don’t yet realize is that the legal immigration problem is worse than the illegal one. Here are the facts:

In a time of severe economic downturn, in a shrinking job market, American workers have to compete with 138,000 additional foreign workers arriving here each month.

Why 138,000 you ask? According to the Department of Homeland Security, its most-recent-year data show that the U.S. granted:

• 744,531 permanent green cards to working-age adults ages 20-64, and

• 912,735 new employment authorization documents to temporary foreign workers.

That adds up to an annual rate of 1,657,266 new foreign workers (not counting illegal workers) added to our economy.

There are no indications that the pace has slackened. If it continues, DHS will issue an average of 138,000 new work permits and green cards to working-age adults each month this year. (Arithmetic courtesy NumbersUSA.)

This outrage needs to be stopped. Remember, folks, this 138,000 figure is only the legal immigrants. It doesn’t count the illegal aliens that CNN’s Lou Dobbs has been so helpful in identifying.

The cost of those illegal aliens here presently is mounting to huge proportions. For example, in a study just released on January 14th, done by the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR), we learn that the cost to the state of North Carolina per year is over $1 billion. And this level of costs is replicated or exceeded in many other states around the US.

So when good old Harry Reid avuncularly steps up to that Capitol Hill battery of mikes to tell us how neat it would be to legalize the illegals and continue to allow that over 1 million legal aliens to come here every year, he’s likely to get an earful from Americans. As a Democrat, I hope he does.

As Obama Takes The White House, Amnesty Ranks Thirteenth (Of Thirteen) On His Priority List

As Obama Takes The White House, Amnesty Ranks

Thirteenth (Of Thirteen) On His Priority List

By Joe Guzzardi

Admitting defeat is tough. Accepting that you aren’t going to get your way is a bummer.

But the wise course for those on the short end of the stick is to look toward another day instead of pouting and stomping off making rash statements that you can’t deliver on.

Key aides to President-elect Barack Obama have confirmed what I promised to you in my first 2009 column: “Comprehensive immigration reform” is dead— for now and possibly for some considerable time into the future

And the spoiled sport is none other than the National Council of La Raza’s whining brat, Janet Murguia.

The actual death-knell statement made by Obama’s operatives included comments to the effect that in order to “avoid political distractions” and instead to “focus on reversing the economic slide,” the president would have to “delay” some of the “promises” he made during his campaign. [Economy May Delay Work on Obama’s Campaign Pledges, by Peter Baker, New York Times, January 10, 2009]

Just in case anyone missed his administration’s revised focus, Obama will clarify it during an interview with ABC’s This Week which is scheduled to air Sunday:

“I want to be realistic here. Not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace we had hoped.”

Rahm Emanuel, the incoming White House chief of staff, boiled it down this way:

“Our No. 1 goal: jobs. Our No. 2 goal: jobs. Our No. 3 goal: jobs.”

In a conversation with Murguia about immigration in which he tried to let her down gently, Emanuel reportedly told her that it’s important “to talk” about the issues but that no commitments to a timetable could be made.

But Murguia recognized the brush-off and reacted quickly.

Through a conference called arranged by her fellow Treason Lobbyists at the National Immigration Forum, Murguia said:

“President-elect Obama has made clear a campaign commitment to address this issue in his first year, and we know he takes that very seriously. And we plan to hold him accountable.”

That’s cheek!

The president of a ethnocentric, single-issue organization plans to hold the president of the U.S. “accountable” for not making her narrow agenda among his top priorities.

How, I wonder, does Murguia expect to make good on her pledge?

Murguia, for all her experience, didn’t read the tealeaves.

Obama didn’t really make a “clear campaign commitment.” What Obama did was to speak out in favor of comprehensive immigration reform to those audiences where he knew that position would play well.

If Murguia with her extensive Capitol Hill background bought into Obama’s campaign mumbo-jumbo, then she’s not as sharp as she thinks she is.

Murguia might move to the ledge if she knew just how far down on Obama’s priority list immigration is.

A sidebar in the print edition of the New York Times story cited above categorizes “The New Administration’s Priorities” and divides them into three groups.

As identified, and using the administration’s labels and the Times’ text, they are:

“Immediate Priorities”:

• Infrastructure: finance roads, bridges, schools and other construction projects

• Tax cuts: provide tax breaks for workers and businesses

• Stem cells: reverse restrictions on embryonic stem cell research

• National Security: begin withdrawing combat forces from Iraq and begin sending them to Afghanistan.

“Down Payments”:

• Health care: computerize medical records and expand a children’s health care program while taking longer to pass a plan offering universal care.

• Energy Independence: double alternative energy supplies while waiting to develop a more comprehensive energy policy.

Down the Road:

• Trade: renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement may be put on a long timeframe.

• Climate Change: a market-based cap on carbon-based emissions may not pass this year.

• Repealing Bush’s tax cuts: rather than repeal President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest this year, they may be left to expire under current law in 2010.

• Gay rights: overturning a ban on gays serving openly in the military may not happen until later this year.

• Immigration: while some rules may be changed right away, a comprehensive overhaul of immigration may take longer.

There you have it.

On Obama’s to-do list, immigration ranks thirteenth and last. And best of all, I can’t think of any federal policy left off Obama’s list that might come in fourteenth.

Note also that when and if Obama gets around to immigration, “some” rules “may” be changed right away but a complete overhaul may take “longer.”

Murguia’s comrade Frank Sharry, executive director of another open borders advocacy group, America’s Voice, seems at least somewhat more grounded. Sharry projects a window of opportunity open between September 2009 and March 2010 when there are no elections scheduled and Obama may have calmed the turbulent first months of his administration. (Contact America’s Voice here.)

But Sherry’s thinking is wishful too.

Obama advisors are already looking ahead to the November 2010 with an eye toward avoiding the calamitous mid-term election results that plagued Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton in 1982 and 1994

Forward thinking is consistent with Obama’s pattern. We know now that he initially began his presidential campaign in January 2005, the same month that he was first sworn in as Illinois’ U.S. Senator.

The outlook for “comprehensive immigration reform” is so bleak that even Obama’s “immigration transition team”—two law professors, Tino Cuéllar of Stanford University and Georgetown’s Alexander Aleinikoff—has nothing to say.

Neither replied to “repeated requests” from San Antonio News-Express reporter Hernán Rozemberg who wanted their opinion on whether there would be progress on immigration during Obama’s first year. [Immigration Issue on Backburner, by Hernán Rozemberg, San Antonio News-Express, January 12, 2009]

The worst thing that we can expect from the first years of Obama’s administration—and I view this as very bad—is that under new Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, fewer workplace enforcement raids will occur.

We may be surprised—as we were with the conversion we witnessed in Michael Chertoff. Napolitano has promised to go after unscrupulous employers and enforce the border. But I’ll believe it when I see it. [Napolitano Signals Shift in Worksite Raids, by Stewart M. Powell, Houston Chronicle, January 15, 2009]

Ominous sign: Napolitano’s announced first matter of business is to “re-visit” REAL ID—last June, as Governor, she signed legislation refusing to implement REAL ID.

In summary: “I told you so,” “I told you so,” and “I told you so.”

• In June 2008, I wrote that Murguia should be removed as La Raza’s president and chief executive officer, a position she’s held for four years without moving the organization’s agenda forward one inch.

At that time, Murguia foolishly warned Lou Dobbs that she would be hold him “accountable” for so-called hate crimes if and when they should be committed. Now Murguia has added Obama to her long list of people who should bow down to her.

Certainly, Murguia’s fellow subversives must be ready to try someone different. How much worse could they do?

• In October 2008, my column forecast that you would miss Chertoff when he left. Is there anyone who wouldn’t be more comfortable with Chertoff than Napolitano since all we know about her for sure is that she advocates open borders?
• And in January 2009, as I noted in my opening paragraphs, I predicted that amnesty would not pass this year. Not only isn’t one on the horizon but nary a single soul in Obama’s administration is willing to mention the word.

We’re going to have to suffer through occasional idiotic statements from Congressional leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. And I expect camouflaged efforts at amnesty through the ever-present DREAM Act which has been defeated more times than I can count over my twenty plus years of activism.

We have beaten back these types of efforts in economic times much more conducive to amnesty.

Although we must remain ever vigilant, for now we’re safe.

Best of all, we’ve shut the other guys up for a while. What a blessing that is!

Why Do Socialists Support Smashing the Zionist State?

by Baron Bodissey

Thanks to Nilk and her photo archive, I found this photo of a flyer taped to a trash can in Melbourne during the Jan 4th pro-Palestinian demonstration.

It was from Socialist Alternative, and through the magic of digital technology, I straightened and enhanced the image.

As you can see, it was advertising a talk at RMIT University by one Sandra Bloodworth, scheduled for after the rally, and proclaimed:
Oppose the ‘Two State Solution’
Down with US Imperialism

Why Socialists
Support Smashing
The Zionist State

I wish I could have attended Comrade Bloodworth’s talk, because I’m curious: why do Socialists support smashing the Zionist state?
- – - - – - – - -
Is it because Israel is a racist apartheid state, and because the Jews are at the epicenter of exploitative global capitalism — or something like that? After all, the two-faced bloodsucking rootless cosmopolitans of international Jewry are the cause of all the suffering of the worldwide proletariat — etc blah yak; you all know the drill.

But still… I’ll never find out, because as far as I can tell, Sandra Bloodworth’s talk wasn’t transcribed and posted on the web.

If any of our readers are members of Melbourne Socialist Alternative and can explain Comrade Bloodworth’s reasoning, I would be eager to learn more.

There are many ironies here, the most obvious one being that, despite its democratic political system, Israel’s internal economy is rather socialist, and has been since the days of David ben-Gurion. But let’s proceed to matters of greater import:

1. Socialist states control their borders rigidly — to keep their subjects from getting out.
2. Socialist states are garrison states, in which multiple organs of surveillance and coercion compete at suppressing dissent among the subjects.
3. Socialist states impose thoroughgoing control over the dissemination of information, to minimize the possibilities of collusion against the State and external influence on their subjects’ opinions and motivations.
4. Socialist states offer their subjects only two paths to wealth: ascent through the political system, or the enlistment of politically powerful sponsors.
5. Socialist states promote anger at pariah-groups, to deflect their subjects’ anger from the State itself.
6. Socialist states routinely trumpet attempts by outside influences to interfere in their affairs, whether such attempts are being made or not.
7. Socialist states routinely export violence, having little or nothing else to “trade.”

Which of these statements apply better to Israel than to the Palestinian-controlled zones of Gaza and the West Bank?

The Awakening of Conscience

by Baron Bodissey

Below is my translation of a Bivouac-ID post from January 3rd, concerning the recent pro-Hamas demonstrations in Brussels. Islam in Europe has a similar post, using some of the same photographs.

Visit Bivouac-ID to see larger versions of the photos, which came originally from Indymedia.

The events that are now unfolding all across Western Europe remind me of a scene in the movie Cabaret, which takes place in Germany in the early 1930s.

The main characters of the film are sitting in a rural biergarten when a group of young Nazis in uniform stand up and begin singing “Tomorrow Belongs to Me”. As the stirring music reaches its climax, one by one the other patrons of the establishment rise and join in with the song.

In contrast to twilight of Weimar Germany, the chorus behind the young thugs in Brussels is drawn from the elite Socialists of the European establishment, rather than from ordinary Europeans. Without their discordant Euro-harmony, these disturbing events could never occur and be photographed.

Tomorrow may indeed belong to these punks, but we shall see.

Belgium: When supporters Islamofascism cover a symbol of Belgium with the flag of Islam

By Yann January 3, 2009

Supporters of Islamic fascism climb the Patria monument that symbolizes the nation of Belgium, and cover it with Islamic flag, the flag of Jihad.

La Place des Martyrs in Brussels is a place that celebrates the Belgian national identity. Under its cobblestones are buried the heroes of the September Days of the Belgian Revolution of 1830. At its center stands the monument Patria, which symbolizes the homeland of Belgium. This is the highly symbolic monument that Hamas covered with the flag of Islamic Jihad. Is it prescient of the future Belgian identity? Isn’t Mohammed the name given to the Brussels region since the 1980s?

- – - - – - – - -

[…]

Is it acceptable that the flag of Hamas flies with impunity over the streets of Brussels, the flag of a movement rightly recognized as a terrorist organization by the European Union, Canada, Japan, the United States, and Israel, and which aims to eradicate the state of Israel and to bring about the barbarism of Sharia, waiting for “the promise of God” which is to exterminate all Jews on Judgment Day (all this is easily verifiable, just read the charter of Hamas)?

Are we in the West aware that in their televised speeches members of Hamas routinely call on their coreligionists to conquer Rome and the capitals of the entire world? Is it paramilitary indoctrination in the manner of the Hitler Youth when Hamas forces children to attend “schools” of the movement? Have we really seen the salute of the Hamas militia (those of Fatah remain identical)?

The face of hatred and stupidity: Islamofascism supporters waving the flag of Jihad and burning an Israeli flag.

It is a sad day for democrats and defenders of human rights when the zealots of Islamofascism and their useful idiots can hit the streets of our capitals, and with impunity cover our national symbols with fascist banners. The awakening of conscience, when it finally happens, will be painful. All the more painful, since it will probably be too late.

Sympathizers with Islamofascism. Note in the photo on the right the flags of Hezbollah and Hamas, military and religious organizations that have both shown, among other goals the eradication of Israel.

As his Great Historic Experiment collapses, Ben Bernanke scrambles to save his reputation

As his Great Historic Experiment collapses, Ben Bernanke scrambles to save his reputation

Who “lost” the economy? The finger-pointing is getting intense.

“This moment of anticipation is like the calm that settles after all hopes have died.”

That’s what Hannah Arendt wrote in a different context, and that’s the atmosphere among investors today.

Related Articles Bernanke’s Great Historic Experiment As his Great Historic Experiment collapses, Ben Bernanke scrambles to save his reputation: Who “lost” the economy? The finger-pointing is getting intense…. (15-Jan-2009) Ben Bernanke’s Great Historic Experiment is at the brink: Desperation sets in as credit markets continue to seize up…. (25-Sep-2008) Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke defends his Great Historic Experiment before Congress: The Fed-led rescue of Bear Stearns last week was closely questioned… (7-Apr-08) A historic day in Ben Bernanke’s Great Historic Experiment: In its biggest move yet, the Fed bails out a collapsing Bear Stearns…. (15-Mar-08) Bernanke’s historic experiment takes center stage: An assessment of where we are and where we’re going…. (27-Aug-07) Ben Bernanke’s Great Historic Experiment: Bernanke doesn’t believe that bubbles exist. His Fed policy will now test his core beliefs…. (18-Aug-07)

The same sense of desperation pervades discussions, after a year when one bailout after another has failed. The political sniping over the fiscal stimulus plan is increasing — as people realize that no plan actually exists. The discussions are sounding more and more like kindergarten kids in a candy store, with different kids fighting over the tastiest morsels of candy. The impression is that the fiscal stimulus plan appears to be descending into chaos.

I heard Massachusetts ultra-liberal Barney Frank on the news yesterday deliver a long partisan harangue that the reason for all our problems is that the Bush administration didn’t spend the TARP bailout money correctly. He, of course, knows the correct way to spend bailout money, and he’s going to make sure that it works this time. We’ll be looking forward to enjoying the benefits of his expertise.

The failure of a year of bailouts is also a failure of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, considered by many to be the world’s greatest expert on the Great Depression. Bernanke developed his theories starting while he was on his grandmother’s knee as a child. By the time he reached the position of Chairman of the Princeton University Economics Department, he had “proven” that the 1929 stock market crash war nothing, a mere piffle, and that the Great Depression was caused by an accounting error by the Fed.

He also “proved” that deflation was impossible with a fiat currency like the American dollar, since you can always print more dollars. He held onto this belief well into the 2000s, even after a deflationary spiral struck Japan and proved his theory wrong. For all I know, he still believes it today.

On Tuesday, he fought back. He gave a speech at the London School of Economics to defend his policy, and to claim that his ideas were still needed:

“The Federal Reserve will do its part to promote economic recovery, but other policy measures will be needed as well. The incoming Administration and the Congress are currently discussing a substantial fiscal package that, if enacted, could provide a significant boost to economic activity. In my view, however, fiscal actions are unlikely to promote a lasting recovery unless they are accompanied by strong measures to further stabilize and strengthen the financial system. History demonstrates conclusively that a modern economy cannot grow if its financial system is not operating effectively.”

However, as is usually the case when discussing Bernanke’s speeches, all you can do is shake your head in utter disbelief in what he’s saying because it’s such nonsense.

Here’s a paragraph from Tuesday’s speech:

“One important tool is policy communication. Even if the overnight rate is close to zero, the Committee should be able to influence longer-term interest rates by informing the public’s expectations about the future course of monetary policy. To illustrate, in its statement after its December meeting, the Committee expressed the view that economic conditions are likely to warrant an unusually low federal funds rate for some time. To the extent that such statements cause the public to lengthen the horizon over which they expect short-term rates to be held at very low levels, they will exert downward pressure on longer-term rates, stimulating aggregate demand. It is important, however, that statements of this sort be expressed in conditional fashion–that is, that they link policy expectations to the evolving economic outlook. If the public were to perceive a statement about future policy to be unconditional, then long-term rates might fail to respond in the desired fashion should the economic outlook change materially.”

What is he thinking? This is so bizarre that I can barely believe I’m reading it. He actually still thinks that he can give a speech or issue a policy statement, and that’s all that’s needed to move markets. I was already criticizing Bernanke for this in 2004, after a speech he gave claiming that it was his clever rhetoric and policy statements that were keeping inflation and long-term interest rates under control.

Now, four years later, he’s making the same kind of claim. He says that his policy statements “they exert downward pressure on longer-term rates, stimulating aggregate demand.”

You know, as I’ve written in the past, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan’s speeches all made sense and contained real content, whether you agreed with him or not. I commented on all of Greenspan’s speeches in 2004-2005, and they were amazing, intelligent speeches. Actually, they didn’t seem so at the time, but they do retrospectively, when compared to almost any speech on economics since then. A good example are statements by economics Nobel Price winner Joseph Stiglitz, which verged on total absurdity.

So now we have this silly speech by Bernanke. And did you see the last sentence above? “If the public were to perceive a statement about future policy to be unconditional, then long-term rates might fail to respond in the desired fashion should the economic outlook change materially.”

I find this absolutely amazing. He actually believes that the Fed’s credibility depends on whether he says “will happen” or “might happen” in policy statements. Could it really be possible that he doesn’t understand that long-term rates are low because the credit bubble is collapsing, leading to a deflationary spiral? Does he still believe that deflation is impossible?

Here’s a quote from yesterday’s Q&A session, when Terry Easton of Human Events said that the “90 year edifice” of Keynesian economics was failing, and asked whether it would be better to following the advice of the Austrian school:

“The question is related to the former one, has to do with the benefits of markets. I think economists are often accused of being market fundamentalists. I think economists have done a better job than anybody in figuring out what markets do well and what they don’t do so well with problems of information and other things.Economists have also pointed out that government interventions are not benign, perfectly executed interventions. They’re also executed by individuals with interests, and so on. This is a public policy school. And so the balance between markets and the government is a delicate one.

In particular, those of us who are economists, and I think that accounts for almost everybody in the room, are always amazed by the lack of understanding in the general public about the power of markets. And in particular, the Austrian school emphasized the power of markets to aggregate information and incentives, and to provide outcomes that a top-down government approach can’t provide.

So, as an economist, I have a lot of faith in markets. I don’t think, for example, I would completely disagree with the view that what’s happened in the last year and a half is a crisis of capitalism per se. I mean capitalism has done a lot for growth and living standards for a long time.

But rather, it’s a crisis that arises from a particular set of situations and conditions that we have faced in the last couple of years. In particular, as I indicated before, because of the tendency of financial systems to boom and bust, which is a very long standing problem, one that was recognized by virtually every economist who’s studied these issues, and because of the effects of that on the economy, there’s been a long-standing tendency to find a regulatory balance that reduces the cause of those booms and busts without costing us the benefits of the market forces and innovation and information aggregation and so on. It’s a very difficult balance.

I think what we’ve learned in this case is not necessarily that we need to have a lot more regulation, but we need to think through what went wrong.

When I describe the financial system, I mean private system PLUS the regulatory overlay – that whole complex didn’t perform well in this case, and we need to think very hard about how to fix it.

Now, as I tried to say in my speech, we have both short term and long term considerations. I think it’s important to try to put out the first. I think it’s good avice in general that if there’s a fire burning, you try to put it out first, and then you think about the fire code. So you don’t try to do it all at once necessarily.

We need to figure out how to solve this problem, how to stop the costs that are being borne, but going forward, we have to look at the fire code, we have to think about what is the right balance of regulation, markets, that will give us a powerful innovative financial system, but one that will be safer to use in some sense.”

Within this quote, the particular sentence that I’m reacting to is: “But rather, it’s a crisis that arises from a particular set of situations and conditions that we have faced in the last couple of years.”

Bernanke has absolutely no grasp as to what’s going on. He sees no connection between the dot-com bubble and the credit bubble. He’s totally baffled about how we got to where we are today, and ascribes the current crisis to being a random event that began because of random circumstances two years ago, and presumably thinks that the problem can be solved if the Fed issues just the perfect policy statement.

This speech is almost gibberish, a final act of desperation by a man who has been taking one desperate measure after another as Fed chairman to stave off being blamed for the coming disaster.

Perhaps Barney Frank and Barack Obama will end up saving Bernanke’s reputation. Normally, a new President has 6-12 months in which to blame any problems that arise on the previous administration, but this is going to be difficult for Obama. Obama and Frank and other Democrats have been smug and arrogant in condemning President Bush as the worst President in history, a man who did everything wrong. And Obama has been extravagant in his claims of “change” on January 21, change that will immediately heal the world.

Now, with this huge bailout and fiscal stimulus package, and with total Democratic party control of the Congress and the White House, it’s going to be hard to blame the previous administration for long.

And that should make Ben Bernanke happy, because it’ll be hard to blame him either, and people may forget that once upon a time, long, long ago, he was considered the world’s leading expert on how to prevent a new Great Depression.

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, things are going to get much worse, disastrously worse, as investors around the world panic and create the worst financial crisis in history, leading to instability, chaos and war around the world. There’s nothing really remarkable about this, since similar things have happened over and over again throughout history. It’s about to happen again, and politicians can do nothing about it except to do what they always do — try to blame someone else.

(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, as well as more frequent updates on this subject, see the Financial Topics thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Read the entire thread for discussions on how to protect your money.

Also, check out the discussion of investment strategies in the You Have The Investing Advantage thread.) (15-Jan-2009)

The Seductive Ideology of Progressive Liberalism takes Control Next Week

The Seductive Ideology of Progressive Liberalism takes Control Next Week

FILED: Uncategorized
No Comments

The institutions, symbols, and traditions that have been the heart of the American culture and society are under constant assault as they are dismantled one by one.

David Huntwork

The modern political persuasion called Liberalism can be compared to a beautiful seductive temptress. Alluring and destined to feel good for a while, but after a fling with this wily ideology one is left realizing that the intoxicating goddess was more like a cheap prostitute. This seducer of the mind and soul leaves one intellectually and spiritually bankrupt, and infected with a life long hatred of tradition, morals and values. The Liberal or Progressive ideology is definitely a feel good political philosophy. As the Bible so wisely warns us to resist the temptations of the flesh so must we resist the emotional temptation and seduction of modern Liberalism.

Liberalism is full of great sounding ideas such as inclusion, acceptance, dignity, equality, social justice, human rights, and diversity. It seduces the naive and the idealist with its promise of compassion and tolerance. Who doesn’t want peace, harmony and justice? Who doesn’t want to feed the hungry and house the homeless? Such simple sentiments stir the hearts of the masses. It is a slippery slope philosophy that sucks one in with statements that are hard to disagree with but the Utopian dreams lead to social engineering, the nanny state and the abandonment of common sense.

Its taint touches every issue. It begins with calls for responsible pet ownership but soon leads to an animal bill of rights, pet guardianship and the picketing of KFC. Legitimate condemnation of brutal attacks based on hatred leads to homosexual high schools, same sex marriage, and gays in the military. Sympathy for the plight of migrant workers somehow compels us to accept and support the millions of illegal immigrants filling our schools, hospitals and prisons and the accompanying multi-billion dollar tax burden. The call for celebration of other cultures is revealed to be a mere mask fueling the fires of racial and class divisions. This dismantling of Western civilization continues unabated under the guise and tutelage of smiling bureaucrats.

Far too many people inclined to the conservative cause have been lured into compromise and eventual abandonment of their creed by the siren’s song. It is a trap too easily sprung upon the unwary, uneducated and even the occasional weary veteran of the culture wars. Overwhelming in its pervasiveness and unending in its preaching it is a difficult ideology to stand against. For those in politics or the public eye it becomes even more difficult. Principle is abandoned for practicality. Cooperation becomes compromise. Public relations become political correctness. And the path of least resistance leads to surrender.

There is no doubt that behind the appealing bumper sticker slogans and picture perfect ideals there is a sinister agenda of massive government regulation and control of our daily lives. It is an agenda that shreds the moral fabric of society. One that seeks to destroy nationalism and sovereignty, promote internationalism and globalism, and carry out its own jihad on tradition, authority, respect and all things Christian. Its idea of acceptance leads to perversion, compassion to idiocy, inclusion to self-destruction. The shrill cry of tolerance, tolerance! no matter what the cost or how absurd it may be is the mating call of this ideological temptress. It demands the complete suspension of judgment with no regard for consequences or the damage caused to society.

The ultimate goal seems to be some Frankenstein cross between the failed state of California and the modern day public university. The enshrinement of the immoral, uncontrolled immigration and massive government giveaways of California combined with the speech codes, white guilt, political correctness, and ideological intolerance of college campuses. A frightening vision to say the least but one that is being successfully foisted upon the American people and wholeheartedly adopted by the elite of media, education, entertainment and popular culture. The seductress has been successful in her conquests but the ugliness that lies behind the mask of compassion is slowly being revealed.

We have seen the daily attacks upon the Boy Scouts, the Ten Commandments, the pledge of allegiance and heterosexual marriage. The institutions, symbols, and traditions that have been the heart of the American culture and society are under constant assault as they are dismantled one by one.

Environmentalism, humanism, feminism, anti-capitalism, multiculturalism and all the allied isms of the Left are among the greatest threats to the Republic since secession tore it apart in a bloody civil war. These ideologies are perhaps even more insidious for they seek not to separate themselves from the rest of us but seek to conquer us. Not just physically but emotionally, mentally, culturally and spiritually as well.

The Liberal ideologies that seek to destroy the dream and vision of the Founding Fathers deserve to be ruthlessly fought, exposed and defied at every opportunity. Beneath the thin veneer of civility lies an iron fisted philosophy that wages an unending war on all that is good, holy and moral. It is a topsy turvy view of the world where wrong is right, God is mocked, perversion is normal, infanticide is liberation and the profane is praised. They have had their chance to shape our culture. The results have been disastrous with the American family paying the price. There is still a glimmer of hope if the lies of the Left are exposed for what they really are and the American people choose to flee from the lair of the temptress.

David Huntwork is a conservative activist and freelance columnist in Northern Colorado, where he lives with his wife and three daughters. You may view his bio and past columns at http://DavidHuntwork.tripod.com. The author can be reached at Davehuntwork@juno.com

The New Soviet Union: America and the West

The New Soviet Union: America and the West

In Cooperation with the  HERRICKREPORT.COM

In “The Historical Roots of ‘Political Correctness,’ author Raymond V. Raehn observed that America is “dominated by an alien system of beliefs, attitudes, and values that we have come to know as ‘Political Correctness.’ Political Correctness seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans and is therefore totalitarian in nature. Its roots lie in a version of Marxism which seeks a radical inversion of the traditional culture in order to create a social revolution.” (www.freecongress.org)

Political Correctness and Multiculturalism are a modified version of Marxism formulated by the Frankfurt School. The new version is simply Marxism translated from economic terms into cultural terms. The proletariat is no longer the working class but cultural fringe elements such as man-hating females, members of the criminal element, and the ’sexually confused,’ known in Marxist-speak as the ‘gay subspecies.’ The correct label for this modified version is Cultural Marxism.

Behind radical feminism, same-sex marriage, the androgyny theme, gay pride, and the overall pattern of degeneration at all levels of society throughout America and the West lies a revamped international Communist revolution. Being anti-Stalinist it shuns the Communist label and instead disguises itself as Multiculturalism and Political Correctness. Separation of church and state, pornography, easy divorce, open borders, extreme sex education, abortion, gay pride, same-sex marriage, androgyny, political correctness, speech codes, the wreckage of the traditional family, and hate crime laws — all were imported to the Christian West from the pre-Stalinist Soviet Union. We did not recognize it as Communism because we believed Stalin’s modified version to be the original communism.

Pre-Stalinist Soviet Union

In analyzing Marxism, historian Arnold Toynbee revealed that it is a distinctly ‘religious’ secular humanist inspiration whose God is the Goddess of Historical Necessity. Marxism, states Toynbee, “is the apocalyptic vision of a violent revolution which is inevitable because it is the decree … of (the Goddess), and which is to invert the present roles of Proletariat and Dominant Majority … in a reversal of roles which is to carry the Chosen People … from the lowest to the highest place in the Kingdom of this World.” (A Study of History)

In other words, the Christian culture was to be turned upside-down and the chosen ones — the proletariat and their subculture — placed into positions of dominance. The new Kingdom was to be matrist and polymorphously perverse.

In the pre-Stalinist Soviet Union, Bolshevik religious fanatics — believing they were “scientific high-priests”  endowed with “God-like” creative powers — literally attempted to scientifically re-engineer not only a New Man but a polymorphously perverse Kingdom of this World where androgynous beings could move fluidly into and out of sexually-gratifying relationships. Before they could begin this monstrously inhuman project, Marxists first had to deconstruct both man and his existing culture.

Nihilism in the Name of “Science — Amen!”

The first order of business was to ‘exorcise’ God, Creator of the Universe. This they attempted to do by declaring a ’separation of church and state.’ “The Bolsheviks took power in 1917 and declared a separation of church and state. Thus the Russian Orthodox Church found itself without official state backing for the first time in its history.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church)

Abolishing the ‘oppressive’ traditional family came next. Toward this end, universal moral law was tossed aside, wives and mothers were forced into factories, abortions made free, and divorces attained within minutes. Catastrophe ensued: “When the Bolsheviki came into power in 1917, they regarded the family … with fierce hatred and set out … to destroy it. One must live in Russia today, amid the atmosphere of torment, disgust, and disillusionment that pervades sex relations, the chaos, uncertainty, and tragedy that hover over the Russian family … Some men have twenty wives, living a week with one, a month with another … Abortions cover our villages with shame. Formerly we did not even hear of them.” (The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage, by a Woman Resident in Russia; Atlantic Monthly, Vol.138, No.1, pp 108-114, July 1926).

Bolsheviks ‘liberated’ thousands upon thousands of hapless children from their ‘oppressive’ families. Taking control of schools, they filled the heads of children with worthless propaganda and perverse ’sex education.’ Additionally, they told them God is dead and they had evolved from fish. Children were psychologically (spiritually) manipulated into not only turning against their own families, but into spying upon them as well. The consequences of this evil were enormous. Families and culture were devastated; children�s lives were destroyed as the became child rapists, murderers, thieves, bullies, and outright sociopaths.

‘Equality’ (sameness) was created between “natural intercourse” and the paraphilias, including sodomy. “Concerning … sodomy, and various other forms of sexual gratification, which are set down in European legislation as offenses against public morality — Soviet legislation treats these the same as so-called ‘natural intercourse’.”  (Soviet Union in the 1920s: Scientific, Not Utopian) www.workers.org)

Like falling dominoes, the collapsing family led to the fall of social order, culture, and then the economy, unleashing a tidal wave of crime, corruption, sexual debauchery, and chaos. When Stalin came to power, he took immediate steps to restore order. The family and ethics were restored, abortion and divorce made difficult to obtain, and sodomy, gender-bendering, etc. were re-criminalized. In taking these steps, Stalin destroyed the Bolshevik’s ‘revolution,’ for which they hate him to this day.

Return of the Bolsheviks

A revitalized Bolshevik Left reorganized itself in the 1960’s. To distinguish itself from the Stalinist version of Communism, it dubbed itself the New Left. By the late 1960’s, the New Left’s Gramscian-style cultural revolution had begun in earnest in both America and the West. Disguising malignant intent behind code words such as multiculturalism, diversity, tolerance, safe schools/safe sex, same-sex marriage, ‘gay’ rights, choice, and peace, New Left revolutionaries began taking America and the West down the path to familial and cultural suicide. Partnered to their campaign of nihilism has been a relentlessly brutal assault on Christians, Orthodox Jews, conservatives, the military, and straight males (particularly white males) in which all are marginalized, psychologically bullied and targeted as “homophobes, bigots, racists, fascists, intolerant, divisive, and mentally ill,” or in other words, “Enemies of the People.”

With the support of big money transnational progressive foundations and individuals like George Soros, and in cooperation with Leftist media, the UN and radical non-governmental organizations, the New Left has successfully taken their aggressive ’social engineering’ revolution worldwide and is forcing the traditional family to the brink of destruction. Now they seek to push it over the edge with the ’same-sex marriage’ scheme. Additionally, children are slowly but surely coming under control of the ‘global village’ and being atheitized and sexualized while parents are increasingly marginalized and terrorized. From behind the barricades of the phony ’separation of church and state’ clause, Cultural Marxists are erasing the Christian heritage of America and the West while simultaneously engaging in a brutal psychological assault against Christians and Orthodox Jews. Harnessed to these crusades is one designed to create ’sameness’ between natural intercourse and all varieties of sexual gratification. This scheme goes by the name, ‘gay rights.’ And because all of the preceding is naturally abhorrent to people, draconian hate crime laws and speech codes are being legislated to enforce conformity and compliance.

The New Left’s global revolution comes to light in the following examples:

1. England: Don’t Abuse Gay Rights: In May last year, an Oxford student jokingly asked a police officer: “Do you realize your horse is gay?“ Two squad cars arrived, the student was arrested and kept overnight in a police cell. (www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk, 12/18/06) Note: see UK’s Sexual Orientation Regulations here: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031661.htm )

2. UN NGO: IGLHRC (International Gay, Lesbian Human Rights Commission) Calls the US Marriage Amendment an International Human Rights Violation (www.iglhrc.org/ 6/5/06)

3. USA (Extreme Sex Educators): “Time Magazine, School Event Expose Massive Cultural Campaign to Promote Homosexuality to Children” … “We’re gonna win,” says (GLSEN founder Kevin) Jennings, ” … because of what’s happening in high schools right now.” (www.cwfa.org/ 10/7/05)

4. Northern Ireland: Lawyers Christian Fellowship to Rally against Sexual Orientation Regulations, “The government (widely criticized for) using … direct rule powers to fast-track (sexual orientation regulations).” (www.ChristianToday.com/ 12/23/06)

5. London: Homophobia Spies in the Classroom, “Schools that fail to show enthusiasm in rooting out prejudice against homosexuals should be reported to police.” (www.thisislondon.co.uk/ 12/28/06)

6. England: January’s  ‘The Pink News’ celebrates a good month for combating homophobia incitement with the conviction of Tory councilor Peter Willow and the Advertising Standard Authority’s investigation into an anti-gay Christian ad … The … litmus test for free speech is seeing if the vocabulary would work universally.” (www.pinknews.co.uk/ 12/27/06)

7. Germany: “Germany Uses Nazi Era Law to Imprison Mom for Homeschooling; Family Flees to Austria” (www.lifesite.net/ 9/14/06)

8. USA: “Hate-Crime Legislation Reappears” (www.citizenlink.org/ 1/16/07)

9. USA: “Pedophiles/Sex Torturers Seek Normalization”  … In May, 2003, the American Psychiatric Assoc. met … to debate removing such paraphilias as pedophilia, transvestism, fetishism, voyeurism, and sadomasochism from the DSM (www.traditionalvalues.org)

10. USA: “California Psychiatrist Wants ‘Extreme Bias‘ against Homosexuality Added to DSM” (NARTH, 1/6/06)

Both Orthodox-Christian Russia and Poland suffered catastrophically, first at the hands of Bolshevik fanatics and then later, under Stalin. Yet none of that matters to Cultural Marxist New Left sociopaths, for they have returned for ’round two.’

1. Poland: ‘Official Homophobia Threatens Basic Freedoms’, “Poland’s leaders have stoked the fires of homophobic hatred to advance their political careers, ” said Scott Long, director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Program at Human Rights Watch. (Human Rights Watch, 5/5/06)

2. Russia: “Mayor Luzhkov of Moscow Violates European Convention on Human Rights by Banning First Gay Pride Parade on May 27” (www.iglhrc.org/ 5/23/06)

Through utilization of a protracted stealth campaign to impose Cultural Marxism on America and the West, the New Left has succeeded in inverting our social, cultural, political, and moral order. As a result, we now exist in an Orwellian ‘upside-down’ world where, as evil subterranean forces work tirelessly to subvert and pervert our children, abolish marriage, abort our future citizens (babies), throw open our borders, undermine our laws and in short, to utterly destroy our civilization, the source of evil brazenly accuses the defenders of ‘home and hearth�’ of being “intolerant, bigoted, sexist, racist, fascist, homophobic, and insane.”  This is like a sociopath accusing the morally upright man of being a sociopath.

The French philosopher and former Marxist, Bernard-Henri Levi astutely observed, “Apply Marxism in any country you want, you will always find a Gulag in the end.”

In league with transnational progressives, New Left fanatics are stealthily lowering the “iron curtain” upon the New Soviet Union — America and the West. Political activism by conservatives, Christians, and all traditional-values patriots is no longer just a civic and moral duty. It’s now a matter of our very survival.